19Th Eastern Black Bear Workshop

Home , Florida black bear, Meles (genus), Predation problem

19th Eastern Black Bear Workshop

Human-Bear Conflict Management: Aversive Conditioning and Information Outreach

Proceedings of the 19th Eastern Black Bear Workshop

Human-Bear Conflict Management: Aversive Conditioning and Information Outreach

April 9-12, 2007 National Conservation Training Center Shepherdstown, West Virginia

Hosted by:

With support from Bear Trust International, www.beartrust.org; Responsive Management, www.responsivemanagement.com; and the West Virginia Bear Hunters Association

Compiled by: Chris Ryan, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Harry Spiker, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Mark Ternent, Pennsylvania Game Commission

Printed July 2008 by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources

CONTENTS

MEETING AGENDA …………………………………………………………………………………... 1

SUMMARY TABLE OF STATE AND PROVINCE STATUS REPORTS ……………………….... 2

STATUS REPORTS

ARKANSAS ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 11 CONNECTICUT…………………………………………………………………….…………………..… 13 FLORIDA………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 GEORGIA ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 KENTUCKY……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 LOUISIANA ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 MAINE………………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 23 MARYLAND…………………………………………………………………………………………...… 26 MASSACHUSETTS ……………………………………………………………………..……………..…. 29 MISSISSIPPI …………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 31 NEW HAMPSHIRE……………………………………………………………………………………..…. 33 NEW JERSEY………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 36 NEW YORK ………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 39 NORTH CAROLINA …………………………………………………………………..…………….…… 41 OHIO ………………………………………………………………………………..……………..…… 43 ONTARIO ……………………………………………………………………………..………………… 45 PENNSYLVANIA ………………………………………………………………………………………… 48 RHODE ISLAND …………………………………………………………………………………………. 50 SOUTH CAROLINA ………………………………………………………………………..…………….. 51 TENNESSEE ……………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 53 TEXAS…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55 VIRGINIA………………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 56 WEST VIRGINIA…………………………………………………………………………………………. 59 WISCONSIN……………………………………………………………………………….……….…….. 61

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

DETERMINING THE IMPACT OF RELOCATION ON NUISANCE FLORIDA BLACK BEARS Kimberly M. Annis, Melvin E. Sunquist, and J. Walter McCown………………………………..…. 64

EFFECTS OF AVERSIVE CONDITIONING ON NUISANCE LOUISIANA BLACK BEAR BEHAVIOR Jennifer Leigh and Michael J. Chamberlain ………………………………..……………………….. 71

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEAR SMART PROGRAMMING IN COTTAGE COUNTRY: COTTAGERS, ATTITUDES, EVALUATIONS AND BEHAVIOUR J. Michael Campbell ……..………………………………………………………………….………. 80

FOCUS ON THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM: ATTRACTANTS Maria W. Davidson, Paul L. Davidson, and David J. Telesco …………………………………….… 86

EDUCATING NORTH CAROLINA’S CITIZENS ABOUT BLACK BEAR ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT (abstract) Mark D. Jones ………………………………………………………………………………..……... 89

EFFECT OF LENGTHENING BLACK BEAR HUNTING SEASONS IN NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA ON HARVEST RATES OF NUISANCE BEARS AND POPULATION SIZE Mark A. Ternent ………………………………………………………………………..…………… 90

A FAST AND RELIABLE HARD MAST INDEX FROM ACORN PRESENCE-ABSENCE TALLIES (abstract) Cathryn H. Greenberg and Gordon S. Warburton …...……………………………………………… 98

ABSTRACTS FROM POSTER PRESENTATIONS

SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BLACK BEARS AND BEAR HUNTERS IN GARRETT COUNTY, MARYLAND Edward Arrow, John Edwards, and Harry Spiker ………………………………………………..…. 100

A COMPARISON OF OCCUPANCY MODEL AND MARK-RECAPTURE ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES OF BLACK BEARS ON FORT DRUM MILITARY INSTALLATION, NY Michael Wegan, Paul D. Curtis, Milo E. Richmond, Raymon Rainbolt, and Chris Bodony………… 100

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USING THE MODIFIED M-15 PIPE SNARE Colin P. Carpenter, Phillip A. Worley, Mark E. Richardson, Craig A. Lawson, and Larry A. Berry.. 101

PREVALENCE OF BABESIA MICROTI IN NEW JERSEY BLACK BEARS Shamus P. Keeler, Kelcey I. Burguess, and Jane E. Huffman …………………………………….... 101

BLACK BEAR-HUMAN CONFLICT PROTOCOLS: A SURVEY OF WILDLIFE AGENCIES IN NORTH AMERICA Rocky D. Spencer, Richard A. Beausoleil, and Donald A. Martorello ……………………………… 102

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK BEARS IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA USING HAIR-SNARE SAMPLES Angela G. Brown, Lynne C. Gardner-Santana, Eric C. Hellgren, Ronald A. Van den Bussche, and David M. Leslie, Jr. …………………………………………………………………………..…. 102

ABUNDANCE AND LANDSCAPE GENETICS OF ONTARIO BLACK BEARS Martyn E. Obbard, C.J. Kyle, E.J. Howe, K. Wozney, and B.N. White …………………………….. 103

ONTARIO’S BEAR WISE PROGRAM: A STRATEGY FOR REDUCING HUMAN-BEAR CONFLICTS Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources ……………………………………..………………………. 103

LIVING WITH BLACK BEARS EDUCATIONAL DVD Dan Bertalan……………………………………………………………………………………………. 104

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 2007 BLACK BEAR RESEARCH SUMMARY David S. Maehr, David E. Unger, Hannah B. Harris, Wade A. Ulrey, Rebekah Jensen, Joseph M. Guthrie, Vince Frary, Jeffery L. Larkin, Andrea N. Schuhmann, Lauren M. Dahl, John J. Cox, and John H. Harrelson …………………………………………………………………………….… 105

AVERSIVE CONDITIONING SURVEY

SUMMARY OF PRE-WORKSHOP SURVEY ON AVERSIVE CONDITIONING AND HUMAN-BEAR CONFLICT OUTREACH EDUCATION Steve L. McMullin and James A. Parkhurst …..……………………………………………………. 106

GROUP SESSIONS

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP BREAKOUT SESSION DISCUSSIONS AND RESULTS Steve L. McMullin and James A. Parkhurst ……………………………..…………………………. 111

AVERSIVE CONDITIONING ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AVERSIVE CONDITIONING WITH A FOCUS ON BLACK BEAR Jordan D. Green, Steve L. McMullin, and James A. Parkhurst ……………………………………….. 115

CLOSING COMMENTS

Invited speaker Mike Pelton ………………..……………………..…………………………………. 125

EXIT SURVEY

RESULTS OF EXIT SURVEY DISTRIBUTED TO WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Georgia Guyton and Harry Spiker ………………………………………………………………….. 128

HISTORY OF THE EASTERN BLACK BEAR WORKSHOP …………………………..………… 132

WORKSHOP REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT…………………………….……...…… 133

LIST OF ATTENDEES…………………………………………………………………………………. 134

MEETING AGENDA

April 9, 2007 noon – 5:00 Arrival and registration 5:30 – 7:30 Dinner 7:30 – 9:00 Evening social

April 10, 2007 7:00 – 8:00 Breakfast 8:00 – 12:00 Technical committee meetings: Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee and Southeast Assoc. Fish & Wild. Agencies Black Bear Technical Committee 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 1:15 Welcome & Introduction 1:15 – 2:45 State and Province Status Reports 2:45 – 3:00 Break 3:00 – 5:00 Selected oral presentations 5:30 – 7:00 Dinner 7:00 – 9:00 Poster session & evening social

April 11, 2007 7:00 – 8:00 Breakfast 8:30 – 9:00 Summary of pre-workshop survey on Aversive Conditioning and refining the definition of aversive conditioning 9:00 – 10:00 Breakout session: Situational analysis of bear conflicts and examination of appropriate response (including aversive techniques). 10:00 – 10:15 Break 10:15 – 11:15 Breakout session, continued 11:15 – 12:00 Assimilation of breakout session results 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 1:30 Wrap-up of Aversive Conditioning session 1:30 – 2:00 Summary of pre-workshop survey on Information Outreach 2:00 – 2:45 Breakout session: Identification of audiences and messages important to human-bear conflict outreach programs 2:45 – 3:00 Break 3:00 – 4:00 Breakout session, continued 4:00 – 5:00 Assimilation of breakout session results and wrap-up of Information Outreach session 5:30 – 7:30 Social and dinner 7:30 – 9:00 Guest speaker: John Hechtel, Alaska Fish & Game Dept.

April 12, 2007 7:00 – 8:00 Breakfast 8:00 – 9:45 Summary of workshop and breakout sessions 9:45 – 10:00 Break 10:00 – 10:30 Discussion on workshop guidelines proposed by Eastern Black Bear Workshop steering committee 1030 – 12:00 Business meeting and adjournment

Status Report Summary Table ARKANSAS CONNECTICUT FLORIDA Contact Rick Eastridge Paul Rego Stephanie Simek 2 Natural Resources Dr. P.O. Box 1550 620 South Meridian Street Address Little Rock, AR 72205 Bulrington, CT 06013 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Telephone (501) 223-6359 (860) 675-8130 (850) 410-0656 ext 17327 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bear Pop. Estimate Approx. 3,500 300 2,000-3,000 Population Trend Up Stable to increasing in most areas Stabilize or Increase depending Stabilize or increase dependent Management Goal To be determined on area upon area Monitoring by: Yes No No Bait Station Mark-Recapture Yes No Project dependent Density Extrapolation No No Project dependent Age Reconstruction No No Yes Modeling Yes No Developing projects Other Den work/reproduction No monitor roadkill mortality Recent Harvest 300 - 340 No hunting season No hunting season Harvest Trend Stable Harvest Rate Unknown % Harvest Over Bait 35% % Harvest w/ Hounds NA 10/1 - 11/30/06 and 12/2 - 2006 Season Dates 12/17/06 or until quota reached

No dogs. Bait can be placed 30 days prior and must be removed Hunting Restrictions No legal harvest since 1994. at end of season. Bear hunting allowed only in select zones. No. of Bear Hunters Unknown Trend in Hunter #s Unknown No bear license, but resident Bear License Required sportsman's license or nonres. all-game license required Resident $25.00, Nonresident License Cost $100-300 depending on type

Success Rate Unknown Yrly # Bear Conflicts 200 2,150 calls related to bears Conflict Trend Up Up Conflict Mgmt: No No No Damage Payments Relocations Yes No Yes Education Yes Yes Yes Euthanasia Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Elec. Fencing Yes No Yes Avers. Conditioning Yes Yes Beginning Dog Chasing No No No Bear resistant containers, Other scheduling sanitation services, etc. Web address for Mgmt. Plan http://www.agfc.com http://myfwc.com/bear/

GEORGIA GREAT DISMAL SWAMP KENTUCKY Contact Adam Hammond Don Schwab Steven Dobey 2592 Floyd Springs Rd NE 3100 Desart Rd. #1 Sportsman's Lane Address Armuchee, GA 30105 Suffolk, VA 23434 Frankfort, KY 40601 Telephone (706) 295-6041 (757) 986-3480 (800) 858-1549 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 2,300-2,500 Statewide; north Bear Pop. Estimate area 1200-1400, middle 200-300, 350 No formal estimate mouth 700-800 Population Trend Stable to Increasing Stable Up Stabilize/Increase dependent Maintain viable bear population Increase, but dependent on Management Goal upon area within carrying capacity of refuge social constraints Monitoring pop. by: Yes No No Bait Station Mark-Recapture No No Yes; DNA hair snaring Density Extrapolation No No No Age Reconstruction No No No Modeling No No No Other n/a Complaints & sightings Recent Harvest 303 0 No season Harvest Trend Stable 1st hunt in 2006 Harvest Rate 12% overall 0% % Harvest Over Bait NA NA Approx. 15% - only legal in S. % Harvest w/ Hounds NA GA North: bow 09/09-10/13, PW 10/14-20, gun 10/21-12/03; 2006 Season Dates 12/01-12/02 Middle: gun 12/06; South: gun 09/28-30, 10/05-07, & 10/12-14 North: no dogs/bait, hunting limited to select counties; No dogs/bait. Hunting in VA Middle: no dogs/bait, Ocmulgee portion of Refuge only, two hunt Hunting Restrictions WMA only; South: no bait, dogs zones with 1 access point each, allowed, limited to select shotgun w/ slug only. counties, still hunting only in Dixon Memorial WMA. 6,665 resident bear hunters 58 of 100 permits issued, 43 No. of Bear Hunters No season (based on 2002 survey) participated Trend in Hunter #s Stable Unknown. Big Game License & Refuge Bear License Required No Permit License Cost NA $50 permit fee if selected Success Rate Est. 4-5% 0% Approximately 200 reports Yrly # Bear Conflicts 700 to 800 No data in 2006 Conflict Trend Up No data Up Conflict Mgmt: No No No Damage Payments Relocations Rarely Occasional Education Yes Yes Euthanasia If warranted, only by DNR Occasional Elec. Fencing Apiaries Apiaries Avers. Conditioning Yes Yes Dog Chasing No No Other Media outreach (written & TV) Black Bear are part of Refuge's Mgmt. Plan Available Yes Comprehensive Conservation Conflict management plan only Plan (CCP) http://www.fws.gov/northeast/gre Web address for Plan atdismalswamp/

LOUISIANA MAINE MANITOBA Contact Maria Davidson Jennifer Vashon Hank Hristienko P.O. Box 98000 650 State St Box 24 - 200 Saulteaux Cres. Address Baton Rouge, LA 70898 Bangor, ME 04401 Winnipeg, MB R3J3W3 Telephone (225) 765-2385 (207) 941-4238 (204) 945-7771 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bear Pop. Estimate 450-600 Approx 23,000 Possible range 25,000 - 35,000 Population Trend Up Stable to increasing Stable to slighting increasing Stabilize pop. at 1999 level Management Goal Increase Maintain stability (23,000) Monitoring pop. by: No No No Bait Station Mark-Recapture Yes; hair snaring No No Density Extrapolation No No Yes; from literature Age Reconstruction No No No Modeling Yes Yes Yes - fuzzy logic Age & repro. tract analysis; Other harvest data Recent Harvest No season 2,873 (2005 season) 1,950 Harvest Trend Down Up 8% 6%; split 72:28 spring/fall, Harvest Rate 13% 74:26 M/F % Harvest Over Bait 80% 99% % Harvest w/ Hounds 10% NA 8/28-10/7 & 2006 Season Dates 8/29/05-11/26/05 4/24-6/10 (south) or 4/24-7/1 (north) no dogs; nonresidents must hunt Hunting Restrictions bag limit 1 bear/hunter with a licensed outfitter; females with COY protected No. of Bear Hunters 11,000 (55% nonresident) 3,400 ( 60% nonresident) Trend in Hunter #s Stable since 2002 Up 6%

Bear License Required Yes Yes

Resident $30 Cdn.; License Cost Resident $25; Nonresident $65 Nonres. $310 Cdn. Overall 57%; Residents 25%; NR Success Rate 25-30% 75% Yrly # Bear Conflicts 200-300 Approx 300 3-yr Avg 1,540 (1,109 in 2006) Conflict Trend up Stable Stable Conflict Mgmt: No No Agriculture, apiary, livestock Damage Payments Yes; if not category 3 bear and Relocations No Occasional suitable release site available Education Yes Yes Yes Yes; if category 3 bear and no Euthanasia Rarely Occasional suitable release site available Elec. Fencing Apiaries, Remote camps Apiaries Landfills/dumps and Apiaries Avers. Conditioning Yes Occasional No Dog Chasing Yes Occasional No Other Anti-Feeding Regulation Mgmt. Plan Available Yes Yes Yes (draft) http://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunttr Web address for Plan bbcc.org ap/hunt_management/ www.manitoba.ca/blackbear blackbear.htm

MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN Contact Harry Spiker James E. Cardoza Dave Bostick Div. Fish. & Wildlife Stevens T. Mason Bldg, 1728 King's Run Rd. Field Headquarters Address P.O. Box 30444 Oakland, MD 21550 1 Rabbit Hill Rd., Lansing, MI. 48909 Westboro, MA 01581 Telephone (301) 334-4255 (508) 792-7270 x124 (517) 373-1263 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bear Pop. Estimate Approx. 550 Approx. 2,900-3,000 18,700 including cubs Stable in west UP, increasing in Population Trend Up Up east UP, stable-slightly decreasing in northern LP Stabilize or reduce depending on Stabilize/Increase dependent Management Goal Varies regionally area; goals may change with upon area planning Monitoring pop. by: Yes No No except for Drummond Island Bait Station Yes; hair snaring or tetracycline; Mark-Recapture Yes; hair snaring every 5 years No every 4 yrs in NLP, every other year in UP Density Extrapolation No Yes No Age Reconstruction No No Yes Modeling No Yes Yes Other Harvest metrics Recent Harvest 41 113 (2005); 148 (2006) Estimated 2,650 in 2006 Harvest Trend Stable Up Stable to Up Harvest Rate 8% 5% 25% statewide, by unit 10-38%. % Harvest Over Bait NA NA 79% % Harvest w/ Hounds NA NA 19% Varies by unit, multiple periods in 10/23-10/28 or until quota is 2006 Season Dates 9/5-9/23 & 11/6-11/25 some units. All inclusive dates reached 9/10-10/26 in UP Dogs/bait legal with restrictions; No dogs/bait. hunt zone limited No dogs/bait; rifles, bow, limit 6 dogs/hunter, permit required Hunting Restrictions to 2 western counties (Garrett & handguns (Sep) only; no for non-residents; cubs & sows Allegany) shotguns, WM Zones 01-09 only w/cubs protected 220 permits (up to 3 hunters per 3,593 permits in 2005; 5,789 in No. of Bear Hunters 55,000-58,000 permit) 2006. Stable; limited by permit Up; influenced by Internet Up; permits awarded by lottery; Trend in Hunter #s numbers availability cap on nonresident permits Bear License? Yes Yes Yes $15 app. fee; no additional fee if $4 application fee + resident $15 or License Cost $5 selected nonresident $150 Success Rate 9% to 11% 2.5-3% 25-30% statewide, varies by unit. 124 in 2005-06 (greatly Yrly # Bear Conflicts 300 to 400 300-400 underestimated) Conflict Trend Up Varies; up long term Up Conflict Mgmt: Yes; agriculture No No Damage Payments Relocations No No Occasionally Education Yes Yes Yes Euthanasia Occasional Very Rare Rarely Elec. Fencing Apiaries Apiaries Apiaries Avers. Conditioning Yes No Occasionally Occasionally; cornfields & Dog Chasing Yes No campgrounds Mgmt. Plan Available Yes No No; in progress http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ Web address for Plan http://www.michigan.gov/dnr wildlife/bbmgtplan2004.pdf

MISSISSIPPI NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY Contact Brad Young Andrew Timmins Kelcey Burguess; Patrick C. Carr NH Fish and Game, 629 B Main 2148 Riverside Drive Clinton WMA 141 Van Syckels Address Street Jackson, MS 39202 Road Hampton, NJ 07860 Lancaster, NH 03584 Telephone (601) 354-7303 (603) 788-3164 (908) 735-8793 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bear Pop. Estimate Approx. 60 4,900 Approx. 1,660 in Zones 1 and 3 Population Trend Up Stable Up Stabilize statewide, up/down in Management Goal Increase Decrease some areas Monitoring pop. by: No No No Bait Station Mark-Recapture Yes (limited basis) Yes; hair snaring Yes Density Extrapolation No No Age Reconstruction No Yes Modeling No Yes (Paloheimo and Fraser Model) Yes Other Citizen reporting Recent Harvest No season 351 in 2006 298 in 2005; hunt cancelled in 06 Harvest Trend Down Harvest Rate 7% 20% % Harvest Over Bait 43% Unknown % Harvest w/ Hounds 14% NA 9/1-11/14, vary by 12/05-12/10 (2005); 2006 Season Dates management region Cancelled in 2006 Bait/dogs allowed, free permit required, 1-2 baits/hunter No dogs; baiting permitted if depending on area, no prebaiting, hunting from ground level; Hunting Restrictions # dogs limited, no dogs in 1 hunting limited to SW area, reciprocity laws 4 of 7 mgmt zones regarding dogs No. of Bear Hunters Average 16,059/year 4,434 permits issued 2006 resident licenses down 24%, Trend in Hunter #s Decrease from 2003 NR down 61% due to price increase Bear License? Yes Permit required

License Cost Resident $16; Nonresident $48 Free Success Rate 4% 7% overall; varies by zone 1,628 in 2005; 1,301 in 2006 + Yrly # Bear Conflicts 10 to 20 418 in 2006, 5 yr avg. 720 1,131 add. calls handled by police departments Conflict Trend Up Down in 2006, Long-term trend up Stable Conflict Mgmt: No Livestock, apiary, orchards No Damage Payments Relocations No Occasional No Education Yes Yes Yes Euthanasia No Occasional Yes Elec. Fencing Apiaries Yes Yes Avers. Conditioning No Yes Yes Dog Chasing No Yes Yes Other No-feeding regulations Police training Mgmt. Plan Available Yes Yes Yes (Bear Policy) http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/ Web address for Plan Hunting/Hunting_PDFs/NH_Big_ www.njfishandwildlife.com Game_Plan_FINAL.pdf

NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA OHIO Contact Jeremy Hurst Mark D. Jones Dave Swanson 625 Broadway, 5th Floor 5275 NC 118 Highway 360 East State Street Address Albany, NY 12233 Grifton, NC 28530-8829 Athens, Ohio 45701 Telephone (518) 402-8867 (252) 524-3443 (740) 589-9923 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Adirondack: 3,000-5,000; Allegany: 11,000 (Coast 7,000; Mountains Bear Pop. Estimate Approx. 50 - 100 300-500; Catskills: 1,500-2,000 4,000) Stable (Adir.); Up (Allegany & Population Trend Stable (Coast); Increasing (Mountains) Up Catskills) Stabilize (Adir.); Management Goal Stabilize both regions Increase Decrease (Alleg. & Cats.) Monitoring pop. by: Yes in Mountains No Bait Station Mark-Recapture Yes; tetracycline in Catskill Range Only in specific study areas No Density No No Extrapolation Age Reconstruction Yes Yes No Modeling Yes No Other Observations by the public 318 (Adirondack); 113 5 yr avg 1,056 (Coast), 541 Recent Harvest No season (Allegany); 365 (Catskills) (Mountains) Down (Adirondack & Catskills); Harvest Trend Stable Stable (Allegany 10-20% (Adirondack); 20-30% Harvest Rate 15% (Coast); 13% (Mountains) (Allegany); 20-25% (Catskills) % Harvest Over Bait NA NA % Harvest w/ Approx. 75% (Coast), 95% NA Hounds (Mountains) 9/16-12/3 (Adirondack); Season structure varies by area but 10/14-11/17 & 11/25-12/19 2006 Season Dates within range of 3rd Monday in Oct. (Allegany); 10/14-11/17 & to Jan. 1 11/20-12/19 (Catskills) Bait/dogs/traps prohibited; cubs or Hunting Restrictions bears in groups protected in Catskills Bait prohibited & Allegany No. of Bear Hunters 550,000 Big Game licenses Unknown Trend in Hunter #s Down Unknown Bear License Big Game license required; specific Nonresidents must buy special tag. Required bear license required for nonresidents Resident $19 Big Game license; NR Resident $30 Big Game License; License Cost $110 big Game license + $30 bear tag nonresident $245 for most states Success Rate Unknown Unknown 52 (Adir.); 115 (Allegany); 526 Yrly # Bear Conflicts 300-400 About 25 - 30 complaints/year (Catskills) Stable (Adir.); Up (Allegany & Conflict Trend Up (Mountains); Stable (Coast) Stable Catskills) Conflict Mgmt: No No No Damage Payments Relocations If necessary, not preferred Very Rare, 2-3 per year Yes Education Yes Yes Yes Euthanasia Occasional Rare Occasional Elec. Fencing Apiaries Apiaries Apiaries Avers. Conditioning Yes Rare No Dog Chasing Yes Yes Yes Other Critter Gitter Mgmt. Plan Yes Yes (1981 version, being updated) Yes Available http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ Web address for dfwmr/wildlife/wildgame/ www.ncwildlife.org http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife Plan BBPlanningFramework.pdf

ONTARIO PENNSYLVANIA SOUTH CAROLINA Contact Maria de Almeida Mark Ternent Skip Still P.O. Box 7000 2001 Elmerton Ave. SSDNR, 153 Hopewell Road, Address Peterborough ON K9J 8M5 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Pendleton, SC 29670 Telephone (705) 755-1934 (814) 625-3597 (864) 654-1671 x19 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bear Pop. Estimate 75,000-100,000 Approx. 15,000 1,150 Population Trend Stable/Slightly up Stable Up Stabilize (statewide); Decrease Stabilize/Increase dependent Management Goal Stabilize/Decrease dependent on area some areas on area Monitoring pop. by: Yes No Yes Bait Station Yes; DNA snaring started 2004; est. Mark-Recapture Yes Some; DNA completion 7-10 years Density Extrapolation Yes - from M-R abundance estimate No Yes Age Reconstruction No No No Modeling Yes Some, being developed No Other Recent Harvest 6,154 in 2005 3,122 (2006); 4,120 (2005) 51 (2006); 34 (2005) Harvest Trend Stable to slightly increasing Stable Up 20% overall; 17-30% by Mgmt 4%; hunting only in upstate Harvest Rate 6-8% (<10% guideline) Unit population % Harvest Over Bait Resident 42%; nonresident 93% (2002) NA NA % Harvest w/ Hounds Resident 6%; nonresident 1% (2002) NA 58% (2005-2006) 11/15-16 archery; 11/20-22 gun; 8/15-11/30 with start and end dates Still hunting 3rd full week in 2006 Season Dates 11/27-12/2 extended gun in select dependent on area Oct.; hounds 4th full week areas Sows with cubs at side Bait, dogs & archery permitted; 2nd No bait/dogs; bag limit 1; cubs protected; bear must weigh Hunting Restrictions bear allowed in some Units with legal; organized drive hunting 100 pounds; no bear hunting purchase of 2nd game seal limited to 25 people/group in upper coastal plains area 21,749 in 2005 (14,274 residents No. of Bear Hunters 135,000-140,000 estimated 2,000 & 7,475 nonresidents) Trend in Hunter #s Residents slightly increasing; NR stable Increasing Up Bear License Required Yes Yes Included with big game license Resident $20 license + $16 bear Resident $34.58 & $34.58 for 2nd bear; License Cost tag; NR $101 license + NR $172.94 + $35 for export permit $36 bear tag Success Rate 28% (resident 15%, nonresident 55%) 2-3% 7,040 occurrences in 2006; 467 bears Yrly # Bear Conflicts 1,200 to 1,700 annually 265 relocated & 142 reported destroyed Conflict Trend Down from 2005 Variable, long-term increase Up Conflict Mgmt: Livestock, apiary Livestock, apiary No Damage Payments Relocations Yes Yes Rare Education Yes Yes Yes Euthanasia Occasional Occasional Not to date Elec. Fencing Apiaries, some waste disposal sites Apiaries Apiaries, gardens Avers. Conditioning Yes; trial evaluation in progress Occasional Rare Dog Chasing No No Yes Other Liberal crop kill policy (no permit) Yes (dated 1986; new policy in Mgmt. Plan Available Yes No, do have Bear Protocol progress) http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/ http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/ Web address for Plan lib/pgc/blackbear/pdf/bear_ bear/index.html plan_2006.pdf

TENESSEE VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA Contact David M. Brandenburg Jaime Sajecki Chris Ryan State Capitol Complex,Bldg 3, 3030 Wildlife Way P.O. Box 11104 Address Room 825 Charleston, WV Morristown, TN 37814 Richmond, VA 23230-1104 25305 Telephone (800) 332-0900 (804) 367-1000 (304) 558-2771 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bear Pop. Estimate 2,500-3,000 No Estimate 10,000 -12,000 Population Trend Up Up Up Increase harvest, decrease bear Stabilize/Increase dependent upon Management Goal Dependent on area complaints area Monitoring pop. by: Yes No No Bait Station No; only in specific research Mark-Recapture No Yes projects Density No No No Extrapolation Age Reconstruction No Yes Yes Modeling No No Yes Harvest/nuisance data, bowhunter Other Nuisance complaints sightings Recent Harvest 308 1,633 1,704 Harvest Trend Up Up (avg. increase 7.6%/year) Stable Harvest Rate Unknown 32% (males), 9% (females) Approximately 17% % Harvest Over Bait NA NA NA % Harvest w/ 95% 33% (50% of the firearms harvest) 62% Hounds 10/14-11/11 (bow); 11/14-17 (muzzle, select counties); 11/27-1/6 10/14-11/18 (bow); 12/4-30 With dogs: 9/25-10/1, 11/13-16, & (gun, western counties); 12/4-16 (gun, dog or no-dog depending 2006 Season Dates 11/30-12/13; Without dogs 10/7-15 & (gun, SW counties); 11/6-1/6 (gun, on county); 10/30-11/4 & 11/25-26 Dismal Swamp); 8/12- 9/30 & 11/20-25 (special seasons) 12/4-16 dog training (select counties) Hunting limited to 11 eastern counties, No bait; no dogs in archery/muzzle No bait, dogs allowed in some Hunting Restrictions primarily on North and South Cherokee but allowed in most gun seasons counties National Forest except in select counties No. of Bear Hunters Unknown About 20,000 Approximately 25,000 Trend in Hunter #s Unknown Stable Stable No special bear license; included Bear License Hunting license & Big Game permit with Yes Required bear, deer, turkey license Res. $28 each hunting license & big Resident $17 general license + License Cost game permit; NR $175.50 7-day or $17 for BDT tag; NR $85 + Resident $4; Nonresident $164 $251 full year $65 BDT tag Success Rate Unknown 7% to 9% 7% Yrly # Bear Conflicts 500-750 400-800 per year 700- 800 Conflict Trend Up Up Stable Conflict Mgmt: No No Yes Damage Payments Relocations Yes Occasional Yes Education Yes Yes Yes Euthanasia Yes Occasional Yes Elec. Fencing No Yes Apiaries Avers. Conditioning Capture and release on site. Yes No Dog Chasing No No No Other Depredation Permits Mgmt. Plan Yes Yes Yes Available http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/ Web address for http://www.twraregion4.org/ wildlife/bear/ Plan blackbearmanagementplan.pdf

WISCONSIN Contact Keith Warnke PO Box 7921 Address Madison, WI 53707 Telephone (608) 264-6023 Email [email protected] Bear Pop. Estimate 12,850 Population Trend Stable Manage populations with goal of Management Goal 11,300 bears statewide in 4 zones Monitoring pop. by: Yes Bait Station Mark-Recapture Yes; graduate project ongoing Density No Extrapolation Age Reconstruction Yes Modeling Yes Other Recent Harvest About 3,000 Harvest Trend Up Harvest Rate 15% - 22% % Harvest Over Bait 62% % Harvest w/ 37% Hounds

2006 Season Dates 9/6-10/10

Hunters using bait start one week before Hunting Restrictions those using dogs (reverses in 2007); no dogs in southern bear zone 4,260 permits issued to over 73,000 No. of Bear Hunters applicants Number of applicants increasing; Trend in Hunter #s number of permits stable Bear License Yes Required Application fee $6 + Resident $49 License Cost or Nonresident $251 Success Rate 68% Yrly # Bear Conflicts >600 reported Conflict Trend Stable Conflict Mgmt: Agriculture, apiary Damage Payments Relocations Yes Education Yes Euthanasia Yes Elec. Fencing Yes Avers. Conditioning No Dog Chasing No Other Technical advice Mgmt. Plan Draft only Available Web address for

Plan

ARKANSAS STATUS REPORT

RICK EASTRIDGE, Bear Program Coordinator, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, 2 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72205, Tel: 501-223-6311; Fax: 501-223-6452; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION to prevent over harvest. Bear hunters call a toll- Arkansas’ black bear population, historically free number to determine if the harvest quota has distributed statewide, was nearly extirpated by the been reached. Bear season ends prior to the early 1900's because of unregulated hunting and scheduled ending date if the harvest quota is habitat loss caused by human population reached. Hunters who kill a bear are required to expansion. In 1951, the Arkansas Game and Fish call a toll-free number to check their bear and they Commission (AGFC) estimated that only 40-50 must send a tooth from the harvested bear for bears remained in the state. Most or all of these aging purposes. AGFC’s goal is to harvest 10% of remaining bears resided in the lower White River the state’s bears annually and to stabilize existing drainage within the Mississippi Delta region of bear populations. Arkansas. Between 1958 and 1968, approximately 254 MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS bears were relocated to Arkansas' Interior Bait-station surveys are used within occupied Highlands (Ozark and Ouachita mountains) from bear range in Arkansas to monitor population Minnesota and Manitoba, Canada. In 1980, after a trends and relative densities. Annual den surveys 52-year absence, bear hunting returned to the are conducted to evaluate cub production and Interior Highlands region of Arkansas. Today, survival. AGFC estimates the Interior Highlands population Management of bear-human conflicts is has grown to approximately 3,000 bears. Arkansas guided by a Commission-approved nuisance-bear bears from the Interior Highlands have expanded protocol. AGFC personnel responded to 127 bear their range northward into Missouri, westward into complaints during 2005 and captured 43 nuisance Oklahoma, and southward along the Ouachita and bears. AGFC personnel received only 82 bear Saline river drainages, possibly as far south as complaints during 2006 and captured 30 nuisance Louisiana. Recent bear sightings in Mississippi bears. and Texas are thought to be the result of dispersal from Arkansas. RESEARCH The native Arkansas bears of the lower White River drainage have increased in number and expanded their range. Since 2001, AGFC has allowed bear hunting in the lower White River drainage (Delta Region) to control this population.

HARVEST INFORMATION Bear-hunting seasons in Arkansas differ by Bear Management Zone and management objective. Archery, muzzleloader, and modern gun bear seasons occur in October and November in the Ozark and Ouachita mountains. Modern gun bear season in the Delta region occurs in December. The annual bag limit is 1 bear per hunter. Bears may not be hunted with the aid of dogs. Since 2001, AGFC has allowed the use of bait to harvest black bears on privately-owned lands within huntable bear management zones. Bear baits can be established 30 days prior to the opening of bear season and must be removed at the Figure 1. Distribution of black bears in Arkansas. end of bear season. AGFC has implemented a harvest limit or harvest quota for the Delta region

AGFC has contracted with the University of from UT, USGS, and AGFC. Researchers have Tennessee (UT) and the U. S. Geological Survey documented the production of 7 litters by (USGS) to study population dynamics of bears in translocated bears in the release area. the Delta Region of Arkansas. This research is During summer 2006, researchers from the centered on White River National Wildlife Refuge University of Arkansas at Monticello began a (WRNWR). Researchers are using population project to use genetic sampling to estimate black dynamics information to determine sustainable bear population size in the Interior Highlands of yield for the lower White River bear population. Arkansas. These researchers also hope to AGFC, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service determine the efficacy of using the genetic (USFWS), UT, and USGS have been working to sampling technique as a long-term population restore bears to southern Arkansas by translocating monitoring tool in Arkansas. bears from WRNWR to Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge (FNWR). FNWR is part of the BEAR ISSUES bear’s historic range and while occasional bear AGFC remains concerned about threats to sightings occur in the area, there have been no bear habitat in Arkansas. One threat is the issue of confirmed reports of females with cubs prior to oak decline and its potential impacts to bear project implementation. habitat in the Interior Highlands. Another threat Since spring of 2000, officials from AGFC, throughout the bear’s range in Arkansas is UT, USFWS and the USGS have translocated 48 development associated with human population adult female black bears and 99 cubs to FNWR expansion. AGFC is working diligently to educate and surrounding private timberlands. The trans- our citizens about ways to coexist with bears. located bears have been monitored by researchers

CONNECTICUT STATUS REPORT

PAUL REGO, Connecticut D.E.P., Wildlife Division, Sessions Woods W.M.A., P.O. Box 1550 Burlington, CT 06013, Tel: 860-675-8130; Fax: 860-675-8141; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION problem bears at 14 locations and resulted in 3 Black bear range is believed to have included bears being captured. all of Connecticut prior to European settlement. Bears were extirpated from the state by the mid RESEARCH 1800s, roughly coinciding with the height of Sighting reports have been recorded annually deforestation. Reforestation occurred from the mid since 1984. These reports are used as an index of 1800s through the 1960s. Bear sightings occurred abundance and distribution. Reports are solicited sporadically beginning in the early 1900s. But a through the department’s publications and website resident breeding population was not evident until and through media interviews. Sighting reports the early 1990s. The distribution of bear reports have increased dramatically in recent years (Table has indicated a southward expansion of bear range 1). The majority of sightings have occurred in from western Massachusetts. The black bear northwestern Connecticut an area with relatively population in Connecticut appears to be growing low population density (Figure 1). We expect bear rapidly and expanding. Without measures to range to expand southward and eastward into control the population growth, bear range is regions of the state with higher human population expected to expand into heavily developed areas. densities. We have radio-collared female bears to monitor reproduction and determine home range HARVEST sizes. Winter den visits began in 2003. In 2006, Bear hunting or trapping is not allowed. dens of 13 radio-collared females were examined. Vehicle-kills are the most frequent documented Litter sizes found over 4 years of den visits have mortality and have averaged about 10 per year in averaged 2.1 cubs per litter (21 litters examined). the last few years. Our litter sizes may be low because our sample of collared sows includes a number of younger sows MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS that were first collared as yearlings. Also, acorn Education is an important component of black production was poor in 2 years and average in 1 bear management. In recent years educational year preceding den work. First year survival of efforts have increased and included Department cubs is estimated to be 84% based on the fate of 25 publications (printed and electronic), informational cubs. Median annual home range size for 13 sows sheets, press releases, workshops with municipal was 15.6 km2 using a 95% minimum convex police, and presentations to varied audiences. polygon calculation. Individual complaints and concerns are often addressed via telephone, e-mails and site visits. Table 1. Sightings of black bears reported to the Department policy for responding to problem Wildlife Division, 1994-2006. bear situations has evolved as the frequency of complaints has increased. The most recent version attempts to categorize types of problems and detail Year Sightings Towns the Department’s response. Bear problems have 94-95 75 30 been on an increasing trend and currently average 95-96 76 31 about 200 reports per year. Selected Environ- 96-97 102 37 mental Conservation Police carry rubber buckshot 97- 98 81 39 and similar projectiles and may haze bears at 98-99 235 50 problem sites, although this is rarely practiced. 99-00 267 66 Trapping, short distance relocation and aversive 00-01 453 77 conditioning is attempted for bears with bold 01 –02 622 74 behavior or bears that have killed livestock. A 02-03 1,258 82 team of Environmental Conservation Police and 03-04 1,744 112 biologists respond to situations that may require 04-05 1,733 107 chemical immobilization. In 2006, 6 bears were 05-06 2,023 125 removed from urban locations. Traps were set for

All captured bears except cubs are marked with continues to grow it will spread into areas of highly visible, numbered ear tags. Subsequent greater human population density. This will lead to sightings of marked bears have provided an increased number of conflicts and increased information on movements and repeated problem costs, particularly the costs of response by state behavior. Vehicle-killed bears are necropsied to and municipal officials. A bear management plan determine age, reproductive status, and to identify is being drafted to document the current status of stomach contents. bears, level of problems, potential population growth, and management options. CURRENT ISSUES Connecticut is a highly populated state with limited undeveloped land. If the bear population

FLORIDA STATUS REPORT

STEPHANIE L. SIMEK, Bear Management Program, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 620 S. Meridian St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600, Tel: 850- 410-0656 ext. 17327; Fax: 850- 921-1847; E-mail: [email protected]

J. WALTER McCOWN, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 4005 South Main Street, Gainesville, FL 32601, Tel: 352-955-2230; Fax: 352-955-2183; E-mail: [email protected] with assistance from: BRIAN SCHEICK, JENA PERDUE, CHRISTINE YANNETT, KIM ANNIS, and ALETRIS NEILS

INTRODUCTION 135; 2005 n=143). The volume of calls concerning Bear management continues to remain a black bears and particularly calls registering some controversial issue for Florida. Florida black bear level of complaint has been steadily increasing in populations have expanded from historic lows Florida. During the most recent year (2006), FWC while human populations and associated personnel received 2,150 calls regarding bears development continue to increase. The rapidly (this includes sick and injured bears, bear in yard, increasing human population in Florida has bear in garbage, etc.). While black bears do not resulted in more people living in and adjacent to typically pose a threat to humans, the FWC remaining bear habitat. This, coupled with recognizes that there is some risk inherent when increasing numbers of bears in many areas of bears are in proximity to people, therefore the need Florida, has resulted in increased frequency of to inform the public about bears and how to live in human-bear interactions. Bears are highly adap- bear country has increased. Efforts to reduce table and their tolerance of people contributes to negative human/bear encounters continued through increased human-bear interactions and creates new implementing the Bear Response Agent Program challenges for Florida Fish and Wildlife and developing outreach programs to address Conservation Commission (FWC). FWC recog- preventative measures in residential areas. These nizes human/bear encounters are not inherently efforts are being addressed through community negative, therefore, proactive conservation and involvement and partnerships with non-profit management planning has been the primary focus organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife. for FWC to maintain the Florida black bear. FWC recognizes that reaching the goal of viable bear populations will be dependant upon MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH managing for and achieving an acceptable mix of Recognizing that bears are a highly visible positive and negative human-bear interactions. species that draw considerable public attention and FWC has concentrated management efforts to interest, FWC developed and organized an agency address both human behavior and bear behavior. Florida Black Bear Standing Team (FBBST) in Efforts have been made to provide training to October 2005. The FBBST revised and developed FWC staff and selected partners on implementing a draft document of the existing FWC Bear non-lethal deterrent methods, developing partner- Policies. This draft document enabled FWC to ships with sanitation services and communities to recognize the evolving issues surrounding bears create “garbage control” programs, and developing and the need for developing a formal management methods to address social as well as biological approach for bear conservation. Therefore, plans factors related to Florida black bears. are to form an action team that will begin to Bear Management and Research staff, with develop a draft comprehensive, statewide assistance from Dr. Dan Decker (Cornell management plan for black bears in Florida. A University), established a process to obtain an draft plan is expected by spring 2008. understanding of both internal and external The primary bear mortality factor that FWC perceptions regarding black bears and black bear currently documents is roadkill. Although there management as well as effective methods to has been an increasing trend over the past 10 address human-bear interactions. The “Bear years, the number of reported bear roadkill in 2006 Research and Management System” approach was was slightly lower than the previous year (2006 n= created as part of a comprehensive, statewide, and

local approach to successfully manage the Florida higher proportion of bears at these interfaces black bear. appear to be sub-adults or yearlings (41%; n= 24) compared with bears captured in the forest (25%; n Recently completed projects = 8). Diel monitoring is being used to document Non-invasive Assessment of Black Bear Move- bear movement rates and activity patterns. ments and Abundance Relative to U.S. 98 within Preliminary results indicate that bears at the UWI the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area have larger home ranges, utilize similar habitats, This project assessed the movements (number and are more likely to make large movements at and locations of black bear crossings) and night. This research indicates that some bears abundance of black bears Aucilla WMA and seasonally move into the UWI from the core forest adjacent lands in southeastern Jefferson County, areas. Bears will continue to be monitored through Florida. Habitat differences, intersecting roads, the summer of 2007. and seasons were found to have an effect on black bear crossing rates. None of the tested variables Black Bear Distribution in the Big Bend Region of had an effect on black bear roadkill. The final Florida report can be found at: http://myfwc.com/ The objective of the project is to determine the bear/Reports/Aucilla-Final-Report.pdf. level of occupancy by bears in the Big Bend region (Taylor, Lafayette, Dixie, and Levy Current projects counties) of Florida in a manner that would allow Current activities and reports can be viewed subsequent surveys to detect a change in on the FWC’s black bear web page at http:// occupancy. We estimated from previous data that myfwc.com/bear/. approximately 10% of potential bear habitat in the Big Bend region south of the Ecofina River is Relocation of Nuisance Bears currently occupied. To detect a change from the Objectives of this project are to determine the current estimate of occupancy with the desired fate of relocated bears and to determine if sensitivity we estimated that an array of 200 hair relocation is an effective management strategy for snares should be constructed within grids solving human-bear conflict. A total of 43 bears equivalent to the reported summer home ranges of (33M, 10F) were trapped in locations associated female bears in the nearest permanent population. with nuisance activities. 42 bears (33M, 9F) were Camera traps are being utilized in one area of then relocated FWC approved release sites in the 200,000 acres. Fieldwork for this project will Ocala National Forest (ONF). To date, nine bears resume in May 2007 and all remaining cells will (7M, 2F) have died; thirteen (7M, 6F) returned to be sampled and field work completed by their capture area, and three of the males engaged September 2007. A final report is due December in nuisance activities upon return. Twenty bears 31, 2007. were found to have engaged in a nuisance activity at least once post-relocation. Seven of these bears were recaptured as a result of their continued nuisance activities; three (2M, 1F) were relocated back to their initial release site within the ONF, two males were relocated to the Apalachicola National Forest, and two (1M, 1F) were euthanized. Analysis of the data is currently taking place and the expected project completion date is June 2007.

Ecology of Bears in the Urban-Wildland Interface (UWI) We are investigating home range size, habitat use, movement rates, and activity patterns within UWIs and comparing them to similar characteristics for forest dwelling bears in Ocala National Figure 1. Black bear populations in Florida, 2004. Forest. A total of 32 adult and sub-adult bears (17M, 15F) and 7 cubs (1M, 6F) were captured and equipped with radio-collars (2005-2006). A

GEORGIA STATUS REPORT

ADAM HAMMOND, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, 2592 Floyd Springs Rd NE, Armuchee, GA 30105

GREG NELMS, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, 108 Darling Ave., Waycross, GA 31501

BOBBY BOND, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, 1014 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Fort Valley, GA 31030

INTRODUCTION problems while also providing an important Black bears occur in three distinct populations recreational opportunity for sportsmen and women in Georgia (Fig. 1). The northernmost population alike. Because of the reproductive ecology of is associated with the Appalachian Mountains of bears, however, hunting seasons are continually the northeast and north-central portion of the state. monitored and fine-tuned to avoid undesirable Another population is associated with the impacts on the bear population. For this reason, a Ocmulgee River drainage in the central portion of maximum harvest rate of 20% of the population Georgia. The third and southernmost population is with females comprising no more than 50% of the located in and around the Okefenokee Swamp of harvest is our goal. Additionally, female average southeast Georgia. All three populations are stable ages ideally should be held at or above 3.75 years or slightly increasing. to insure sufficient recruitment rates. Age data, not The bear population in North Georgia has presented here, indicate that we are meeting or been steadily increasing for at least the past 30 exceeding our targeted average age for females. years. Most of what we consider to be suitable To reach our desired harvest goals, bear bear habitat in North Georgia is presently occupied hunting is allowed in the fall of each year, under with bears while human population growth in different regulations, in each of the three Georgia North Georgia is increasing dramatically. As a bear populations. Currently, there is a statewide result, frequent human/bear conflicts arise; limit of one bear per hunter per year and it is however, the majority of these are avoidable if illegal to harvest females with cubs or bears under people would secure household garbage, pet foods, 75 pounds live-weight. All harvested bears must birdseed, and other non-natural food items for be reported to the Wildlife Resources Division bears properly. We continue to use/improve educational outreach efforts to help minimize human/bear conflicts. The bear population in North Georgia is now at a level where stabilization needs to occur. Harvest regulations have continued to become more liberal to facilitate bear population stabilization in this portion of the state. The bear population in Central Georgia seems to be stable to slightly increasing. Centered around the Ocmulgee River in Twiggs County, the population is dispersing eastward and southward with movement to the north and west limited by increased urbanization. The South Georgia bear population appears to be stable to increasing. All primary bear habitat is occupied with the major portion of their range protected by state and federal land holdings.

BEAR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Hunting is an integral part of Georgia’s bear management program and serves to regulate bear Figure 1. Black bear distribution and range in population growth and associated nuisance Georgia.

within 24 hours of harvest. Wildlife Resources Division personnel tag all bears legally taken in Georgia. There is no spring bear hunting season. For archery hunting, crossbows, longbows, recurve bows, and compound bows are allowed. During primitive weapons season, legal weapons include any legal archery equipment plus .44-caliber or larger muzzleloading firearms. For firearms bear hunting, legal weapons include modern rifles and handguns with .22 caliber or larger centerfires with expanding bullets and 20-gauge or larger shotguns loaded with slugs or buckshot. Buckshot is not permitted on our Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). Regulated hunting is allowed on both private Figure 3. Black bear bait station results for north Georgia, 1983-2006. and publicly owned lands in Georgia, including some WMAs. Specific hunting regulations vary across the state and by WMA. A copy of the most recent hunting regulations may be obtained at www.gohuntgeorgia.com.

POPULATION MONITORING Bait station surveys, using sardines as bait and checked after 5 (N. GA) or 7 nights (S. GA) are conducted to determine distribution and population trends of black bears in North and South Georgia. These surveys have been conducted in N. GA, at least bi-annually, since 1983 and every year since 1994 in S. GA. Visitation rates are steadily increasing (Figure 3, 4), which we believe is indicative of an overall increasing population, especially in N. GA. Based on bait station surveys and nuisance complaints, bears are now occupying Figure 4. Black bear bait station results for south Georgia, suitable habitat that was more/less vacant only a 1992-2006. few years ago.

Figure 2. Statewide bear harvest, 1979-2006.

SUMMARY be a problem in some of our parks and recreation Georgia’s bear population is healthy and areas; however complaints are not as frequent in appears to be increasing in many parts of the state areas that utilize some type of bear-proof garbage and is at least stable in other areas where bears management system. The Georgia Department of exist. Generally, bears in South and Central Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia are not considered a nuisance and continues to work with the U.S. Forest Service, the complaints are relatively few. In North Georgia, National Park Service, Georgia State Parks and bear complaints, which totaled over 700 statewide Historic Sites, and also the general public to this past year, are usually avoidable with promote bear awareness and education and to improperly stored garbage being the primary cause minimize nuisance bear problems. of problems. Nuisance bear situations continue to

KENTUCKY STATUS REPORT

STEVEN T. DOBEY, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601, Tel: 800-858-1549; Fax: 502-696-1892; Email: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION conditioned bears, however, often involved In Kentucky, historical accounts indicate that aversive conditioning or capture and relocation if bears were essentially eliminated by the early warranted. Since 2005, 20 (17M:3F) bears have 1900s. Reasons for that decline included wholesale been captured on 22 (19M:3F) occasions for logging of mature hardwood forests, unregulated nuisance activity. hunting and a lack of protected areas. Since that Nuisance bear reports were recorded across a time, however, forest regeneration and expansion 24-county area of eastern Kentucky in 2005 and of populations from neighboring states have 2006. Of particular interest, however, is that 158 contributed significantly to the natural re- (60%) of all nuisance reports submitted during that colonization of bears into eastern Kentucky. period occurred within Harlan and Letcher Dramatic increases in sightings and nuisance Counties in southeast portion of the state (Figure complaints over the last 5 years have resulted in 1). Similarly, 15 (68%) of all nuisance bears considerable growth within the Kentucky captured between 2005 and 2006 occurred in those Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources same counties. While human-bear conflicts are (KDFWR) bear program. Between 2004 and 2006, generally widespread throughout eastern in particular, reports of nuisance activity have Kentucky, it is evident that most nuisance activity increased over 100% annually. Consequently, is concentrated in a relatively small geographic management efforts by KDFWR are focused area. As such, KDFWR is working closely with primarily on alleviating human-bear conflicts in residents and businesses in those areas to define localized areas where bears have quickly adapted achievable, long-term solutions to problems with to people. bears. To date, the primary reasons for these focal KDFWR has also been involved in centers of nuisance activity are open dumpsters, cooperative research with the University of inadequate garbage containment and collection, Kentucky that will provide much needed and intentional feeding. information concerning the demographics, habitat KDFWR documented 7 and 14 bear use, and size of Kentucky’s growing black bear mortalities in 2005 and 2006, respectively. population. Those data will prove especially Mortalities in 2005 were attributed to vehicle beneficial over the next 5 years as there is already collisions (2), illegal kill (2), euthanasia (1) and steadily growing interest among Kentucky research (1). Additionally, 1 bear died from residents for implementation of a bear season. electrocution upon entering a power substation. In 2006, mortalities from vehicle collisions set a new HARVEST record with 9 bears fatally struck on Kentucky There is currently no hunting season for black roadways. The remaining mortalities from last bears in Kentucky. year were the result of euthanasia (3), illegal kill (1) and 1 death of a radio-collared bear for which MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS cause could not be determined. Of particular KDFWR received 72 and 191 reports of interest is that of 46 mortalities documented by nuisance activity in 2005 and 2006, respectively. KDFWR since 1992, only 4 have been female Collectively, bears in garbage accounted for 176 bears. Collectively, those deaths were the result of (65%) of all nuisance complaints received since vehicle collision (24M), illegal kill (6M:4 2005. Less frequently reported actions included unknown:3F), euthanasia (5M), electrocution bears damaging property (29) and acquiring pet (2M), research (1F) and unknown causes (1). food (19). Offenses of a more serious nature included bears entering human dwellings (4), pets RESEARCH being killed (3), livestock depredation (2) and Since 2002, KDFWR has partially funded 3 threatening people (1). Most complaints were black bear studies conducted by 2 PhD and 1 MS resolved by providing technical advice via students through the University of Kentucky. telephone communication or on-site visits. Objectives of the first project were to document Situations involving obvious food- or human- population demographics, habitat use, reproduct-

ion, home range dynamics and movement patterns nuisance reports. Those positions provided of bears in eastern Kentucky. The incorporation of invaluable assistance to both Wildlife and Law GPS radio collars into that study in 2005 is Enforcement Division personnel, and enabled us to expected to yield an extensive analysis of habitat identify focal centers of nuisance activity. In use and selection by bears in this region. addition, conservation officers in eastern Kentucky The second PhD study is examining the social now receive aversive conditioning training so that dimensions of Kentucky’s recolonizing bear they may effectively respond to more serious bear population as they relate to public perception and complaints. human-bear conflicts. That study will also quantify Progress has recently been made concerning and map anthropogenic food sources and evaluate nuisance abatement in areas experiencing high their impacts on the behavior and ecology of bears levels of nuisance bear activity. Two apartment in areas where nuisance activity is greatest. In complexes, in particular, that have been focal addition, DNA microsatellite analysis will be used centers for nuisance activity for years fenced in all to examine kinship, dispersal patterns and likely open dumpsters on their property in 2006. Not colonizing sources of bears captured in Kentucky. surprisingly, those steps were taken shortly after Fieldwork concluded for both PhD studies in 2006 KDFWR personnel euthanized a 350 pound male and submission of final reports is expected by fall bear with a history of human-conditioned behavior of this year. on their premises. The most recent study began in 2006 and is a Public education was significantly enhanced cooperative effort with the University of Kentucky in 2006 by production of a 30-minute television and Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Primary special that detailed the causes, preventative research objectives are to provide estimates of measures and consequences of human-bear population size and density of black bears using conflicts. This special was produced by our “KY DNA mark-recapture techniques. The second and Afield” television staff and aired throughout final summer of sampling will occur in 2007 and a central and eastern Kentucky. KDFWR has also final report of these findings is expected in fall made DVD copies of the television special 2008. available for sale through our website. Lastly, a “Black Bear Conflict Management Plan” has been CURRENT ISSUES completed by KDFWR and is currently under final To better manage human-bear conflicts revisions. This plan will provide extensive KDFWR employed 2 seasonal technicians in 2006 technical information to KDFWR personnel and whose duties were devoted solely to recording, serve as Departmental guidelines for addressing investigating, offering technical advice and human-bear conflicts. assisting biologists with matters related to

(4) (1) (1) (1) (1)

(1) (1) (1) (3) (1) (1) (1) (3) (27) (1) (4) (7) (60) (1) (5) (3) (98) (3) (22) (11)

Figure 1. Occupied range of black bears in Kentucky, 2005–2006. Numbers in parentheses represent nuisance complaints. Stars indicate vehicle collisions with bears.

LOUISIANA STATUS REPORT

MARIA W. DAVIDSON, Large Carnivore Program Manager, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

INTRODUCTION and the BBCC. Nuisance bear complaints The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus continued to rise in 2005 and 2006. All captured luteolus) was listed as “threatened” under the nuisance bears receive aversive conditioning using Endangered Species Act (ESA) in January of rubber buckshot and dogs. Nuisance bears are not 1992. All bears within the subspecies historic moved. The intentional feeding of bears is illegal range of eastern Texas, southern Mississippi, and in Louisiana. all of Louisiana are protected by similarity of appearance. Because of potential ESA related RESEARCH conflicts, a broad coalition of interests formed the The continuing translocation project moved Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) forward with the relocation of 7 females and their prior to the listing to address management issues cubs during 2005, and 7 relocations during 2006. related to the bear. That organization still plays a To date, 30 females and 69 cubs have been prominent role throughout historic range. There relocated to suitable release sites in east-central are three distinct subpopulations in LA with little Louisiana and the project continues to be genetic interchange due to habitat fragmentation. successful. Nineteen of the original thirty females are currently being monitored. Site fidelity has HARVEST DATA been high, and cub survival indicates that things There is no harvest allowed in Louisiana. are progressing nicely, with the ultimate goal of producing a breeding population of bears in that MANAGEMENT region of Louisiana. To date, 6 translocated All management practices are directed toward females have reproduced on site. recovery and delisting of the Louisiana black bear. Currently, there are five ongoing research Following the recovery plan and the BBCC projects. The University of Tennessee is restoration plan, efforts are focused on habitat conducting population demographics projects in restoration to provide for corridors between the Tensas and Pointe Coupee parishes as well as subpopulations. Numerous incentive programs are assessing the viability and future translocation being utilized to transform unproductive cropland needs to establish a permanent, viable population into forest. Connecting two of the three sub- in the reintroduction area. Louisiana State populations will meet one of the USFWS delisting University is finishing up two studies: Den criteria. selection of Louisiana black bears in the Tensas Management of bear-human conflicts is a River Basin and reintroduced populations and an cooperative effort by LDWF, USFWS, USDA WS Aversive Conditioning study.

MAINE STATUS REPORT

JENNIFER H. VASHON, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, ME 04401, E-mail: [email protected]

RANDAL A. CROSS, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, ME 04401, E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION Hunters registered 3,921 bears in 2004, and Maine has 69,050 km2 of bear habitat, 2,873 bears in 2005. The 2005 bear harvest was consisting of mostly second-growth conifer- below recent levels, which had stabilized Maine’s deciduous forests. Bears are common nearly bear population. In 2005, the remnants of statewide, but are rarely found in the heavily hurricane Katrina hit Maine during the opening settled south and central-coastal regions. Eighty week of Maine’s bear season and harvest during percent of forestlands are privately owned, and the first week declined (34%). Nearly half of the much of the northern and western bear range is bear harvest occurs during the first week of the commercial forestland managed for timber season with the majority of bears harvested by production. Potato, dairy, and grain farming are nonresident hunters who book a guided hunt. As a important land uses in central and northeastern result, the low opening week harvest could not be Maine, and blueberry production is prevalent in recovered during the remainder of the season. eastern portions of the State. Hunting with bait has been the method used to Bears were bountied as vermin until 1957, but take most bears since 1985 including 3,123 bears were granted game species status in 1969, when in 2004, and 2,247 bears in 2005. Hunters using mandatory monitoring of annual harvests began. hounds registered 442 bears in 2004, and 318 Over the past century, conflicts between bears and bears in 2005. Trapping harvests remains a small other land uses (primarily agriculture) have percentage of the harvest, although interest in lessened with changes in agricultural practices, the trapping has increased from 1 to 5% in recent decline of farming, increased interest in bear years. Hunters using other means killed 175 bears hunting, and the species’ rise in status as a game in 2004, and 178 bears in 2005. Many of these animal. Maine has a small human population (1.2 bears were taken in November, when the firearms million) that is mostly concentrated in the southern deer season is open and hunters pursuing deer can third of the State, and therefore bear-human take bears incidentally. Late fall harvests fluctuate conflicts are less numerous than eastern states that markedly with the abundance of beechnuts, the are more urbanized. Telemetry studies have principal late-fall mast crop for bears in much of supplied data for monitoring population trends northern Maine. Beechnuts were scarce during the since 1975, and continue to be the primary source fall of 2003-2005 (losing the alternate year pattern of information used in Maine’s bear management in abundance) and bears entered dens early as system. indicated by the relatively few bears harvested during the November deer season (76, 77, and 110 HARVEST INFORMATION bears, respectively). In contrast, 264 bears were Maine’s bear season framework has remained registered during the firearms deer season in 2002, fairly constant since 1990, with harvests occurring when a moderately abundant beechnut crop was over a 3-month fall period. The annual bag limit is recorded. 1 bear per year, taken by either hunting or Since 1990, a separate bear hunting permit has trapping. Harvest regulations are applied uni- been required to hunt bears prior to the November formly statewide, with no regional controls on deer season. These sales remained relatively stable hunting effort. The season opens the Monday at 10,000-11,000 annually from 1991 through preceding September 1, and closes the Saturday 1998, but jumped 15% in 1999 (12,524 permits) following Thanksgiving. Bears can be hunted over and another 16% in 2002 (15,252 permits) and was bait during the first 4 weeks of the season, hunters attributed to increased interest among nonresident can hunt bears using hounds for an 8-week period, hunters (53% increase). Permit sales returned to and the trapping season spans 61-days. Both 1991-98 levels (11,331 permits) following a sub- stillhunting and stalking are permitted throughout stantial fee increase in 2002 ($6 to $25 residents the entire 3-month season. and $16 to $65 non-residents). The fee increase

had the greatest influence on resident bear hunter fragmented forests, and were considered participation (26 vs. 8% decline in resident and unsuitable for bears. nonresident permit sales). Hunter effort (number Bear numbers are regulated primarily through of hunter-days expended) has increased in recent annual hunting and trapping harvests. The years, especially the effort by nonresident hunters information we use to assess the bear population using bait and hounds. The success of hunters and bear habitat is documented in a written bear using bait, as measured by number of bears killed management system developed in1986, which per 1,000 hunting days of effort, has also risen. contains criteria for decision-making and Computer modeling of long-term data on management options. population parameters indicates that female bear populations in Maine can sustain harvest rates of RESEARCH PROGRAMS 15% without decline (McLaughlin 1998). Hunting The Department has conducted limited mortality of radiocollared adult female bears has research over the past 2 years with our efforts remained at 15% and statewide sex ratios in recent directed toward monitoring a sample of harvests have remained in favor of males (53M: radiocollared female bears on 3 study sites. Field 47F in 2004; 54M:46F in 2005) following the studies have been conducted on 2 northern study pattern established in the early 1990s. Harvest and sites (Spectacle Pond and Stacyville) since 1975, population data from telemetry studies suggest that and on a third site in central Maine (Bradford) the recent decline in hunter harvest is not a result since 1982. The Stacyville study area was closed of a declining bear population. However, current in 2004 when a new study area in eastern Maine estimates of bear density are needed to improve was established to better represented the range of our estimates. bear habitats and human pressure. Recent budget restrictions have reduced our MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS telemetry flights and telemetry data are insufficient In 2001, the Department set new management for estimating density, home range size and habitat goals and objectives to direct bear management use. We are exploring other options for improving through 2015 based upon the recommendations of estimates. Long-term telemetry studies continue to a public working group representing diverse produce data on survival and productivity to guide interests. A bear management goal of providing statewide bear management activities. We monitor continued hunting, trapping and viewing about 75 radiocollared female bears and capture opportunity for bears was established by 1) between 150 and 175 bears annually. stabilizing the bear population’s growth by 2005 at In much of northern Maine, beechnut mast is no less than current (1999) levels, 2) creating an important fall food and may influence cub information and education programs to promote production. From 1982 to 2002, about 80% of traditional hunting and trapping methods as adult females >5 years old produced cubs preferred and valid tools to manage the State’s following falls when beechnut production was black bear population, and 3) creating information high and 20% following falls when beechnut and education programs to promote public production was low. After 21 years of a consistent tolerance of bears. alternate year pattern in bear reproduction, the A reassessment of the past, present, and future pattern changed in 2002. The proportion of status of bears, their habitat, and demands on the females producing cubs did not decrease as bear resource was completed in 1999, providing expected following a poor beechnut crop and was the scientific basis for the public working group’s attributed to a segment of 5-year old females deliberations. During this assessment, bear habitat producing their first litters. To determine the was divided into 3 regions, by grouping importance of beech stands and other food sources ecologically based Management Districts. The for Maine’s northern bear population, we are Forest Region represents the expansive, considering incorporating GPS collars into our contiguous forestlands of northern Maine, where study and initiating soft and hard mast surveys. bears are largely restricted to beechnuts as their We will need to explore other funding options to late-fall food source. The Forest-Farm Region implement these studies. The bear study is funded encompassing much of the remainder of the through the Pittman-Robertson program. State’s inland area, where bears have access to agricultural crops and/or a wider range of fall CURRENT ISSUES foods. South coastal Maine and the offshore In 2005, following the defeat of a ballot islands have dense human populations and initiative that would make it illegal to hunt bears with the use of bait, hounds, or traps, 8 bills

concerning hunting of black bears were introduced types and amounts on bear behavior, health, into Maine’s legislative session. The Legislative reproduction rates, and survival rates, and 4) the Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department should collect information on the rejected all 8 bills, but required the Department to number of bear trappers, their effort, and the establish a committee of interested parties to equipment that they use. Subsequently, 3 bills review and provide recommendations on the related to bear hunting were sponsored: 2 bills methods and tools used to legally harvest bears in eliminating the use of bait and traps for harvesting Maine. The Department reviewed the issues and bears and another bill that prohibited a hunter or discussions by the committee and in May of 2006 trapper from wasting a wounded game animal, submitted 4 recommendations to the legislative requiring a bear hunting permit during the deer committee: 1) reduce the number of traps that can firearm season, and providing the revenue be use to trap bears from 2 traps to 1 trap, 2) generated from the issuance of bear hunting eliminate the steel-jawed foothold trap for bears permits in excess of the number issued in 2006 to (cable foot snares and cage-type live traps be used to fund studies relating to the harvesting of remained legal trapping devices), 3) the black bears. In January, the legislature enacted the Department should conduct studies, if funding is Department’s recommendations. available, to better understand the impact of bait

MARYLAND STATUS REPORT

HARRY SPIKER, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife & Heritage Service 1728 King’s Run Rd., Oakland, MD 21550, Tel: 301-334-4255; Fax: 301-334-6541; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION $15 nonrefundable fee. Each year, more than 2,000 Historically, black bears were found in all of hunters have applied for a bear-hunting permit. Maryland’s counties. However, as settlers cleared DNR established a harvest quota targeting an the landscape for agriculture, industry, and timber approximate 8% harvest mortality. This was based production throughout the 18th, 19th, and early on the objective of achieving 20% overall 20th centuries, most of Maryland’s suitable black mortality (seasonal + nonseasonal mortality). bear habitat was lost. By the mid-20th century, Harvest quotas have ranged from 30 to 55 bears black bears could only be found in the rugged between 2004 and 2006. In 2004, hunters mountainous areas in western Maryland. By the harvested 20 bears on the opening day of the six- mid 1950s, only a few bears were estimated to day season. DNR effectively closed the hunt at the remain in the state. In 1953, the black bear hunting end of the first day to avoid exceeding the harvest season was closed due to concerns of a dwindling quota. In 2005, 40 bears were harvested in 4 days bear population. In 1972, the status of black bears and in 2006, 41 bears were harvested in 2 days of was changed from ‘forest game animal’ to hunting. ‘endangered species’ in Maryland. As habitat conditions improved with the POPULATION MANAGEMENT maturation of second-growth forests, DNR began Population Estimate to receive increased reports of bear sightings and In May and June 2005, DNR conducted damage. As a result, in 1980, the black bear was western Maryland’s most recent black bear moved from the ‘endangered’ species class- population survey. A DNA-based mark-recapture ification to that of ‘nongame species of special study was conducted across Garrett and Allegany concern’. In 1985, the black bear’s status was once counties. A similar study had been conducted in again changed to that of a ‘forest game animal’ 2000. Two-hundred forty grids sized (12.0 km2 ) with a closed hunting season. were established across the study area. Each grid Currently, Maryland has a breeding pop- contained one bait station (a stump baited with ulation of black bears in the 4 westernmost molasses and surrounded by barbed wire). The bait counties (Garrett, Allegany, Washington, and stations were checked and rebaited weekly for 5 Frederick) (Fig. 1), with the highest bear densities weeks. Seven-hundred twenty-five hair samples found in Garrett and western Allegany counties were submitted to the USGS lab in Kearneysville, (approximately 880 mi2). Although evidence of a WV for DNA analysis. From these samples, 167 breeding population is confined to the western 4 individual bears were identified. Of these, 72 were counties, DNR receives several bear sightings and recaptured a total of 207 times. complaints in central and southern Maryland The results of the DNA analysis were entered counties each year. into Program MARK which yielded a population

HARVEST DATA In October 2004, DNR implemented Maryland’s first bear-hunting season in 51 years. Subsequent hunts have been held in 2005 and 2006. A conservative hunt has been designed. Each year, a select number of permits have been awarded via a random selection process. 200 permits were issued in 2004 and 2005. These permits were valid in Garrett and the western portion of Allegany County. In 2006, 220 permits were awarded, and the hunt area was expanded to include all of Garrett and Allegany counties. To be entered in the drawings, applicants must submit a Figure 1. Occupied black bear range in Maryland.

estimate of 362 adult and subadult bears across the CONFLICT MANAGEMENT study area. The 95% CI ranged between 242 and In 1996, a formal nuisance response plan was 482 animals. It is important to note that this study implemented and has been periodically revised as was conducted across two counties of the four- we continue to increase efficiency in handling county occupied bear range. human-bear conflicts. In 1997 a bear response team, consisting of DNR employees, was created Scent Station Survey to address after hours human-bear conflicts in Scent station survey routes are established Garrett County. Response team personnel are on across known portions of the black bear range in call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from April the 4 western counties annually. This survey has through November. The team can be contacted by been conducted in western Maryland since 1993. DNR Communications Center personnel and local Each route consists of 4 or more bait stations emergency management staff (911 center). located 0.5 miles apart. The survey routes are DNR holds a series of annual workshops for established in mid to late July and checked 8 days local public safety agencies (police & fire depart- after establishment for black bear activity. ments, 911 emergency management centers, Visitation rates are then calculated and used to animal control, USDA, etc.). At these workshops, compare results between years. the agencies are given guidance on how to handle A total of 133 bait stations were established nuisance bear calls in accordance with the on 17 routes across Garrett County in 2006. Of nuisance response plan. these, 83 were visited by black bears, a 62.4% In 1995, the Maryland Legislature passed visitation rate. legislation requiring DNR to implement a bear Four routes were established in Allegany damage compensation fund. Money for the fund is County in 2006. Bears visited 14 of the 63 bait raised through the sale of a black bear stamp and stations for a 22.2% visitation rate. Bears visited 2 other related merchandise. The fund is then used to of 16 stations in Washington County, a 12.5% reimburse farmers for agricultural damage caused visitation rate. In Frederick County, none of the 22 by black bears. Since 1996, damage claims have stations were visited by a black bear. The ranged from $10,000 to $50,300 each year. visitation rate was 42.3% across the survey area Dependent on the value of the claims and the (Garrett, Allegany, Washington, and Frederick money available in the fund, DNR has reimbursed Counties). between 12% and 85% of the claims each year. This survey has seen its greatest increase in Stamp sales have been poor, never providing visitation in Garrett County where visitation has enough money to provide 100% compensation. increased from 3.9% in 1993 to 62.4% in 2006 (Fig 2). RESEARCH Since this long-term survey has been im- DNR and West Virginia University are plemented, routes have been added to monitor currently conducting a collaborative study range expansion across all 4 western counties. examining spatial and habitat requirements for Despite the addition of routes into Maryland’s female black bears in Garrett County through the peripheral bear range, visitation rates continue to increase. 70 60 Reproductive & Mortality Surveys DNR has been monitoring black bear 50 reproduction since 1986. Since then, 209 cubs 40 have been born to 69 sows for a long-term average 30 of 3.0 cubs per sow. Currently, 13 sows are being monitored. The average annual litter size has 20 ranged between 2.5 and 3.5 cubs per sow. 10 Black bear mortalities have been monitored Visitation Rate (%) since 1981. In 1981, there were two known bear 0 mortalities in Maryland. Nonseasonal bear 3 6 8 0 2 4 6 9 9 0 99 00 mortalities are now common in western Maryland. 19 1 19 200 2 20 200 In 2006, 69 nonseasonal bear mortalities were reported to DNR, up from the 53 reported in 2005 Figure 2. Garrett County scent station survey results and the 41 reported in 2004. (1993-2006).

use of GPS collars. Additionally, armband GPS property or domesticated animals, or after units are being deployed on bear hunters to exhausting all nonlethal methods of resolving examine any correlations between bear movements problems caused by bears. to hunter pressure, which should allow us to assess DNR has opposed this legislation each time it black bear vulnerability to recreational hunting. was introduced into the General Assembly. The Human/bear interactions will also be looked at legislation has failed in committee in 2004, 2005, through the study. A research poster will be and 2006. The current status of the 2007 bill is available at the workshop. unknown. Conversely in 2006 and 2007 a ‘Share a Bear’ CURRENT ISSUES bill has been introduced by a western Maryland A ‘Bear Hunting Moratorium’ bill has been legislator that would have required DNR to introduced in the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 establish a black bear population in every county legislative sessions. These bills, if enacted in in Maryland. This bill failed to pass out of legislation, would have (1) removed black bear committee in 2006. The current status of the 2007 from the list of “forest game mammals”; (2) version of the bill is unknown. prohibited the Department from reducing the black bear population unless in defense of a person,

MASSACHUSETTS STATUS REPORT

JAMES E. CARDOZA, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581, Tel: 508-792-7270 x124; Fax: 508-792-7275; E-Mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION coincident with increases in bear numbers and The Massachusetts black bear population is distribution. Hunter success is approximately 3- estimated at between 2900-3000 (87% AF 6%. Mandatory check stations have been used survival, 8.0% rate of growth) and 3,400-3,500 since 1970 and hunters must check the bear within bears (89% AF survival, 10.4% rate of growth). 48 hours of the kill. Sale of bear hides and parts is This compares with an estimated 1,750-1,800 unlawful. animals in 1998. Black bear harvests in Massachusetts are Bears are ubiquitous west of the Connecticut governed principally by food abundance and River, with a density ≥1 bear/2.6 km2. They are availability, rather than by hunter numbers or found in moderate numbers between the hunting method. In 2006, 65 (44%) of the bears Connecticut River and the eastern boundary of were taken in or near wild foods (nuts, berries), 44 Worcester County. An increasing number of (30%) were taken in or near cultivated crops (corn, vagrants (including breeding sows) are found in apples), and 39 (26%) in low or non-food areas (or northeastern Massachusetts (Essex and Middlesex area was unspecified). In 2005, there were 54 counties). Bears are absent from southeastern (48%) in wild foods (nuts, berries), 29 (26%) in Massachusetts. cultivated foods, 29 (26%) in low or non-food areas, and 1 (<1%) in both cultivated and wild. HARVEST In 2005, the bear harvest was 113, including MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 98 in the 17-day September segment and 15 (a From the 1970’s through the 1990’s, the then-record) in the 6-day November segment. The Massachusetts bear hunting season was managed November segment was extended by 12 days in for a total annual harvest about 5% of the 2006, and a near-record total of 148 bears was estimated bear population and a total mortality (all taken, of which 125 were taken in September and sources) about 10% of the population. The state’s 23 in November. The 10-year (1997-2006) season bear population and distribution steadily increased mean is 110. under this management regime. Bears have now Bear hunting has been lawful in 5 of the reached densities in Massachusetts that satisfy or state’s 14 counties since 1970. However, the exceed initial management goals and harvest majority of the harvest derives from Berkshire strategies have been adjusted to slow or stabilize County and those parts of Franklin, Hampden, and bear population growth. Season length was Hampshire counties west of the Connecticut River. increased in 2000 from 12 to 23 days and an In 37 years, only 6 bears (5 from Worcester additional 12 days were added in 2006 (i.e., 35 County) have been taken east of the Connecticut total days). Most (90-98%) of the harvest has been River. Beginning in 2006, the hunting zone was in September when other seasons are closed and revised to conform to management zone bound- when ripe corn may concentrate bears in farm aries (WMA zones 01-09), rather than political fields. This may change over time. In 2006, 16% boundaries (i.e., counties). This action opened a of the harvest occurred in November. small portion of Middlesex County to bear Since 1996, statute law has prohibited the hunting. hunting of bear with hounds or bait. Agency All bear hunters must have a $5.00 bear regulations prohibit the hunting of bears during the hunting permit in addition to their basic hunting firearms deer season, which is relatively late and license. Record numbers of permits were issued in bears are often denned. A proposal to allow bear 2004 (n=3,469), 2005 (n=3,593), and 2006 hunting during this season failed in 2005. Thus, (n=5,660). The 10-year mean (1997-2006) is bear hunting in Massachusetts is typically done on 2,938. The availability of hunting and fishing a stand (still hunting) or by slowly moving through licenses and permits via the Internet has likely feeding areas. undoubtedly increased sales. Bear hunting con- Nuisance bear complaints continue to increase tinues to increase in popularity and anticipation, along with the population. Complaints have

largely shifted from traditional commodity-based RESEARCH damage (corn, bees) to residential or campground A black bear research project was jointly situations. However, agricultural complaints are conducted by DFW and the Massachusetts believed to be greatly under-reported. In Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit accordance with state law, landowners with bear between 1972-1998. Field studies were conducted damage may kill the bear without a permit, but between 1980-1998. This cooperative program is must report the incident in writing and surrender now inactive due to the lack of funding. DFW the bear. Reported complaints totaled 2.9 annually continues to monitor a small number (≤15) of in the 1970’s, 14.3 in the 1980’s, and 77.4 in the radio-collared female bears to assess cub 1990’s. There were 99 in 2004 and 104 in 2005 production and survival. (2006 data not yet compiled). The 10-year (1996- 2005) mean is 116. However, complaints are CURRENT ISSUES substantially under-reported. Local police in one The preeminent management challenge for western Massachusetts town recorded 108 bear Massachusetts is to maintain a viable black bear complaints, while the Division of Fisheries & population over as broad an area as practical, while Wildlife (DFW) received only 2 from that same simultaneously preventing or mitigating the bear- town. human conflicts which arise from the increasing fragmentation of forested habitats and the consequent interspersion of people and bears.

MISSISSIPPI BLACK BEAR STATUS REPORT

BRAD W. YOUNG, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 2148 Riverside Drive,Jackson, MS 39202, Tel: 601-354-7303; Fax: 601-354-7227; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION beekeepers who have sustained damage in several Mississippi is currently home to two different regions of the state. subspecies of black bears: the American black bear Education continues to be the primary goal (Ursus americanus americanus) and the Louisiana with regard to black bear management in black bear (U. a. luteolus). The black bear was Mississippi. The education of sportsmen and listed as state endangered throughout Mississippi citizens continues to pay increasing dividends in in 1984. The Louisiana black bear, which occurs in bear management and bear tolerance. Articles in the southern half of the state, was listed as newspapers and magazines combined with threatened under terms of the Endangered Species educational seminars given to civic and school Act (ESA) in 1992. Biologists with the Mississippi groups have made great strides in raising Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks awareness about black bears and garnering support (MDWFP) currently estimate the state’s bear for bear restoration. population at 60 to70 animals throughout the state. RESEARCH HARVEST Trapping and monitoring of radio-collared There has not been a legal bear season in bears continues in counties bordering the Mississippi since the formation of the Mississippi Mississippi River. Telemetry conducted on radio- Game and Fish Commission in 1932. Black bear collared bears has provided great insight into hunting was closed at that time under the habits and range sizes of bears in Mississippi. The assumption that less than a dozen bears were recent incorporation of GPS collars will also believed to still inhabit the state. The black bear further enhance our knowledge of Mississippi bear was included on the first list of rare and threatened ecology. In addition to the “native” males captured vertebrates in Mississippi in 1974 and afforded and collared, Mississippi has also seen the further protection when it was listed as state entrance of several radio-collared females from endangered in 1984. It was estimated that less than Arkansas and Louisiana. Two of the Louisiana 25 bears were residing in Mississippi at that time. females that entered the state produced consecutive litters of cubs in 2005 and 2006. The MANAGEMENT litters represent the first documented births of bear The MDWFP black bear management plan, cubs in Mississippi in approximately 30 years. “Conservation and Management of Black Bears in Plans are currently underway for the initiation Mississippi”, was completed in August 2006. The of an annual bait station survey to be conducted on plan serves as a basis for information about black public lands throughout Mississippi. The survey is bears in Mississippi as well as outlining protocols designed to provide baseline data that will show and guidelines for dealing with the continued population growth trends over time. Plans are also growth of bear populations in the state. The plan being made for hair snare sampling that will allow was distributed to MDWFP biologists and law for analyses of genetic diversity among bears in enforcement personnel as well as other natural the state. resources professionals throughout the state. The black bear population appears to be CURRENT ISSUES increasing in Mississippi. Reports are becoming Lack of public information continues to be an more frequent and wider in distribution from year issue facing the black bear in Mississippi. Due to to year. With this apparent increase, has come an the fact that bears have been largely absent from increase in nuisance complaints from people Mississippi’s forests for so long, little is known unaccustomed to living with black bears. The about the true nature of bears and the phrase “bear management of bear-human conflicts is a coop- restoration” often conjures unwarranted fears erative effort between MDWFP and USDA-WS. among citizens and landowners. MDWFP has The primary complaints have come from made black bear education a primary focus in its management strategy in an attempt to alleviate

unfounded fears associated with black bear pop- bee yards belonging to beekeepers that have never ulation expansion. had to deal with such issues. Despite timely Human-bear conflicts are also becoming more responses to complaints and technical assistance of an issue, especially in regard to the beekeeping provided to beekeepers, bears are still seen as a industry. As bears continue to expand their range great threat to the industry. within the state, they are coming into contact with

NEW HAMPSHIRE STATUS REPORT

ANDREW TIMMINS, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 629B Main Street, Lancaster, NH 03584, Tel: 603-788-3164; Fax: 603-788-4823; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION hunters. Percent harvest by method during 2006 New Hampshire's black bear population is was 43% by both still and bait hunters and 14% by estimated at 4,900 animals and the population hound hunters. Variation from recent averages remains relatively stable. While the bear appears to reflect growing participation in bait and population is strong and viable, human population hound hunting. Regionally, 64 bears were taken in expansion, habitat loss and increasing bear/human the North, 108 in the White Mountains, 99 in the conflicts continue to represent growing Central, 49 in Southwest-1, 23 in Southwest-2 and management concerns. The state is divided into 6 8 in the Southeast. management regions including the North, White Since 1990, the bear harvest sex ratio has Mountains, Central, Southwest-1, Southwest-2 and averaged 1.4 males per female. Higher mortality Southeast (Fig. 1). The northern and western rates for males result in females being more regions have higher bear densities as compared to abundant than males in our bear population, but the more southern bear management regions. Bear this is rarely apparent in our harvest data. During population management objectives differ by poor mast years female harvest tends to increase management region and the bear hunting seasons relative to male harvest, with the result being that are formulated to achieve specific regional females equal or exceed males in the harvest. objectives. During years with abundant mast, males are more vulnerable than females to harvest due to HARVEST differential vulnerability, and therefore account for The 2006 bear hunting season represented the a larger percentage of the harvest. We typically first season under the newly established Big Game strive for harvest sex ratios that approximate 1.4 Population Management Plan: 2006-2015. If the males per female as that ratio has maintained the population objectives of this plan are achieved, the female segment of the population at a level statewide population of bears will remain consistent with population objectives. The overall relatively consistent with recent levels (5,000 harvest sex ratio in 2006 of 1.5 males per female bears), however regional densities will change. was consistent with the long-term average. New Hampshire’s long-term bear management goals are to stabilize the population in the north, reduce the population across the White Mountains and allow for population growth in the central and southern portions of the state. The highest bear harvests in New Hampshire history have occurred since 1999 (Fig. 2). Historic highs in bear harvest reflect: 1) a strong bear population, 2) increased hunting pressure – the number of bear hunters has more than doubled in the past decade, and 3) increased hunting opportunity – the entire state was opened to bear hunting beginning in 1998, and seasons have been extended in many regions to control bear population growth. The 2006 bear harvest (351 bears) represented a 19% decline from the 2005 level and a 37% decrease from the preceding 5-year average (556 bears). Abundant mast during 2006 presumably allowed bears to feed in more remote areas, decreasing their vulnerability to hunters. Historically, percent harvest by method averaged 54%, 34% and 12% by still, bait and hound Figure 1. New Hampshire bear management regions.

Method-specific harvest sex ratios during 2006 feeding/ attracting of bears when the activity included 1.4, 2.4 and 0.7 males per female for still, creates a public nuisance situation. bait and hound hunters, respectively. During the ten-year period of 1996-2005, the RESEARCH mean age of harvested male and female bears has An ongoing "mark-recapture" study designed averaged 4.3 and 5.6 years, respectively. Data for to estimate bear abundance in the state's 2006 were not available for inclusion in this northernmost bear management region using report. The mean age of harvested females remote genetic tagging continued during 2006. remained stable over this time period. The mean The primary research objective is to compare the age of harvested males had a tendency to fluctuate population estimate from genetic tagging with the from year to year and presumably was caused by population estimate derived from mortality data the differential vulnerability of males to harvest. and hunter observations to assess their relative similarity and reliability. During June-July of MANAGEMENT 2006, 100 hair traps were constructed and Regional Bear Population Management Goals monitored over a 200-mi2 area in northern New Black bear management decisions for the next Hampshire. Hair collection during 2006 was very decade (2006-2015) will be based on our newly successful, with over 3,000 bear hair samples established Big Game Population Management collected during 8 weeks, and should provide the Plan goals (Table 1). sample size necessary to derive an accurate bear population estimate. Fieldwork will be repeated Population Modeling during 2007 and research results will be available New Hampshire's black bear population is in spring 2008. estimated annually via population reconstruction using estimates of harvest rate, survival, CURRENT ISSUES productivity and known harvest tallies. Sex and Future levels of cultural carrying capacity and age data from all known bear mortalities are used habitat loss continue to represent the most to model the age and sex structure of the significant limiting factors to future bear population and to estimate specific vital rates of populations in New Hampshire. Bear density bears. The Paloheimo & Fraser (1981) model objectives will depend largely on human attitudes utilizes harvest sex and age data to estimate sex- towards bears, specifically the willingness of specific harvest rates based on differential people to accommodate bears and to accept some vulnerability. The female age structure is used to level of bear/human conflicts. Public outreach and estimate age-specific female survival rates. education aimed at reducing bear/human conflicts Estimates of harvest rates, female age-specific and increasing public tolerance will be essential to survival rates and fecundity are used to calculate increase human tolerance towards bears, maximize the annual rate of population change and a cultural carrying capacity and allow more bears on statewide population estimate. the landscape. Deer hunters are survey each fall and hunters Initiatives to eliminate traditional methods of record their observations of bears along with the bear hunting continue to represent a future amount of time spent hunting. This measure of management challenge. Despite continued demand observation per unit effort is used to calculate for bear hunting by various methods, the regional bear observation rates. Observation rates consumptive use of the bear resource continues to are assumed to reflect relative bear densities and be threatened by public perceptions regarding bear are used to allocate the statewide population estimate into regional densities. Table 1. Regional bear population management goals.

Bear/Human Conflicts Current* Documented complaints provide insight to Mgmt. Level From Desired bear/human compatibility and are necessary to Region Goal Model % Change maintain bear populations at levels consistent with North 0.6 0.58 0% human interests. Annual complaints during the last White Mtns 0.8 1.10 -27% Central 0.6 0.36 +67% 5 years have averaged 637 complaints per year, SW 1 0.5 0.61 -18% including 119 agricultural complaints, 187 con- SW 2 0.5 0.30 +67% cerns by the public over health and human safety SE 0.2 0.12 +67% and 330 property damage complaints. The * 2006 data were not available for inclusion in this department passed a rule in 2006 prohibiting the estimate when this report was written.

hunting. If traditional hunting methods were lost, LITERATURE CITED the department's ability to efficiently and Paloheimo, J., and J. Fraser. 1981. Estimation of effectively control bear population growth and Harvest Rate and Vulnerability. Journal of minimize bear/human conflicts would diminish. Wildlife Management 45(4):948-958.

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Number of Bears 100 0 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 2. Annual black bear harvest in New Hampshire, 1983-2006.

NEW JERSEY STATUS REPORT

PATRICK C. CARR, Supervising Wildlife Biologist, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Services Section, Clinton WMA, 141 Van Syckels Road, Hampton, NJ 08827, Tel: 908-735- 8793; Fax: 908-735-6161; E-mail: [email protected]

KELCEY BURGUESS, Principal Wildlife Biologist, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Services Section, Clinton WMA, 141 Van Syckels Road, Hampton, NJ 08827, Tel: 908-735- 8793; Fax: 908-735-6161; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION property damage and safety concerns of residents The NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and farmers. and the NJ Fish and Game Council (Council) have DFW’s bear response policy, which errs on managed black bears as game animals since 1953. the side of human safety, contains the following Through the 1980's the population has increased in Black Bear Rating And Response Criteria: both size and density, and its range has expanded; Category I: bears which constitute a threat to life currently bears have been sighted in all 21 and property. Category I black bears are counties. Black bears in NJ live in close proximity euthanized. Category II: nuisance bears that are to people and human development, taking not a threat to life and property. Category II black advantage of human-derived food sources and bears are aversively conditioned. Category III: protected habitats such as wetlands, undeveloped bears exhibiting normal behavior and not creating open space, and forested waterways. Garden State a nuisance or a threat to human safety. Dispersing bears, like those throughout the Mid-Atlantic bears (urban bears) are Category III. region, gain weight faster, breed earlier and have Since January 2001, DFW has trained nearly larger litters than black bears in other regions of 700 municipal, county and state law enforcement North America. In 2003, the bear population was officers from 123 municipalities and 29 state, estimated at between 1600 and 3200 bears in an county and federal parks to assist DFW in black area N of Route I-80 and W of Route I-287. The bear control. DFW also uses Black Mouth Yellow greatest number of bears and highest density Cur dogs for aversive conditioning. occurs in northern NJ, with progressively less Since 1998, DFW has produced and bears as one travels south and east. There is no distributed nearly 2.5 million pieces of educational statewide bear population estimate for New Jersey. material. DFW provides NJ residents and visitors with techniques and methods for living and MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS recreating in areas where black bears exist. The Managing NJ’s expanding black bear pop- primary message is “Do Not Feed Bears,” either ulation requires a suite of management tools intentionally or unintentionally. DFW regularly according to criteria of consistency with current issues news releases; DFW’s Web Page law, practicability in light of current resource (www.njfishandwildlife.com) provides additional constraints, and demonstrated efficacy (Wolgast et black bear biology, natural history and bear- al. 2005, p. 8). DFW utilizes an integrated black proofing information, including sources for bear- bear management strategy, which includes resistant garbage containers. In 2003 legislation research and monitoring, educating the public was passed banning the intentional feeding of about black bear ecology, proper control of black bears (NJSA 23:2A-14). No municipalities human-derived food, adjusting human activities have mandated bear-resistant garbage cans, so use while within bear range, using aggressive lethal is strictly voluntary. and non-lethal control measures against nuisance Council is legally mandated to provide for a bears to minimize human-bear conflicts, training recreational harvest of abundant species, so has and bear population management. promulgated a limited, regulated bear hunting DFW’s population goal is to maintain bears at season in the annual hunting regulations (Game a density that provides for a stable population Code). However, the NJ Department of within suitable bear habitat, which minimizes Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner emigration of bears to unsuitable habitat in stated that non-lethal methods should be suburban and urban areas and addresses the implemented and analyzed before allowing a hunt to proceed. While these non-lethal elements are

being funded, implemented, and analyzed, the conservative format concurrent with the December Commissioner and Council will develop a Six-Day Firearm Buck Season. The season was comprehensive black bear management policy closed in 2004 by NJ Supreme Court order. (CBBMP), which keeps in mind the common goals Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate, Council of protecting public safety and properly managing developed a CBBMP approved by the DEP black bears in New Jersey, and which is consistent Commissioner and the hunting season was with the Commissioner’s overall environment conducted in 2005. The new DEP Commissioner policies as they pertain to the management of cancelled the hunting season in 2006, committing black bears. to provide funding to adequately implement and analyze the effectiveness of non-lethal tools (such RESEARCH as education, garbage management, research and Recent tag and release captures include: 234 training) before allowing a hunt to proceed. bears in 2006, 274 in 2005, 247 in 2004, 264 in Council has proposed a 2007 black bear hunting 2003, 241 in 2002 and 154 in 2001. DFW has season structured like the 2003 and 2005 hunting verified the following vehicle killed bears: 85 in seasons. 2006, 58 in 2005, 47 in 2004 and 55 in 2003. DFW currently has 31 female bears fitted with radio CURRENT ISSUES collars to monitor reproduction and survival. The On February 28, 2005, the NJ Supreme Court average litter size is 2.7 cubs per litter. The most held that a black bear hunt must conform to a common litter size is 3 (43%), followed by litters CBBMP developed by the Council and approved of 4 (23%) and 2 (22%). by the DEP Commissioner (U.S. Sportsmen’s DFW used land use/ land cover designations Alliance vs. NJ Dept. of Env. Protect. A-69-2004). for forested, wetland, agriculture, urban land, The opinion indicated that comprehensive policies barren land and water in ArcView GIS to partition should include: 1) black bear management the state into 7 Bear Management Zones (BMZ). objectives; 2) a detailed outline for meeting those BMZs 1 through 6 were classified as containing objectives; 3) the tools at the Council’s disposal; sufficient bear habitat to support bears, BMZ 7 as and 4) the criteria used to determine which tools unsuitable for bears. Whereas small areas of are selected. The Council developed a CBBMP forested habitat remain in BMZ 7, they are isolated that was approved by the DEP Commissioner on and cannot sustain a viable bear population. November 14, 2005. DFW operated under the Additionally, the preponderance of suburban and guidelines set by this CBBMP until the new DEP urban land would result in almost certain human- Commissioner rescinded it on November 15, 2006. bear conflicts. Since the enactment of the CBBMP DFW then reverted back to the policy in place on in November 2005, 5 bears (5M) have been November 11, 2000. euthanized in BMZ 7. The current DEP Commissioner said DEP Fertility control is very unlikely to be a would fully implement non-lethal bear manage- feasible means of managing black bear populations ment methods and analyze their effectiveness in NJ, according to a report commissioned by DEP before holding another hunt. To support the non- (Frakker et al. 2006). lethal initiative, the Governor has proposed an In 2005, DEP provided a $200,000 Com- $850,000 state-budget appropriation to fund munity Grant to West Milford Township to expanded public education programs, aversive purchase and deploy bear resistance garbage cans conditioning and research. Personnel will be hired in selected neighborhoods. In a cooperative study, to increase the level of public education and DEP and the Township will test the efficacy of this nuisance bear response and to evaluate aversive program. conditioning techniques used by DFW and local police. DFW will establish a new study area in the HARVEST lower bear density area between I-80 and I-78 to Limited hunting was authorized for 10 seasons gain bear population parameters (density, birth from 1958-1970; Council closed the season in rates and survival) in an area occupied by bears but 1971. Council proposed a hunting season in 2000 which exhibits different habitat characteristics and then suspended it in favor of a more aggressive human development pressures compared to the integrated black bear management strategy that two study areas already established and studied for included an enhanced educational effort, increased the past thirty years. research and monitoring activities, and more On March 6, 2007, the NJ State Superior aggressive control measures. Council reinstated a Court Appellate Division ordered DEP to limited hunting season for December 2003, using a promulgate a new bear policy by August 10, 2007

and to prepare briefs to argue lawsuits filed by NJ Frakker, M.A., P.D. Curtis, and M. Mansour. State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs Inc. v. DEP 2006. An Analysis of the Feasibility of Using (A-1382-06T3) and NJ Animal Rights Alliance v. Fertility Control to Manage New Jersey Black DEP (A-1463-05T3) on September 6, 2007. Bear Populations, 44 pp.: available at: www. state.nj.us/dep/dsr/bear and www.state.nj.us/dep/ LITERATURE CITED dsr/bear/bearreport.pdf Wolgast, L.J., W.S. Ellis and J. Vreeland. 2005: DEP website also contains information about Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy. enforcement sweeps on illegal feeding of black Available at: www.njfishandwildlife.com/ bears. Available at: www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/ bearpolicy05.htm; www.njfishandwildlife.com/ 2007/07_0011.htm and www.nj.gov/dep/ pdf/2005/bearpolicy05. pdf; www.njfishand enforcement/advisories/2007-03.pdf wildlife.com/pdf/2005/bearpolicy05_letter.pdf; ww.njfishandwildlife.com/pdf/2006/ letter_to_ council.pdf

NEW YORK STATUS REPORT

JEREMY HURST, Big Game Biologist, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-4754, Tel: 518-402-8867; Fax: 518-402-8925; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION male) in 2006, yet still was more than double the The black bear has been classified as a big harvests seen less than a decade ago. game animal in New York State since 1903 and In the fall of 2004 the DEC responded to has been protected through annual hunting seasons increasing black bear populations by amending the regulated by the NYS Department of Envir- black bear hunting regulations to include two new onmental Conservation (DEC). Black bears have Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) in the been observed in all counties north of New York Catskill range (WMUs 4O and 4P) and seven City but are regularly found in three distinct WMUs in the Allegany range (WMUs 9J, 9K, 9M, geographic ranges, each being managed separately. 9N, 9P, 9S and 9W). Additionally, 3 more WMUs The largest area encompasses the Adirondack were opened to bear hunting for the 2006 season in range (ca. 24,000 km2) and has a population of the Catskill range (WMUs 4F, 4G, and 4H). There about 5,000 bears. Additionally, the Catskill range were 17 bears harvested in the 3 new WMU’s (ca. 3,300 km2) with a population of about 1,500- (4F,4G, and 4H) combined for 2006. 2,000 bears and the Allegany range (ca. 1,200 km2) with a population of about 300 bears MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS comprise the remainder of core bear ranges in New New York’s first statewide Black Bear York State. The Catskill and Allegany ranges Management Plan, based upon the principles of represent the northern edge of larger interstate bear Adaptive Impact Management (AIM) was released populations shared with Pennsylvania and New to the public in 2003. A key component of the Jersey. Black Bear Management Plan is the creation and In areas outside the core bear ranges, bear use of Stakeholder Input Groups (SIGs) that are populations and instances of bear-related nuisance tasked to identify and prioritize bear impacts and activity and damage have increased substantially to help DEC staff articulate black bear in recent years. These areas have also reported an management objectives for a specific geographic increased number of bear sightings and non- area. Three SIGs were established during the fall hunting bear mortalities. and winter of 2003-04 to recommend actions which might enhance positive impacts and lessen BEAR HARVEST negative impacts in the Allegany portion, and Hunters harvested a total of 796 black bears northern and southern Catskill portions of New statewide during the 2006 bear hunting seasons. York’s bear range. Based upon input received The number of bears taken varies across New during the SIG proceedings, modifications to black York’s three bear ranges with take in the bear hunting season structure, areas open to Adirondacks appearing to be strongly influenced hunting and season timing were included as a part by natural food abundance. Bear harvest in the of an overall big game season restructuring during Catskill and Allegany ranges has followed a the 2004 and 2005 seasons. general increasing trend over the past decade In April 2006, a fourth SIG was held despite annual fluctuations. representing 3 counties east of the Hudson River The Adirondack take of 318 bears (55% male) along the Massachusetts and Vermont border. was far below the previous 10-yr average and was Stakeholders in these counties acknowledged low the lowest harvest for the range since 1998. The levels of bear related damage but recognized the Catskill harvest of 365 bears (56% male) was need for preservation of bear habitat and down from the record harvest of 494 bears in promotion of information about black bears. Bear 2005. Although this was a 25% decline in the hunting was not tabled as a necessary management Catskills, the harvest fits within a predictable action from the stakeholders perspective at this pattern seen in the Catskill range and was still the time. 3rd highest take for the area. Bear harvest in the In November, 2006 DEC’s Bear Management Allegany range declined by 5% to 113 bears (56% Team completed a revision of our Black Bear

Response Manual, first issued in 2000. The enticement of bears to the MREs. The overall goal Response Manual reflects our current procedures of this research is to evaluate the movements, for effectively handling bear nuisance problems. nuisance behavior, and deterrent methods for black bears in relation to military training on Fort Drum. RESEARCH This study is expected to continue throughout Adirondack Bear Study 2006 with findings to be analyzed and available in In recent years, there has been a significant 2007. increase in negative bear-human interactions in the Marcy Dam/ Lake Colden corridor of the High Bear Movements following Translocation Peaks Wilderness Area in the Adirondack bear DEC staff in the Lower Hudson Valley/ range. This area is a popular camping and hiking Catskill region have begun using GPS and VHF area that receives approximately 150,000 visitors collars to track movements of black bears that each year. Black bears in this area have become have been captured in urban and suburban habituated to people and frequently steal visitor=s environments and translocated for release. food and destroy personal property. DEC staff placed GPS collars on several nuisance bears to Population Estimate in the Catskill Bear Range learn more about their movements in this area. The DEC will be initiating a mark-recapture results of this research will be used to determine a project in the Catskill range in the spring of 2007 long-term plan for decreasing bear-human using tetracycline laced baits to mark black bears. interactions in areas with a high degree of valuable Population estimates generated from the tetra- recreational use. Limited analysis of the data cycline marking will be compared to traditional revealed that adult males were the primary population reconstructions and evaluated for nuisance bears. Bear activity in the High Peaks efficacy in achieving bear management objectives. was continual, although use of the area by We view this as a pilot study with potential for individual bears was inconsistent. Regulations expanded use throughout the state on a routine passed in the summer of 2005 require the man- basis. datory use of bear-resistant food canisters for any Currently, population estimates for each of overnight visitors in this area. New York’s bear ranges are reconstructions based on sex and age distributions of hunter killed bears, Taste Aversion road kills, and bears handled during nuisance Research continues with biologists from the abatement. This management model results in a United States Department of Army Military minimum known population because it is based on Reservation at Fort Drum, NY, related to the the life spans and cohorts of known animals. effectiveness of conditioned taste aversion with nuisance bears. At the military base black bears CURRENT ISSUES regularly seek out, obtain and consume Bear populations in New York’s southern bear prepackaged military foods, known as meals- ranges are growing and expanding their range. ready-to-eat (MREs). These bear activities are a Observations of bears and bear-human conflicts nuisance to personnel and hinder training are increasing in areas outside the traditional core operations. Fort Drum biologists and a graduate bear ranges and more frequently these situations student from Cornell University are currently are including sows with cubs. DEC staff will testing the use of thiabendazole, a chemical de- develop population conservation objectives on a worming agent, in attempts to decrease the range-wide basis in these areas.

NORTH CAROLINA STATUS REPORT

MARK D. JONES, Black Bear Project Leader, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 5275 NC 118 Highway, Grifton, NC 28530-8829, Tel: 252-524-3443; Cell: 252-286-4721; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION rate. In both regions, black bears have shown North Carolina has 2 disjunct black bear remarkable adaptability to varying landscape populations that should be discussed separately. conditions, and human tolerance of bears appears Bears are common in the Appalachian Mountains to be high. of western North Carolina and throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain in the east. Bears occupy HARVEST DATA approximately 19,420 km2 (7,498 mi.2) in the North Carolina harvests are best evaluated by mountains and 38,034 km2 (14,685 mi.2) in the region, but the statewide harvest in North Carolina coastal plain. Bears are also sighted in Piedmont has averaged 1,597 over the last 5 years. Both areas on the fringe of mountain and coastal range, mountain (5 year average = 541) and coastal but populations are not well established in the harvests (5 year average = 1,056) have increased Piedmont. Since the 1970’s, primary bear range since 1976. Mountain harvests were generally has expanded significantly filling in most of what higher than coastal harvests until 1988. Since that we consider potential range. North Carolina’s time, coastal harvests have increased dramatically mountain bear population is part of a larger to a record of 1,107 bears in 2001. population shared by northern Georgia, eastern The North Carolina coastal plain has Tennessee, and northwestern South Carolina. Over developed a reputation for producing heavy bears the last decade, bear populations have also with dozens of bears in excess of 600 lbs. expanded in northwestern North Carolina and harvested each year. A male black bear weighing linked with bears along the Virginia border. 880 lbs. was harvested in the central coastal plain Mountain bear populations have increased since in November of the 1998 season. 1970 and have been stable since 1990. The coastal bear population occupies the largest, contiguous MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS block of bear range in the Southeastern coastal There are 8 main components to North plain. North Carolina’s coastal bear population has Carolina’s black bear management program. These increased since 1970 and stabilized over the last 5- include: 1) regulations, 2) enforcement, 3) 10 years. sanctuaries, 4) habitat management, 5) monitoring, One of the primary goals of our bear 6) education, 7) nuisance bear programs, and 8) management program is to manage for population research. levels that provide maximum recreational opportunities and acceptable levels of damage or Sanctuaries nuisance problems while also ensuring the long- In 1971, the NCWRC established 28 bear term viability of populations. As a result of sanctuaries in eastern and western NC. Currently, increased bear and human populations, bear- we have a system of over 365,000 acres of human conflicts have increased over the last 10 NCWRC “designated” black bear sanctuary with years in some areas. Increases in bear-human hundreds of thousands of additional acres of lands conflicts are one of the challenges to maintaining set aside as “De Facto” sanctuary because current bear numbers and range. Habitat loss also landowners chose to limit or restrict hunting. continues to be a problem in both regions. Many areas such as National and State Parks or Furthermore, black bears continue to adapt to Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and municipal abundant agricultural food resources that may watersheds act as “De Facto” sanctuaries. supplement declining natural habitats (Jones et al. 1998, Jones and Pelton 2003). In the mountains, Monitoring federal ownership of National Forests and the Bear hunters are required to register kills, and Great Smoky Mountain National Park provides NCWRC personnel maintain records on the total stability for core areas within primary bear range. number of bears killed due to other causes such as However, human development of private lands vehicle collisions and depredation. NCWRC adjacent to the public areas continues at a rapid personnel collect teeth and reproductive tracts

from bears dying from all causes. An average of Research Programs 750 premolar teeth and 150 female reproductive Since the 1970’s, the NCWRC has partially tracts are collected from bears dying of all causes funded and participated in over 10 bear studies each year. Population reconstruction, incorporating conducted by graduate students with North various subsets of these data, is used to examine Carolina State University, The University of population trends (Downing 1980). Current Tennessee, Virginia Tech, and the University of models estimate North Carolina’s bear population Georgia. We have been highly involved in at approximately 11,000 animals with approx- research into the use of underpasses on new imately 7,000 on the Coast and 4,000 in the Highways in North Carolina to mitigate the effects Mountains. of road building (van Manen et al. 2001). In the mountains, we adopted the sardine bait index method developed by University of LITERATURE CITED Tennessee researchers working in the Great Downing, R.L. 1980. Vital statistics of animal Smoky Mountains National Park (Johnson and populations. Pages 247-267 in S. D. Schemnitz, Pelton 1980). The information from this survey is editor. Wildlife techniques manual. The Wildlife used to provide information on population trends Society, Washington, D.C., USA. and to compliment the nearly 1,900 stations set in Johnson, K.G. and M.R. Pelton. 1980. Prebaiting the Southern Appalachian region.Important bear and snaring techniques for black bears. Wildlife foods are monitored annually. Each August, Society Bulletin 8:46-54. NCWRC personnel conduct a hard mast survey Jones, M.D., G.S. Warburton, and M.R. Pelton. (Whitehead 1969) to derive an index of mast 1998. Models for predicting occupied black bear abundance. Beginning in 1992, we implemented a habitat in coastal North Carolina. Ursus 10:203- soft mast survey to coincide with the bait station 207. and hard mast surveys. These data assist with Jones, M.D. and M.R. Pelton. 2003. Female interpretation of trend indicators and other data. American black bear use of managed forest and agricultural lands in Coastal North Carolina. Education Ursus 14(2):188-197. In 2004, our Black Bear Program completed a Van Manen, F.T., M.D. Jones, J.L. Kindall, L.M. 36 minute documentary on the state’s black bear Thompson, and B.K. Scheick. 2001. populations. The Bear Facts, The Story of a North Determining the potential mitigation effects of Carolina Treasure contains 5 segments: history and wildlife passageways on black bears. biology, research and monitoring, coexisting with International Conference on Ecology and bears, hunting tradition, and the future of black Transportation 4:435-446. bears in North Carolina. The documentary has Whitehead, C.J. 1969. Oak mast yields on wildlife aired on local television networks throughout management areas in Tennessee. Tennessee North Carolina, and NCWRC has plans to Game and Fish, unpublished report. distribute the documentary to school teachers, Hunter Education Instructors, libraries, museums, and other parties. In 2007, we completed an Interactive Educator’s Edition DVD which will be presented at this workshop.

OHIO STATUS REPORT

SUZIE PRANGE, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Waterloo Wildlife Research Station, 360 East State Street, Athens, OH 45701.

INTRODUCTION counties. The sightings of a sow with cubs in O.D.N.R. Division of Wildlife Procedure 6 Ashtabula and Mahoning counties were confirmed and the “Black Bear Observation Report” form by Division of Wildlife personnel. provide the basis for tracking, reporting, and Bear sightings were reported in 20 Ohio summarizing sightings of black bears in Ohio. In counties during 2006 (Fig. 1). Most of the 2006, 113 sightings involving an estimated 67 sightings were in Wildlife District 3 (Northeastern individual black bears were received (Table 1). In Ohio) counties. Ashtabula County led the state 2005, 105 sightings involving an estimated 58 with 44 sightings followed by Geauga (19 individual black bears were received. The number sightings) and Trumbull (13 sightings) counties. of individual bears is a subjective judgment and probably an underestimate. Twenty-seven (24%) of the 113 sightings were confirmed by O.D.N.R. Division of Wildlife personnel. The 27 confirmed sightings were recorded in 10 counties and involved an estimated 22 bears. Twenty-nine (26%) of the reported sightings involved damage or nuisance situations. The 29 sightings involved an estimated 20 individual bears in 7 counties. None of the 20 black bears involved in nuisance situations in 2006 were trapped and relocated. Nuisance black bear situations recorded during 2006 included damage to several bird feeders, bee hives, and garbage containers in Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, Mahoning, Perry, and Trumbull counties. Reports of grills being damaged by black bears were received from Figure 1. Ohio counties with a black bear obser- Ashtabula, Geauga, and Mahoning counties. vation during 2006. Damage to apple trees, pumpkins, and ornamental plants was attributed to black bears in Ashtabula, Columbiana, Mahoning, and Trumbull counties. A horse in Trumbull County was reportedly injured by a black bear. Miscellaneous property damage was attributed to a bear in Ashtabula County. A black bear was struck and killed by a vehicle on 25 June in Athens County. A bear reportedly ran away following a vehicle strike in Portage County on 6 March. Black bear sightings were received during every month in 2006 except for January and February, peak months for black bear denning (Table 1). Seventy-four percent of the sightings were reported during May, June, and July, coincident with peak black bear breeding activity and dispersal of juvenile males. There were 4 reported sightings of a sow with cubs during 2006. A sow with 2 cubs was reported from Ashtabula and Stark counties; sightings of 1 sow with 1 cub Figure 2. Ohio counties where black bear sightings have been reported, 1981 – 2006. were reported from Ashland and Mahoning

Informal records from 1981 through 1992, Compared with years since 1993, 2006 was an coupled with formal sightings from 1993 through average year for black bear sightings (Fig. 3). the present, show bear observations in 53 We thank Division of Wildlife personnel who predominately eastern and south-central counties were involved in investigating, reporting, and (Fig. 2). Black bear sightings have been confirmed summarizing observations. in 42 of the 53 counties since 1993 (Fig. 2).

180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60

40 30 20 10 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sightings 28 47 56 38 46 25 56 66 128 165 65 91 105 113 Individuals 10 29 35 25 28 22 24 43 55 49 41 34 58 67 Confirmed 7 17 15 14 11 5 14 17 41 58 18 46 43 27

Figure 3. Reported bear sightings, number of bears, and number of confirmed bears in Ohio, 1993 – 2006.

ONTARIO STATUS REPORT

MARIA H. de ALMEIDA, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, P.O. Box 7000, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 8M5, Tel: 705-755-1934; Fax: 705- 755-1900; E-mail: [email protected]

MARTYN E. OBBARD, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Research and Development Section, Applied Research and Development Branch, Trent University, DNA Building, 2140 East Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8, Tel: 705-755-1549; Fax: 705-755-1559; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION Ontario uses harvest as the primary means of The management of Ontario’s 75,000-100,000 monitoring the bear population. An estimated 6- bears has received increased attention in recent 8% of the population is harvested annually. years. Contributing factors include: (1) increased Female bears comprise about 30% of the harvest. sightings and human-bear conflicts due to natural Using a crest incentive program, about 44% of food problems and the expansion of development bears harvested (2,722 premolar teeth in 2005) are into bear habitat; (2) concern about a potential aged annually. Results indicate that adult females increase in the bear population since the 1999 (≥5 years) generally comprise about 20% of the spring season cancellation; (3) gradual expansion harvest. These figures are within the harvest of bears into developed areas of southern Ontario sustainability guidelines of an annual harvest of no likely due to increases in old field habitat and in more than 10% of the population, with no more development near the southern edge of bear range; than 40% females and 20% adult females. and (4) safety concerns following several serious bear encounters and the 2005 human fatality in MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Ontario’s Missinaibi Provincial Park. To enhance hunting opportunities, the fall season was extended by two weeks in 2004 in HARVEST many northern Wildlife Management Units The annual sale of bear hunting licenses has (WMUs) and resident hunters were permitted to remained relatively stable at about 22,000 licenses. purchase a second bear game seal in those WMUs Resident license sales have increased slightly, with no sustainability concerns. Current open while non-resident license sales appear to have season length is 11-13 weeks. Interested hunters stabilized since the 43% (about 5,000 licenses) purchased just over 90 second bear game seals in drop in sales in 1999. 2006. An average of 5,107 bears has been harvested Human-bear conflicts continue to receive annually (during the fall) by hunters since 1999, significant public and media attention. Natural with the 2005 harvest exceeding 6,000 bears (Fig. food supplies in recent years have been affected by 1). The average annual harvest from 1990-1998 late springs, a 100-year mid-summer drought in was 6,848 bears, with about 60% of the harvest 2001 that caused soft and hard mast failure in taken during the spring season. Non-resident central Ontario, and hot and dry conditions across harvest dropped from 70-80% to about 65% of the Ontario in 2005 and in northwestern Ontario in annual harvest since 1999. 2006. The 1995 berry failure may have syn- Resident reporting of hunting activity and chronized reproduction resulting in a large year harvest became mandatory in 2005; non-resident class born in 1997 that may have contributed to reporting has been in place since 1987. Trappers bear problems in 1999 and subsequent years. Adult have reported bears harvested since the 1998/99 female bears in central Ontario appear to have trapping season, with 57 bears reported in the been further synchronized by the 2001 drought 2005-06 season. with large year classes born in 2003, 2005 and In 2006, 748 tourist operators were licensed to expected in 2007. provide bear hunting services to non-residents. In 2002, the Minister of Natural Resources Non-residents have been required to hunt through appointed the Nuisance Bear Review Committee operators since 1987 and, consequently, their to carry out an independent review of the success rate is much higher than that of resident perceived increase in bear problems since 1999. hunters. The committee found that the number of nuisance

complaints was inversely related to natural food • partnerships such as cooperative research availability rather than to abundance of bears studies to assess effectiveness of bear (Nuisance Bear Review Committee 2003). In deterrents (e.g., electric fencing, aversive response to the report, OMNR launched Bear Wise conditioning), and Bear Wise community in 2004, a program aimed at the long-term Champions. reduction of human-bear conflicts through pre- To assess population trends over 100 bait lines vention and education and awareness. Reporting are monitored annually as part of a permanent and response are two additional cornerstones of province-wide population index network (BBPIN). the program. OMNR has the lead role in Since 2004, DNA fingerprinting of bear hair coordinating the management of human-bear collected in barbed-wire traps has been used as a conflicts in collaboration with municipalities, mark-recapture technique to provide improved aboriginal and unorganized communities, police, estimates of bear abundance and to monitor stakeholders and individuals. Accomplishments to populations over time. It will take up to 7 years to date include: obtain estimates for all WMUs in bear range. A • a Bear Wise web site: //bears.mnr.gov.on.ca provincial population estimate will be determined • a Bear Reporting Centre and a 24-hour, 7-days by pooling abundance estimates. The work will a week, toll-free phone line also determine the relationship between abundance • an electronic Bear Incident and Response estimates and hit rates obtained through BBPIN. Tracking Application (BIRTA) to track problem bears calls and their response RESEARCH • a comprehensive communication and public Analysis continues on the data from the 1989- awareness program 2000 mark-recapture study conducted to determine • response memorandums and protocols with the effects of hunting on bears in the Boreal forest many communities and police services zone. Habitat selection and population dynamics • support of community-based bear prevention, are the current focus. awareness and public education projects with A cooperative project between Parks Canada 338 community projects funded in 2004-06 and OMNR to study an isolated bear population on (e.g., hazard assessments, bear-resistant the Bruce Peninsula concluded in 2006. Pub- containers, electric fencing) lications include an evaluation of the population • a Bear Wise e-book for children (and viability of black bears (Howe 2002), the use of a appropriate for adults) distance-based approach to examine seasonal • a school curriculum on bears for Grades 2, 4 habitat use and den site selection (Coady 2005), and 7, and and an investigation of the genetic structure of

12,000 Non-resident tourist industry requirement 10,000 Spring Season Cancellation 8,000

6,000

4,000 Bears harvestedBears 2,000

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Resident Non-resident Total

Figure 1. Annual number of black bears harvested by residents and non-resident hunters. Source of data: OMNR socio-economic surveys, and resident and non-resident hunt questionnaires.

black bears (Mills 2005). range utilization distributions. Environmetrics Recent collaborative research includes 16: 33-50. development of a statistical technique to treat auto- Howe, E.J. 2002. Population viability analysis for correlated data in home range analyses (Hines et black bears (Ursus americanus) on the Bruce al. 2005), and ongoing development of a stochastic Peninsula, Ontario, Canada. M.Sc. Thesis, Trent life table population model, RISKMAN, designed University. 217pp. to model species that reproduce multi-annually and Mills, K. 2005. Genetic analysis of the black bear provide care to young (e.g., bears; Taylor et al. (Ursus americanus) in Ontario. M.Sc. thesis, 2003). Managers can use the model to predict the Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, population consequences of changes in harvest Canada. 120 pp. structure. Copies of the software can be down- Nuisance Bear Review Committee. 2003. loaded free of charge from http://www.nrdpfc.ca/ Committee report and recommendations. RISKMAN/. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Current initiatives include: a moose-bear-wolf Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. 63 pp. http:// study in Algonquin Provincial Park and Parry nuisancebear.mnr.gov.on.ca/ Sound areas in collaboration with Trent Taylor, M., M. Obbard, B. Pond, M. Kuc, and D. University, University of Toronto, and University Abraham. 2003. A guide to using RISKMAN: of Massachusetts to investigate limiting factors on Stochastic and deterministic population moose populations in southcentral Ontario, use of modeling RISK MANagement decision tool for data from GPS-collared bears to evaluate a harvested and unharvested populations, Version recently developed habitat model for bears in the 1.9. © Government of Nunavut and Queen’s Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forest that is part of a Printer for Ontario (available online at landscape guide for forest management planning; http://www.nrdpfc.ca/RISKMAN/riskman2.htm) and continued investigation of the landscape genetic structure of bears in Ontario. RECENT LITERATURE Howe, E.J., M.E. Obbard, and J. Schaefer. 2007. CURRENT ISSUES Extirpation risk of an isolated black bear OMNR is currently working on the population under different management development of a framework for enhanced black scenarios. Journal of Wildlife Management bear management that will establish a landscape 71(2) in press. and ecologically based common approach to long- Cattet, M.R.L. and M.E. Obbard. 2005. To weigh term decision-making in the management of bears, or not to weigh—conditions for the estimation including development of a common landscape of body mass by morphometry. Ursus 16:102- and ecologically based planning process and 107. ecologically based decision-making tools. de Almeida. M.H. and M.E. Obbard. 2005. Ontario The Bear Wise program, now in its fourth status report. Eastern Workshop on Black Bear year, is being normalized. Research and Management 17:93-101. Hines, W.G.S., R.J. O'Hara Hines, B. Pond, and LITERATURE CITED M.E. Obbard. 2005. Allowing for redundancy Coady, M.B. 2005. A distance-based analysis of and environmental effects in estimates of home seasonal habitat use and den site selection by range utilization distributions. Environmetrics American black bears (Ursus americanus) on 16: 33-50. the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario. M.Sc. thesis, Usui, M., P.G. Kevan, and M.E. Obbard. 2005. Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Pollination and breeding system of lowbush Canada. 143 pp. blueberries, Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. and V. Hines, W.G.S., R.J. O'Hara Hines, B. Pond, and myrtilloides Michx. (Ericacaeae), in the boreal M.E. Obbard. 2005. Allowing for redundancy forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist 119:48-57. and environmental effects in estimates of home

PENNSYLVANIA STATUS REPORT

MARK A. TERNENT, Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2001 Elmerton Ave, Harrisburg, PA 17110, Tel.: 717-787-5529; Fax: 717-787-3292; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION About 3% or 1 in 35 hunters are successful at The primary bear range in Pennsylvania harvesting a bear, which is an increase from 1.7% covers approximately two-thirds of the state. The (1 in 60 hunters) during the late 1980s. Weather southeast corner and parts of the western border and fall food conditions greatly influence year-to- are not part of the primary bear range, although year variations. Nonresident and resident license bear activity is occasional documented. holders have almost equal success rates. The statewide bear population was estimated Commercial guiding is rare, but hunting in to be near 15,000 bears in 2006 based on mark- organized groups (i.e., drives) is common. recapture data, which is quadruple the number Regulations limit the size of organized drives to 25 estimated to be in Pennsylvania during the late people or less. 1970s. Annual population estimates were increase- Harvests have doubled since 1986 and are ing an average of 395 bears/year between 1980 now averaging close to 3,000 bears per year. The and 1999, but since 2000, estimates have been two largest harvests on record occurred during the relatively stable (Fig. 1). Population recovery past two years: 4,164 bears in 2005 and 3,122 during the past 25 years is believed to be the result bears in 2006. Harvest rates average 20% during of mast-producing forests expanding or maturing, the statewide, three-day season. In areas were the bears dispersing naturally or by trap-and-transfer extended season is open, harvest rates range into new areas, and human-caused mortality between 20% and 35%. decreasing. Equal numbers of males and females are typically killed. Males predominate in younger age HARVEST classes (1 to 3 years old) while females A regulated hunting season for black bears increasingly outnumber males in older age classes. was first established in 1905 and has occurred The average age of harvested bears is 2.5 years annually except for closed seasons in 1934, 1970, because cubs and yearlings comprise 58% of the 1977, and 1978. Season length and timing has harvest. Average live-weights of harvested bears varied. Today, a statewide, three-day hunting are: cubs, 82 lbs; 1 to 3 year-old males, 203 lbs; 1 season occurs Monday to Wednesday the week of to 3 year-old females, 160 lbs; 4+ males, 441 lbs; Thanksgiving. A two-day archery season and a and 4+ females, 217 lbs. Larger bears are possible. six-day extended season also occur in select areas Four bears exceeding 800 pounds have been taken of the state before and after the three-day season, in the past five years, and most years, at least 50 respectively. Traps, bait, lures, and hounds cannot be used. Any bear is legal game, except those in 20,000 dens. Only one bear can be taken per license year. 18,000 A general hunting license (resident $20.00; 16,000 nonresident $101.00) and bear license (resident 14,000 $16.00; nonresident $36.00) is required. Hunters 12,000 must bring bears to a check station within 24 10,000 hours. Edible parts of bears, which include gall 8,000 bladders, cannot be sold, but successful hunters can sell inedible parts within 90 days of harvest. 6,000 4,000 Bear licenses are available over-the-counter at BearStatewide Population any license-issuing agent. About 3% are purchased 2,000 by nonresidents. License sales have steadily 0 increased and now average 135 to 140 thousand per year. However, despite record license sales, the 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 number of hunters pursuing bears is still Figure 1. Trend in statewide bear population significantly less than in the 1970s when a bear estimates. Estimates are calculated using mark- license was not required and bear hunters were recapture data. Dotted lines are upper and lower 95% estimated to be near 250,000. confidence intervals.

bears weighing 500 or more pounds are killed. In conflicts is continuously being distributed through 2005, a 733 lb bear was harvested in the southwest ongoing education/outreach efforts. Reducing region of the state that is presently tied for the human-bear conflicts is a management priority. largest legally harvested black bear in the world based on Boone & Crockett scoring. RESEARCH Approximately 600 bears are captured and MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ear-tagged annually in Pennsylvania. Wildlife Pennsylvania’s statewide bear season is Conservation officers do most of the trapping. The currently managed to harvest 20% of the bear primary reason for tagging is to provide an annual population. In areas where local bear populations sample of marked bears that, when com-bined with are believed to be significantly above social the annual harvest (recapture), permits population carrying capacity, an extended season is added to size to be estimated. Ear-tag data also are used to achieve higher harvest rates. monitor age structure, survival, dispersal, and Harvest rates during the statewide season have distribution characteristics of the population, as averaged 20.0% since 1986 with very little well as establishing histories for bears involved in variation (95% CI=18.6%–21.4%). When the 20% nuisance situations. The annual statewide tagging harvest objective was established, it was believed effort and associated mark-recapture population to be adequate for stabilizing the bear population estimate is expected to continue. at 10,000 animals. Given that population estimates Together with the Pennsylvania State have continued to increase beyond that number, University Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Re- and in response to a growing number of requests, search Unit, we are researching statistical an archery bear season was added in 2006 to variations of the Lincoln-Petersen mark-recapture approximately half of the primary bear. Because a estimator as possible alternatives for monitoring large number of hunters expressed interest in an populations. We also have an ongoing study of archery season but we had no data to predict denning chronology, survival, and reproduction in participation or success, the season was limited to north central Pennsylvania. Research to estimate two midweek days outside the archery white-tailed the prevalence and distribution of sarcoptic mange deer season. The extended season, which occurs in in Pennsylvania bears and related mortality rates is select areas of the state during the week after the being proposed, and we are preparing to develop statewide three-day season, was created in 2002 to predictive population models by management unit reduce local bear populations were human-bear to use with harvest management planning. conflict levels were high. The six-day extension occurs during the white-tailed deer firearms CURRENT ISSUES season, and has primarily been limited to parts of A state management plan for black bears was northeast Pennsylvania. The size of the extended approved in 2006. An important aspect of the new season area has varied each year, ranging from plan is to shift from statewide to management unit 1,500 square-miles in 2002 to 8,000 square-miles objectives. To implement this change, population in 2005. Approximately, 5,100 square-miles were objectives need to be developed for individual open in 2006. In one particular management unit, management units. Social carrying capacity is which has been open to extended hunting each of expected to influence population objectives more the past 5 years, bear population estimates have so than biological issues. Consequently, develop- decreased by approximately 50%. The extended ment of population objectives may require season will be shortened to 4 days in this area considerable public input and/or human dimension during 2007. survey work. A statewide database for recording human- Data needs also may change with bear conflicts was implemented in October 2002. implementation of a management unit system. Between 1,100 and 1,600 entries are recorded Bears in northeast Pennsylvania have been studied annually. More than half typically occur in the more than any other region of the state. However, northeast region of the state. Statewide, conflict as unit-specific models are developed, it may numbers were down in 2005, but increased to near become apparent that northeast values cannot be 2003-04 levels last year. A regulation prohibiting applied across all units because conditions are the feeding of bears was passed in March 2003 to different. help reduce conflicts, and information on avoiding

RHODE ISLAND STATUS REPORT

CHARLES BROWN, Principal Wildlife Biologist, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, Great Swamp Field Headquarters, 277 Great Neck Road, West Kingston, RI 02892, Tel: 401-789-0281; Fax: 401-783-7490; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION activity in 2001, the DEM purchased an aluminum It is not known how many black bears culvert style trap and developed a protocol for currently occur in Rhode Island. Black bears were handling nuisance bears. To date the trap has not extirpated in the state probably before 1800. In been deployed nor has there been any need to haze recent years sightings of bears and complaints or capture a problem black bear. related to bear activity have been sporadic. The year 2000 was unprecedented for the number of HARVEST bear sightings and complaints that were reported to There is no open season for black bears. the Department of Environmental Management (Fig. 1). A total of 133 reports were logged, from a MANAGEMENT total of 14 different towns. There were reports of There are no management programs underway bears with blue ear tags, yellow ear tags, red tags in Rhode Island. In 2001, a protocol for handling or no tags at all. There were several reports of nuisance bears was developed. Informational sows with cubs. Since that time, sighting reports materials were printed and made available on the have declined, with only two reported sightings in DEM website. 2003, four sighting reports in 2004 and no reports in 2005 (Table 1). In January 2006, an Exeter, R.I. RESEARCH resident reported a possible bear tracks in snow There are no bear research studies underway. around a poultry pen on their property. Investigation by Environmental Police Officers CURRENT ISSUES/REGULATIONS and photographs appeared to confirm this report. The taking of black bear by any method is There have been no other sightings in the area prohibited except as provided under special permit since that time. Second and third hand reports, as issued by the Director of the Department of yet unconfirmed, indicated a bear was filmed by a Environmental Management. Feeding of black surveillance camera in June 2006 rummaging bears, or using any method to entice or through a dumpster in the town of Foster, on the intentionally attract black bears is prohibited by Connecticut state line. In September 2006, a sow regulation. with a cub was reported crossing a road in the town of Scituate, within a 12,000-acre area of protected land owned by the Providence Water Supply Board. All reported sightings have been in western Rhode Island, in Providence, Kent and Washington counties. In response to the spike of

Table 1. Number of black bear sightings in Rhode Island.

No. of No. of towns Year sightings w/ sightings 1998 4 3 1999 0 0 2000 133 14 2001 31 9 2002 4 4 2003 2 2 2004 4 4 2005 0 0 Figure 1. Number of black bear sightings in Rhode 2006 2 2 Island, 2000.

SOUTH CAROLINA STATUS REPORT

HUGH R. STILL, JR., South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 153 Hopewell Road, Pendleton, SC 29670, Tel: 864-654-1671 ext. 19; Fax: 864-654-9168; E-Mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Two populations of bear exist in South South Carolina Department of Natural Carolina: one located in the mountains and Resources (SCDNR) personnel in cooperation foothills region in Oconee, Pickens, Greenville, with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and others Spartanburg and Anderson counties, the other in annually plant about 50 acres of wildlife openings the northern coastal plain. Black bear in the in bear range. About 250,000 acres of bear habitat mountains and foothills of South Carolina are in South Carolina is publicly owned. Considerable expanding their range to the south and east and the work has been completed to improve access roads population increasing. The northern coastal plain in the Jocassee Gorges, which is a 33,000-acre population is stable. The primary threat to the area owned by SCDNR. SCDNR personnel serve state’s bear population appears to be residential on the Southern Appalachian Black Bear and commercial developments and new and Committee and the Southeastern Black Bear existing highways. Committee. The Southeastern Association of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries signed an MOU HARVEST with the USFS during 2005. South Carolina was Bear hunting is restricted to Game Zone 1 instrumental in this endeavor. consisting of sections of Oconee, Pickens and Greenville counties. The season for individual still RESEARCH hunting is October 17-23 and October 24-30 for The scent line surveys established in 1988 “party” dog hunts. Limits for still-hunts are one were continued during 2005 and suspended during bear, no cubs (100 pounds or less) and no sows 2006. Biologists decided to do the survey every with cubs. Limits for party dog hunts are three per other year. Scent line surveys resulted in visitation party (same size and sex restrictions as still hunt). rates of 79 and 54 percent during 2005 on the core Harvested bear must be reported to the nearest and fringe areas, respectively. The scent line Department of Natural Resources office within 24 surveys indicate that the bear population is hours. Thirty-four (18 male, 16 female) and 51 (24 expanding. Numerous reports of black bear sighted male, 27 female) bear were legally harvested in outside of their normal range strengthened this 2005 and 2006, respectively. The 2006 harvest statement. The hard mast surveys, which began in was the second highest on record. In 2005, 72 1993, were continued. Results indicated white oak parties with a total of 1,140 hunters registered for production was fair and red oak was good during the "party" dog hunts. The number of parties 2005 and 2006. The Upper South Carolina increased to 80 with 1,275 hunters in 2006. The Bearhunters and Houndsmen Association, USFS 27-year average is 41.1 parties with 698.4 hunters and Duke Power Company assisted with these registered. Eighteen (10 male, 8 female) and 18 surveys. A new survey technique was im- (13 male, 5 female) bear were harvested during the plemented during 2006 so that most Eastern states still gun hunts in 2005 and 2006. Sixteen (8 male, were using standardized methodology. 8 female) and 33 (12 male, 21 female) were SCDNR was part of a multi-state and agency harvested during the party dog hunts in 2005 and research project to look at the effectiveness of 2006. DNA sampling to monitor black bear abundance in Seven bear were reported killed on upstate the southern Appalachians. Partners included: highways in 2005 and five in 2006. The low- Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and country had 27 and eight road kills for 2005 and Tennessee DNR’s, University of Tennessee, U.S. 2006, respectively. Sixty-one and 52 bear Geological Survey and USFS. A pilot study was complaints on the coast resulted in two and one initiated during the summer of 2003 to determine bear relocations in 2005 and 2006, respectively. whether genetic sampling for population Ninety-nine and 200 bear complaints in the upstate estimation was feasible and to develop appropriate resulted in 11 and 8 relocations during 2005 and sampling regimes to obtain desired levels of 2006, respectively. One illegal bear was harvested precision. The overall goal of this study was to in the upstate in 2006. establish the proper sampling regimes and

protocols for the southern Appalachian region, and do more intensive studies on the coastal pop- provide baseline population abundance estimates. ulation. The study area was divided into two sections based on relative densities of black bears in the region: CURRENT ISSUES the northern study area in the northwest portion of The coastal bear population is becoming more Great Smoky Mountains National Park in fragmented due to highway construction, Tennessee (16,000 ha), and the southern study area urbanization and general development. More on national forest lands in Georgia, South Carolina protected contiguous acreage is available for the and North Carolina (32,900 ha). Hair-sample sites mountain population, but human population consist of a barbed-wire enclosure with bait. Sites growth and subsequent development adjacent to were checked for samples once a week for 10 these properties may preclude expansion. Nuisance weeks, and each hair sample with >5 hairs was complaints are more widespread both temporally collected. Twenty-eight of these sample sites were and spatially. Efforts were made in 2005 to located in South Carolina. Results of this study lengthen the bear season in the mountains and indicated approximately one bear per square mile allow for a running season, but both efforts failed. in the southern study area. SCDNR is working Some areas of the state offer good bear habitat but with SCDOT and Clemson University to possibly are isolated from current bear populations by development.

TENNESSEE STATUS REPORT

DAVID M. BRANDENBURG, Wildlife Biologist, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 3030 Wildlife Way, Morristown, TN 37814.

INTRODUCTION that the population increased significantly during Historically, black bears (Ursus americanus) the 1980's (Fig. 1 and 2). existed throughout the state of Tennessee. In addition to the Southern Appalachian Dramatic land use changes resulted in the decline population found in eastern Tennessee, there is a of black bear populations by the 1880's, with bears disjunct population present in the Big South Fork occurring only in the forested areas of the eastern region of Tennessee and Kentucky, comprised of part of the state. Further population declines Campbell, Fentress, Morgan and Scott counties in resulted from large scale logging and subsequent Tennessee. This population is a result of a habitat destruction, compounded by excessive repatriation project initiated in 1995 (Eastridge and hunting and trapping from 1900 to 1930. As a Clark 1998). result, bears remained only in a few isolated areas of Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia by the 1930’s. With the establishment of the Great 70 Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), the Chattahoochee (GA), Pisgah (NC), Nantahala 60 (NC), and Cherokee (TN) National Forests in the 50 1930's, it appeared that black bears would return to 40 some of their former range as vegetation matured 30 and wildlife was protected by state and federal agencies. However, the American chestnut blight 20 became established in the 1940's, and significantly 10 Bait Station Index % impacted the forests and wildlife resources of the 0 Southern Appalachians. Bear populations apparently declined once again. 85 90 95 00 05 Tennessee's bear population is shared with the Year states of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Collectively, this population is known as Figure 1. Black bear bait station surveys in Tennessee, the Southern Appalachian population. 1982-2006. Recognition that bear management in the adjoining states might impact Tennessee's bear program resulted in the formation of the Tri-State 400 Black Bear Study team in 1976, composed of the states of Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. 350 This group completed its report on the status of the black bears in the southern Appalachians in 1983 300

(Carlock et al. 1983). In 1990, the group was re- 250 formed, and expanded to include the state of South Carolina, which has a small population in the 200 western portion of that state. The group is now Harvest 150 known as the Southern Appalachian Black Bear Study Group, and meets semi-annually to share 100 data and information, and discuss issues pertinent to bear management. Presently, bears exist in 50 adequate numbers in eleven Tennessee counties 0 (Blount, Carter, Cocke, Greene, Johnson, Monroe, 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 Polk, Sevier, Sullivan, Unicoi, and Washington) Year along the eastern border of the state. The legal Figure 2. Black bear harvest in Tennessee, 1973-2006. harvest of bears and bait station surveys indicate

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS HARVEST INFORMATION In recent years Tennessee's bear management Black bear hunting seasons were established program has become an emerging success story. in Tennessee in the early 1930's. Harvest records Strong enforcement of game laws and effective have been kept since 1951. Regulations changed management techniques has resulted in increasing little until 1970 when the season was closed populations and harvests. Tennessee's bear through 1972 because of low population levels. management program has focused on four primary Since 1981, Tennessee’s legal harvest has in- issues: 1) enforcement of game laws to reduce the creaseed an average of 40-50 bear every five years illegal kill; 2) protection of the female segment of (Fig. 2). Tennessee hunters harvested 308 bears in the population, and; 3) bear/ human conflicts. 2005 and again in 2006 accounting for Law enforcement has been a key component Tennessee’s second highest harvest. of the bear management program for a number of years. Protection of female bears from excessive RESEARCH hunting mortality was further enhanced in 1981 As part of a pilot study to assess population with the establishment of a late hunting season. size, the TWRA is evaluating techniques to collect This simple change in hunting strategy reduced the black bear hair for DNA analysis using sites along percentage of females in the harvest from 56% existing bait-station routes in Tennessee. Also, we before 1981 to about 37%, even though the total will collect biopsy samples from hunter-killed harvest has increased substantially since 1981. bears to evaluate as a recapture technique. The protection of females from excessive hunting mortality is considered to be an important LITERATURE CITED aspect of the overall bear management program. In Carlock, D.M. Conley, J.M. Collins, P.E. Hale, 1973, 4 sanctuaries with no bear hunting were K.G. Johnson, and M.R Pelton. 1983. The tri- established with the purpose of creating nucleus state black bear study. Tennessee Wildlife areas of breeding females protected from hunting. Resources Agency. Technical Report No. 83-9. In 1997, two new bear sanctuaries were added to 286 pp. the sanctuary system. Including GSMNP (241,000 Eastridge, R., and J.D. Clark. 1998. An acres), where hunting is prohibited, there are experimental repatriation of black bears into the 450,413 acres of bear sanctuaries in Tennessee. Big South Fork area of Kentucky and Bear-human conflicts continue to be a Tennessee. Project final report. University of management dilemma for TWRA. Three bear Tennessee, Knoxville. 26 pp. attacks occurred in Tennessee in 2006. The first Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere bear attack occurred in April in Polk County and (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian resulted in serious injury to a mother and her 2 Assessment Summary Report. Report 1 of 5. year-old son, and the death of her 6 year-old Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest daughter. Facts indicated this attack was predatory Service, Southern Region. in nature. A 200 lb, young-adult male was Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere captured in the vicinity four days after the attack (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian and was later euthanized when DNA testing Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report proved this to be the offending animal. 5 of 5. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Two other bear attacks occurred in Gatlinburg Forest Service, Southern Region. Tennessee resulting in minor injuries to humans. Gatlinburg continues to have the highest incidence of bear-human conflicts in Tennessee. Garbage was the major contributing factor of these attacks.

TEXAS STATUS REPORT

NATHAN P. GARNER, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 11942 FM 848, Tyler, Texas 75707, Tel: 903-566-1626 ext. 221; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION southeast Texas counties by Michigan State The resident black bear population in Texas is University (Morzillo et al.) in 2004. SFASU has estimated at less than 150 resident individuals. A also received funding from TPWD to conduct a large majority of the population resides in the vast, two-year study in 2007 and 2008 to assess the arid desert country of western Texas in the Trans current status of black bear numbers in East Texas Pecos Region. A few individuals have been using motion sensitive cameras, bait stations, hair observed in the southwest, northwest and eastern snares and genetic mark-recapture analysis. portions of Texas in recent years as primarily The new East Texas Black Bear Task Force younger males move long distances from western (ETBBTF) was formed in December 2005 and Texas, northern Mexico and bordering states. meets every 4 months to discuss issues facing bear Black bears are listed as a state threatened species restoration in eastern Texas. The 35-member throughout Texas with added protection in the group is comprised of landowners and rep- forested eastern half due to listing as a federally resentatives from public agencies, private industry, threatened subspecies (Ursus americanus conservation groups and universities and serves as luteolus). Bear hunting of any kind has been an official subcommittee of the regional multi- prohibited statewide in Texas since 1983. state Black Bear Conservation Committee. The The forested habitats in eastern Texas are ETBBTF is focused on restoration in eastern most similar to other black bear habitats in the Texas using the East Texas Black Bear eastern United States. East Texas contains Conservation and Management Plan (2005–2015) approximately 12 million acres of forested land as a guide. The top four priority goals are to with four National Forests and the Big Thicket identify, evaluate, and delineate suitable bear National Preserve. The Texas Parks and Wildlife habitat; promote bear habitat conservation and Department (TPWD) considered twelve black bear protection; and start an educational campaign sightings investigated in eastern Texas in 2006 as aimed at hunters and the general public. ETBBTF reliable. One of the sightings had a photo of a members will be focusing on accomplishing these solitary bear associated with it. Another sighting goals over the next several years in cooperation was one of the first females ever observed with with TPWD and through the formation of cubs in modern times. subcommittees to facilitate efforts. Black bear TPWD provided partial funding to Stephen F. activity in the forests of eastern Texas is expected Austin University (SFASU) in 2006 to conduct a to increase in the years to come due to a public opinion survey of residents in 6 northeast continuing spillover of individuals from the Texas counties concerning their attitudes on bears. bordering states of Oklahoma, Arkansas and The survey study is near completion and final Louisiana where bear populations are considered results will be reported in May 2006 as a stable or growing with a slow expansion of companion study to a similar survey completed for occupied ranges.

VIRGINIA STATUS REPORT

JAIME L. SAJECKI, Bear Project Leader, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Wildlife Division, 4010 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230, Tel: 804-367-8001; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION About 20,000 bear hunters (archery, muzzleloader, Although black bears were abundant and gun with dogs, gun without dogs) harvested 1,633 occurred throughout pre-colonial Virginia, rapidly bears during the 2006-07 hunting seasons. This growing human populations had early population record-high harvest sustained the same harvest impacts on Virginia bears. By 1900, bears were trend that has been increasing at an average annual practically extinct in Virginia with remnant rate of 7.6% per year over the last decade. Hunters populations remaining only in the Dismal Swamp in the archery, muzzleloader, and firearms seasons and in the mountainous regions of some western killed 26%, 6%, and 68% of the total harvest, counties. Since 1900, restoration efforts that respectively. Similar to the long-term average, included hunting regulation controls, reforestation, females represented 35% of the 2006-07 harvest. public land purchases, oak forest maturation, bear relocation, and management-based research have MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS produced growing and expanding bear populations The 2002 Virginia Bear Management Plan throughout Virginia. addresses diverse citizen demands surrounding (1) Today, populations of bears are found bear populations and habitats, (2) bear-related primarily in the mountainous western portion of recreation, and (3) human-bear problems. the state and in the southeastern tidewater area around the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Population and Habitat Programs Refuge. While Virginia’s highest bear populations As outlined in the Bear Management Plan, may be found in the northwestern mountains and population management efforts are designed to the Dismal Swamp, they also can occur almost meet population objectives in 22 bear management anywhere in the Commonwealth. zones across Virginia. Population status and trends are based on indices derived from harvest data HARVEST (including population reconstruction models), Black bear harvest data have been collected nuisance bear information, and bowhunter surveys. since 1928. Beginning in 1947, a mandatory check Hunting is the primary management option to meet station system was initiated. Today, about 130 population objectives. Slow population growth special bear checking stations collect a tooth and through natural increases is the preferred option in other harvest data. zones with objectives to increase bear population size.

Unoccupied

Occasional Sightings FRED ERICK CLARKE LOUDOUN

WARREN FAIRFAX SHENANDOAH FAUQ UIER PR IN Occupied CE

RAPPAHANNOCKK W M. PAGE ROCKINGHAM CULPEPER STAFFORD MADISON HIGHLA ND GR EENE KING ORANGE AUGUSTA GEORGE SPOTSYLVANIA WE STM OR ALBEMARLE ELA BATH ND LOUISA CAROLINE RI NNO CH R M TH ON UM ROCKBRIDGE ESSEX D B FLUVA NNA ER ALLEGHANY L C GO KI LA AN NELSON OC HANOV ER W NG K N D A HL I IN CA A LL Q G S OM ND IA U & M TR C M EE I E C N DD K A LE AMHERST D S N EX G BOTETOURT BUCKINGHAM A POWHATAN Richmond L NEW KENT L CRAIG R O N E HENRICO MA TH EWS O B U A C T PPO M P MA U CHARLES E TTO C CHESTERFIELD S M X AMELIA CITY JAMES T A E H GI LES CITY R BUCHANAN ROANOKE T PRINCE R MO BEDFORD Y NTG O O OM EDWARD PRINCE N R N BLAND ER CAMPBELL E K DICKINSON Y NO TTOWAY GEORGE SURRY W TAZEWELL P O PULASKI DINWIDDIE R WISE PULASKI CHARLOTTE T FRANKLIN N F E RUSSELL LUNENBURG SUSSEX E O W WYTH L S E IS V S FLOYD T A MY H . TH IG B W E N HALIFAX BRUNSWICK N A LEE O PITTSYLVANIA TO C SCOTT GT CARROLL P H IN AM SH H CHESAPEAKE A GRAYSON PATRICK MECKLENBURG UT W HENRY SO SUFFOLK GREENVILLE

Figure 1. Black bear range in Virginia.

Suitable habitat is key to managing bears to Whenever possible, the approach to managing meet population objectives. Surveys to determine problem bears encourages the coexistence of bears hard mast and soft mast production have been and humans. Only rarely, will problem bears be conducted annually since 1950. Estimates of mast relocated. Most complaints are addressed with production have helped explain annual variations educational information; less often, aversive in hunter harvest and recruitment. conditioning, kill permits, and out-of-season hunting opportunities may be used. To help Bear-Related Recreation prevent human-bear problems, a recent regulation As a management tool to meet population made all feeding of bears illegal. objectives, a diversity of bear hunting opportunities is provided to meet recreational demands. Beginning in early August, bear hunting seasons include a training (no harvest) season, Annual Bear Harvest followed by archery hunting, muzzleloader hun- 1,600 ting, gun hunting without dogs (often concurrent with an open deer season), and gun hunting with dogs. Annually, some 20,000 hunters spend over 1,200 100,000 hunter-days hunting black bears. Bear hunting seasons are designed to respect the values and concerns of landowners and other Virginia 800 citizens (e.g., to promote ethical standards). Surveys also identified black bears as second only to eagles and hawks as the animals Virginians are 400 most interested in taking a trip to see.

Human-Bear Problems 0 Compared to agricultural concerns, residential 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 human-bear problems (e.g., trash/garbage, bird feeders) represent the majority (72%) of com- Figure 2. Annual black bear harvest in Virginia. plaints in Virginia. Nuisance bear guidelines have been developed to promote public safety, protect property, and conserve bear populations.

BEAR POPULATION CCC OBJECTIVES - 2001

STABILIZE at Current Population Levels

2 I-81 INCREASE Current Population Levels US 15

1 Site-specific population levels may vary.

2 US 250 10 Natural increases will be the preferred 5 15 management option. 9

14 4 19

Rt 16 8 18 13 22 17 1 3 12 11 16 21 2 7 6 20

I - 81

Figure 3. Black bear population CCC objectives1, 2001.

RESEARCH Growing Bear Populations Since the completion of the Cooperative Despite more liberal hunting seasons, bear Alleghany Bear Study (CABS), no major research populations continue to grow and expand around projects are ongoing. Some results of a multi-state the state. Because population objectives are to project conducted by Virginia Tech, “Evaluation stabilize bear populations in many areas, of accuracy and precision of Downing population additional hunting-harvest opportunities may be reconstruction”, are found in a manuscript which is necessary. currently under review for the Journal of Wildlife Management. A draft of the manuscript and a Population Monitoring user-friendly version of the reconstruction model With the added emphasis on population can be downloaded from: http://filebox.vt.edu/ control and management, there is an increasing users/midavis1/index.htm need to refine estimates of population parameters and other indices. CURRENT ISSUES New Bear Project Leader Human-Bear Problem Response As of February 26, 2007, Jaime Sajecki In order to more effectively address human- assumed the Bear Project Leader position vacated bear problems, a better understanding of the by Denny Martin. Denny recently retired after 34 efficacy associated with different control years with VDGIF. techniques and educational approaches is needed.

WEST VIRGINIA STATUS REPORT

CHRIS RYAN, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Capitol Complex, Bldg 3, Rm 825, Charleston, WV, Tel: 304-558-2771; Fax: 304-558-3147; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION before the season. This year’s harvest combined Black bear populations continue to be at an all with nonhunting mortalities (1,819 total) is the time high since records have been kept in the second highest on record. 1960’s. Bears have been reported in all 55 counties Gun hunters harvested an all time record through surveys (Bowhunter Survey, public and (1,188) bears in 2006. This was the first time that agencies reports, nuisance complaints, etc.). In gun hunters harvested more than 1,100 bears. addition, reproduction has been documented in December firearms hunters harvested 955 (670M: most counties. Hunting seasons have been 285F) bears, a 12% increase over 2005. Good hard liberalized in some areas to control population mast conditions, near ideal weather conditions, and growth. an abundant bear population led to the large For the past 10 years habitat alteration or increase in the gun harvest. Acorns are the most destruction with the combination of additional important fall food for black bears throughout the people building second homes in prime bear Appalachians and may greatly affect the denning habitat has been and will likely remain the biggest ecology of West Virginia’s black bears. Black, red, concern for bears in the future. Mountain top and scarlet oak production was down slightly from mining (cutting all of the trees and then removing 2005 but still produced good mast crops. Beech the top of the mountain for its coal reserves) has and white oaks were noticeably above the 36-year removed a large portion of bear habitat in southern average while the hickory crop remained steady. West Virginia. There has been a large influx of Due to the prolonged activity because of favorable second or even primary homes built in the eastern mast conditions and good weather, more bears panhandle. This human population growth from were available for harvest in December. Archery Washington, D.C.-Baltimore area has restricted hunters harvested 516 bears (322M:194F), 12% access to large tracts of land and made lower than 2005 but still the fourth highest on management more difficult. The Monongahela record. National Forest is in the final stages of the Forest Archery hunters were able to take advantage Plan Revision and implementation of this plan of the abundant bear population but good mast may greatly reduce or alter bear habitat. conditions resulted in a lower harvest. West Virginia biologists have demonstrated the re- HARVEST lationship between mast conditions and archery Hunters are required to report bear kills to a bear harvests. Typically during years of more game checking station. Station operators complete abundant mast conditions the archery harvest will a game checking tag that is attached to the skin g and must remain on the skin until it is tanned, 1800 mounted or disposed. An attempt is made to 1600 collect a tooth for aging from each bear killed; Total Kill Trend 1400 however, tooth submission is not mandatory. Non- 1200

hunting mortalities (road kills, illegal kills, t marauders, etc.) are reported from district wildlife 1000 personnel; teeth are collected from all non-hunting mortalities when available. Ages from all mor- 800 Total Harves Total talities are used for population reconstruction. 600

Reproductive tracts are collected to determine 400 breeding history and productivity. R2 = 0.9611 West Virginia hunters harvested 1,704 black 200 bears during the combined archery and firearms 0 seasons (Fact Sheet). This represents the second 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 highest total on record and a 2% increase over Year 2005 (Fig. 1). West Virginia’s total black bear Figure 1. West Virginia black bear harvest, 1971 – harvest was very close to what biologists predicted 2006.

be lower and during years of mast failure archery primarily on data collected through this study. A harvests will be higher. Archery hunters continue northern study area was added in 2004 to re- to harvest bears in many of our non-traditional examine demographic parameters of the bear bear counties of the extreme eastern panhandle, population from data previously collected in the southern, and western counties. Firearms hunters 1970s and 1980s. One of the primary goals of this harvested 233 bears, a 13% increase, during the project is to identify the most cost effective way special gun season designed to reduce the bear for the DNR to effectively manage the bear population in four counties. population. A summary of the demographic data is There were 115 bears killed on highways, died available in West Virginia’s Big Game Bulletin. as a result of illegal or marauder activities, or These data will be part of the project leader’s succumbed from other nonhunting causes (electro- dissertation at West Virginia University. A master cution, accidental poisoning, etc.). This is up student focusing primarily on aversive con- slightly from the 105 nonhunting mortalities ditioning completed his degree at West Virginia recorded in 2005.A paper analyzing the University. relationship between nonhunting mortalities and In addition to the population monitoring and mast conditions should be available in URSUS this research project, managers conducted an year. experiment to determine the retention time of Telazol in black bears. This project involved MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS cooperation with West Virginia University, the Season dates and framework are set on a Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary county by county basis. There is a statewide Medicine, Virginia Tech, and the Virginia archery season with a majority of the counties Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. All having some kind of gun season. We are in the samples have been taken and are currently at the process of revising our black bear management lab waiting analysis at Virginia Tech. We hope plan. these results will present managers with more Nuisance bear calls are primarily handled by options in the future. district personnel. There are 6 DNR districts in West Virginia has also conducted a survey of West Virginia and they are responsible for West Virginia residents’ opinions on black bears handling bear complaints. Complaints have been and black bear hunting with Responsive Manage- recorded since 1997 and are tracked on a county ment of Verona Virginia. The survey primarily basis. We also reimburse landowners for damage focused on residents’ attitudes of bear populations caused by bears. This is funded through the bear in their areas and counties, their views on hunting stamp that each bear hunter is required to methods, and general bear populations. purchase. Our education process is primarily through CURRENT ISSUES news releases, DNR website, pamphlets, and talks The major current issue in West Virginia that are specifically requested. A new pamphlet stems from the loss of bear habitat. The focusing on living with bears was designed and subdivision of large tracts of land in our eastern distributed to the public. While it would be great to panhandle for second homes, mountain top have a better education system, time and budget removal in the southern coal fields, and the constraints limit our resources. revision of the Monongahela National Forest Plan may all lead to lower bear populations in the RESEARCH future. There were considerable additional The black bear monitoring and research wilderness areas proposed in the Monongahela project was initiated in 1999 to gather demo- National Forest Service Plan. The loss of habitat graphic information from bears in southern West (timber) management on National Forest Virginia and to learn more about bears captured as properties may have a detrimental impact on bear a result of nuisance behavior. Bear seasons have populations. been and will continue to be modified based

WISCONSIN STATUS REPORT

ROBERT E. ROLLEY, MICHELE P. WOODFORD, and KEITH WARNKE, Wisconsin DNR, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, Tel: 608-264-6023; E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION were assigned by counting annuli in the Bear visitation rates averaged 53% for 18 bait cementum. station surveys conducted in the primary range Wisconsin’s Bear Population Model was (Zones A, A1, and B), and 18% for 7 surveys adapted from the one developed and used in conducted in the peripheral range (Zone C). Minnesota. That model was updated in 2005 to Population models produced a statewide estimate include the most recent bear harvest, age, and bait of approximately 12,850 bears in Fall, 2006. Bear station data, and used to estimate bear populations populations appear to be within 15% of goals in in each Bear Management Zone (Fig. 1). Starting the 3 northern Bear Management Zones but the population size in the model was adjusted in zones population in Zone C is approximately 70% above A, A1, and C in 2005 to improve the correlation goal. A harvest of 2,550 bears was recommended between model simulated population trends and for the 2006 season. trends in bait-station visitations.

METHODS RESULTS Bear bait station surveys were conducted by Bear visitation rates in the 2006 bait station wildlife management and research personnel in the survey averaged 63% in Zone A, 49% in Zone A1, 18 counties comprising the primary bear range and 48% in Zone B, and 53% in the primary bear range 7 counties within the peripheral range in 2006. The (Zones A, A1, and B combined) (Table 1). Bear surveys were run between 15 June and 15 July, visitation rates in Zone C (peripheral range) and consisted of 50 bait stations placed at 0.5-mile averaged 18%. intervals along drivable roads. A plastic mesh The 3-year mean visitation rates in the overwrap bag filled with approximately 2 lb. of primary bear range increased rather steadily from fresh meat was securely wired to a tree about 7 ft 1985 (32%) to 1996 (55%) and then largely above the ground at each bait station. Bait stations stabilized (1997-2006 average = 55%, Fig. 2). In were checked for bear visitations after 7 nights. contrast, the Bear Bait Station Survey suggests a A station was considered to have been visited marked increase in the bear population in Zone C by bears if the bag of meat was gone and the wire during the late 1990s and early 2000s; 3-year securing it had been stretched or broken, or by average visitation rates increased from 21% to marks on the trees and/or trails leading to the 38% during 1995-2004. Visitation rates appear to station. Bait stations were considered inoperable have stabilized or perhaps declined in the last and not included in the calculations if they could couple of years in Zone C. not be found or if animals other than bears had Teeth were collected from 2,165 of the 2,645 taken the bait. bears harvested in 2005. The age structure of bears Three-year running average visitation rates harvested during 1986-2005 has been relatively ([year x 2 + year+1]/3 for first year; [year-1 + year x stable (Table 2). Mean ages of bears harvested 2]/3 for last year, and [year-1 + year + year+1]/3 for have ranged from 3.1 - 4.3 years for males and 4.2 all other years) were used as an index to bear - 5.3 years for females. population trends. Combining years reduced Adjustments made in 2005 to the starting annual fluctuations resulting from rather small population size for bear population models in sample sizes and large annual changes in the zones A, A1, and C improved correlations between abundance of natural foods. simulated population trends and trends in bait- All bears legally harvested were registered at station visitations. The models produced a DNR or cooperative stations. An upper first statewide population estimate of approximately premolar was collected as the bears were 12,850 bears in Fall, 2006 (Table 3). This included registered, and the sex and county of kill were 5,300 bears in Zone A, 3,600 in Zone A1, 1,900 in recorded for each bear. Registration personnel Zone B, and 2,050 in Zone C. The 2005 population were provided instructions and envelopes for estimates equate to bear densities of 1.0 bears/mi2 storing the teeth. Teeth were sent to the Matson’s of bear range in Zone A, 0.7 bears/mi2 in Zone A1, Lab in Milltown, MT for processing, and ages 0.4 bears/mi2 in Zone B, and 0.3 bears/mi2 of

occupied range in Zone C. Population trends with heavy persistent bear damage. The farmers calculated by the models for the primary range may allow others to kill the bears and the hunter is generally paralleled those suggested by the Bear allowed to keep the bear. In the past, we have not Bait Station Surveys (Fig. 2). The population allowed the hunter to keep the bear – all were model for Zone C suggests a steady increase in the collected by Wisconsin DNR for disposal and/or population during 1988-2003. The model suggests distribution. This pilot project has not been the Zone C population may have stabilized in the implemented statewide and is available in limited last few years. areas only. There appears to be good acceptance Bear population estimates in Zones A, A1, by hunters and landowners and the program seems and B are within 15% of goals, whereas the bear to be effective. population estimate in Zone C is approximately Occupied bear range in Wisconsin continues 70% above the prescribed goal. The WDNR Bear to expand into more densely populated areas of the Advisory Committee recommended a harvest of state and reports of bears in urban areas are 2,525 bears for the 2005 season. This included 825 increasing. Our response is initially monitoring of bears in Zone A, 550 in Zone A1, 550 in Zone B, the situation and involvement in trapping or and 600 in Zone C. euthanasia if necessary. So far, the public seems accepting of this expansion of occupied bear range CURRENT ISSUES AND RESEARCH and approving of the agency’s response to get We are currently implementing a tetracycline involved if there is a threat to human safety or mark-recapture survey to provide a statewide extensive property damage. population estimate as a correlative index for the Hunter interest in bear hunting continues to Wisconsin bear population model. This project is grow and the wait for a kill permit is up to 9 years. being led by the University of Wisconsin-Madison We are investigating alternative hunting season and involves the cooperation and support of the structures that would result in increased hunting Wisconsin DNR and the Wisconsin Bear Hunters opportunity and decreased kill success. We are Assn. Preliminary population analysis will be working with bear hunting interest groups in available in 2007 and rib collection from hunter developing ideas. Hunting interest groups killed bears will continue in 2007. A final project generally feel that there are more bears in report will be available in late 2008. Wisconsin than our population model indicates UW-Madison is also conducting a yearling and that more kill permits should be available bear dispersal study in central Wisconsin – non- (interestingly, these same folks feel there are far primary range. This study will track the fewer deer in Wisconsin than the our estimate even movements of young bears (primarily males) as though 500,000 are killed by hunters annually). they establish adult territories and document Our management focus is on optimizing hunter movements and final disposition of the bears. It is opportunity over the long term by minimizing the hypothesized that these bears are likely candidates risk of over harvest and responding with increased to become nuisance animals. kill permits if the population model and We are trialing a new response to agricultural independent indexes warrant. damage by issuing shooting permits to farmers

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

• Determining the Impact of Relocation on Nuisance Florida Black Bears

• Effects of Aversive Conditioning on Nuisance Louisiana Black Bear Behavior

• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Bear Smart Programming in Cottage Country: Cottagers, Attitudes, Evaluations and Behaviour

• Focus On the Cause of the Problem: Attractants

• Educating North Carolina’s Citizens About Black Bear Issues and Management

• Effect of Lengthening Black Bear Hunting Season in Northeast Pennsylvania on Harvest Rates of Nuisance Bears and Population Size

• A Fast And Reliable Hard Mast Index from Acorn Presence-Absence Tallies

DETERMINING THE IMPACT OF TRANSLOCATION ON NUISANCE FLORIDA BLACK BEARS

KIMBERLY M. ANNIS, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110430, Gainesville, Florida 32611 MELVIN E. SUNQUIST, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110430, Gainesville, Florida 32611 J. WALTER McCOWN, Florida Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 4005 South Main Street, Gainesville, Florida 32601

Abstract: Despite the widespread use of translocation as a tool to eliminate nuisance bear behaviors and reduce human-wildlife conflicts, questions remain concerning the efficacy of the technique. The bear population centered in Florida’s Ocala National Forest (ONF) is surrounded by several rapidly growing human communities and has the highest rate of human-bear conflicts and subsequent nuisance bear translocations in the state. The fate of translocated nuisance bears and the efficacy of using translocation to eliminate future nuisance behaviors in individual bears have never been studied in Florida. We assessed the nuisance behaviors, movements, and survival of 41 translocated nuisance bears to determine the impact and efficacy of translocation in north-central Florida. Nearly half of all translocated bears engaged in a nuisance event at least once post-release and 34% engaged in nuisance events more than once. A higher percentage of males than females continued nuisance behaviors. Thirteen bears returned to capture sites and had a shorter average distance of translocation than those that did not return. An additional 32% remained within ONF and 37% left ONF, but did not return home. Annual survival estimates were lower for females than for males but were not significantly different (P = 0.40). Survival estimates for males were comparable to those reported for non-translocated bears in ONF. We suggest reevaluating using translocation as the principal tool to prevent future nuisance behaviors and to consider habitat availability at the release site to improve.site-fidelity.

Translocation is a widely accepted method for 1997). The stressful and negative experience of population augmentation; however, moving translocation thought to cause the animal to avoid animals is not always successful. Studies show that further contact with humans, and moving it to a translocated animals often experience high rates of new location prevents it from returning to the area post-release mortality (Blanchard and Knight, of original conflict. The public perception of the 1995, O’Bryan and McCullough, 1985), do not technique is that the animal is moved to a more stay where released, and often attempt to return to “natural” habitat and that it will continue to “live former home ranges (Bradley et al. 2005, Comly happily ever after” (Craven et al 1998). However, 1993, Sullivan et al. 2004). Fischer and when human-derived food resources have Lindenmayer (2000) reviewed translocation contributed to the nuisance situation, simply studies and concluded that the technique fails to removing the nuisance animal generally does not suitably solve human-animal conflict issues. eliminate the problem (Linnell et al. 1997, Athreya Linnell et al (1997) showed that translocation as 2006). used to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts The black bear once occurred throughout commonly lack long-term goals, therefore success North America before the conversion of native is rarely quantified. Given the widespread use of habitat for human use resulted in the extirpation of translocation further scrutiny is certainly justified. many populations. In Florida, the black bear (U. a. Unlike many large carnivores, the black bear floridanus) is a state threatened species and the (Ursus americanus) has an ability to live in close conversion of primary bear habitat to development proximity to humans. In recent years the increase is the leading cause of habitat loss. As human of bears utilizing human-derived food resources developments proliferate in areas adjacent to (e.g., household garbage, pet food, etc.) has remaining bear habitat, deterrence of human-bear increased negative human attitudes toward them conflicts will foster public support for bears and living near residential and suburban areas. But contribute significantly to bear conservation and because the use of lethal management on these management. nuisance animals is widely opposed, translocation The bear population within the Ocala National is used as a common alternative. (Linnell et al. Forest (ONF) is 1 of 8 remaining populations in

Florida (Fig. 1). The Ocala population is also one METHODS of the densest and is adjacent to some of the most Translocations and Monitoring rapidly growing human communities in the state From 01 May 2004 to 31 December 2005 (McCown et al. 2004, Simek et al. 2005). The nuisance bears were live-trapped in culvert traps recent rise in recent human-bear conflicts and by agents of FWC’s Nuisance Bear Response nuisance bear translocations in this area has Program or by FWC biologists. An apiary raiding prompted the FWC to evaluate its current nuisance bear was captured in an Aldrich spring-activated bear management program. foot snare set up next to a bee-yard after he would The success of using on-site releases with not enter a culvert trap. All captured bears were nuisance apiary-raiding bears in Florida has been translocated to the ONF in culvert traps for reported (Brady and Maehr 1982, Wooding et al. handling. 1988), but there has been no documentation of the success of using translocation to eliminate nuisance behaviors. In Florida, isolated bear populations are surrounded by burgeoning human populations leaving few remote locations into which nuisance individuals can be translocated. In order to asses the efficacy of translocation as a management strategy that, we examined whether translocated nuisance bears continued to engage in nuisance behaviors, returned home, or exhibited higher annual mortality rates than those of non- translocated bears.

STUDY AREA Nuisance bears were captured in counties within peninsular Florida and translocated to the ONF for release. The 174,019 ha-forest (430,000 acres) is located along an ancient sand dune ridge Figure 1. Florida black bear populations; map courtesy bordered by the St. Johns River to the east and by of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. the Ocklawaha River to the north and west (Fig. 2.). The forest contains 4 major plant communities 1) swamps and marshes along the rivers, 2) pine flatwoods between the rivers and the central ridge, 3) dune-like interior ridge of sand pine (Pinus clausa) and scrub oak species (Quercus sp.) with ponds and seasonal wet prairies throughout, and 4) mixed hardwood swamps associated with large permanent lakes. The climate in north-central Florida is characterized by hot wet summers with abundant rainfall and cool dry winters. Annual precipitation averages 1364mm (53in) with 55% of rainfall occurring from June- September of each year Figure 2. Release sites of translocated nuisance bears in the Ocala National (Ayedelott et al. 1975). Forest, Florida.

The FWC translocated all bears the furthest Data Analysis possible distance from their capture site while also Nuisance recidivism meeting 2 criteria; 1) release the bear within the Radio-collared bears that engaged in nuisance ONF, and 2) prevent consecutive releases at events were identified using 1) radio telemetry, 2) release sites within the ONF. Prior to this study, visual sightings and descriptive confirmation, and the FWC released bears within 3 areas in the ONF. 3) FWC law enforcement officers and biologists. To maintain release site continuity for this study, 3 Nuisance events were used in the analysis of specific places were chosen within FWC’s defined nuisance recidivism if the event could be verified release areas that had shade, cover, and nearby as occurring within a known 24-hour time period water (Fig. 2). All bears were rotationally released and nuisance events that occurred in intervals >17 at each of these sites, but because the FWC chose hours were included in the analysis. Nuisance the release site for each bear (based on the criteria behaviors were identified as 1) utilizing any above) releases were not random. human-food resource (i.e. household garbage, Bears were immobilized with a 1:1 mixture of dumpsters, etc), 2) utilizing pet or wild-bird food, Tiletamine hydrochloride and Zolezepam 3) causing apiary or property damage, 4) entering, hydrochloride (Telazol®) administered at or the attempted entry of, a home, and 5) any show approximately 4-6mg/kg of estimated body weight of aggression or territoriality within or around with a CO2 charged low-impact dart pistol. Bears human dwellings, especially during daytime hours. were fitted with radio-collar transmitters equipped Public sightings of a bear passing through with motion and mortality sensors (Telonics Inc., residential or urban areas or bears in trees, that Mesa, Arizona). Untreated leather-breakaway were not also associated with an above described connectors were used to secure each collar behavior, were not classified as nuisances but were (Hellgren et al. 1988). Bears were uniquely recorded. marked with lip-tattoos and numbered red, round ear-tags for identification. A premolar tooth was Returns and Movements extracted for age estimation using cementum A bear coming within 1 home-range diameter annuli analysis (Matson’s Laboratory, Milltown, of the capture point, at any time during the study, Montana, Willey 1974). was considered a successful return. In a study Instrumented bears were located on average 1- previously conducted on non-translocated bears in 3 times per week from the air, using a Cessna-172 the ONF the reported annual home ranges for aircraft equipped with wing-strut mounted 2- males and females were 94.3 km2 and 20.48 km2, element yagi antennas, and by ground respectively (McCown et al. 2004). Assuming triangulation using a 3-element, hand-held, yagi home ranges were circular, a return was judged antenna (Telonics Inc., Mesa, Arizona) and a successful when a male bear was located within 11 Communications Systems Inc receiver. Ground km and a female bear was within 5 km of their triangulations were estimated using > 3 compass capture site, at any time during the study. ArcGIS bearings and obtained within a 30-minute interval 9.0© was used to calculate the distance between 1) to minimize location error based on the bear’s capture and release site, 2) release site and post- movement. Ground locations were collected both release locations, 3) capture site and post-release during day and night time periods. We selected 17- locations, 4) distance to capture site, and 5) total hours as the minimum interval between locations travel distance. for biological independence among locations (Swihart et al. 1988). Aerial locations were Survival collected on specific bears approximately once per Since the event of interest is the probability week during daytime hours. However, extreme that death will occur following the treatment (i.e. movements, severe weather and lack of funding translocation), I used the day of translocation the often restricted aerial locations to 1-2 per month. starting date (i.e. day 1) for all bears, regardless of Because some bears were translocated twice the calendar date they entered the study, and during the study the total number of days counted forward to the first day mortality was monitored post-release began with the first detected, the last day of location (if radio contact translocation. Bears that were translocated twice lost or collar drop location), or 31 December 2006 were released at their original release site in the if the animal was still in radio contact. ONF.

Annual survival rates were calculated using nuisance behaviors (89% and 11% respectively), the Kaplan-Meier analysis, where a survival rate is with an equal distribution of sub-adults (< 3 yrs) estimated for each consecutive time period and and adults (>3 yrs) for both sexes (10 sub-adult, 9 then compared between samples across each adult). Three bears (2M, 1F) returned home and period (Kaplan and Meier 1958). Because the engaged in nuisance activities at least once and an analysis has no underlying assumption of constant additional male engaged in nuisances twice upon survival it allows for the addition of animals return. The median time to the first nuisance throughout the course of the study and permits recidivism event was 143 days and ranged widely animals with lost signals, or dropped collars, to be from 7–359 days. censored while still providing an unbiased estimate Seven bears (17%) were recaptured by the of survival. While the Kaplan-Meier analysis does FWC due to continued nuisance behaviors. Three not require animals to enter the study at the same males and 1 female were recaptured at locations time, newly radio-tagged animals are assumed to outside of the ONF and were translocated back to have the same survival function as animals their original release site within the ONF. Two previously radio-tagged during the study males were recaptured inside the ONF and (Millspaugh and Marzluff 2001). The estimated translocated to the Apalachicola National Forest, annual survival rate of translocated bears was removing them from the study. One male was compared to that of non-translocated bears radio- recaptured inside the ONF and was euthanized due monitored in ONF from 1999 to 2003 (McCown et to his repeated attempts at home-entry. al. 2004). Estimates were calculated to compare differences in survival of translocated bears Returns and Movements between sex, age class, grouped distance of Thirteen bears (8M, 5F) (32%) returned to translocation, and whether nuisances did or did not their capture area after release; females returned occur. home at higher rates (63%) than males (24%). We determined cause-specific mortality of Average distance translocated was 48.9 km (range translocated bears. All deaths suspected of being = 30.75-80.15 km) and the time to return varied illegal kills were investigated by FWC Law from 13–242 days. Bears that returned to capture Enforcement. Carcasses were necropsied to site had a shorter average distance of translocation determine cause of death, if it was not otherwise than those bears that did not return. obvious (i.e. vehicle collision), by the FWC state Of the 28 bears that did not return home 12 wildlife veterinarian. remained in ONF, 10 left, and 6 left but later returned to ONF. The average distance traveled, of RESULTS bears that did not return home, was 244 km, with 4 Forty-one bears (33 male [M], 8 female [F]) (3M, 1F) traveling between 517 and 872 km. Of were translocated from 9 counties; 4 of which the 4 bears re-translocated to ONF during the (3M, 1F) were translocated twice. In addition, 2 study, 3 males remained within the ONF for the male bears were recaptured, translocated to the remainder of their monitoring period and the Apalachicola National Forest, removing them from female left the ONF within 9 days. the study. The average age of bears was 4 years (range = 1–15 years). We collected 2,456 locations Survival (mean = 61 locations/bear, range = 8–179 Eight bears (6M, 2F) died post-release and locations/bear). Nuisance events and public humans directly or indirectly caused 7 (87.5%) of sightings comprised 138 of the total locations these deaths (Table 1.). This includes 1 bear whose collected. Bears were tracked post-release for an collar was found in a creek at a highway bridge average of 297 days (range = 26–779 days). The and was presumed to be dead. Although no carcass mean distance bears were translocated from their was found we presume the bear was illegally killed capture site was 81.9 km (median = 56.11, range = and the collar disposed of in the creek. 30.75–319.34 km). The annual survival estimate for translocated males was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.52 – 0.88) and was Nuisance recidivism 0.80 for translocated females (95% CI: 0.20 – Seventeen males and 2 females (46%) 0.97). There was no significant difference in engaged in nuisance activities at least once post- annual survival estimates between sexes (χ2 = release. Fourteen males (34%) engaged in nuisance 0.31, df = 1, P = 0.57). Annual survival estimates activities more than once and 1 male was involved for non-translocated males (0.76, 95% CI 0.48- in more than 10 nuisance events. A higher 1.00; McCown et al. 2004) were similar to that of percentage of males than females exhibited translocated males. Annual survival estimates for

translocated females were somewhat lower than capture area was considered an undesirable that of non-translocated females (0.93 95% CI outcome. Studies of translocated nuisance bears 0.835-1.00; McCown et al. 2004), however show that few remain close to their release sites differences may be due to the small sample size of and often move long distances post-release translocated females. (Rogers 1986, Comly 1993, Linnell et al. 1997). Rogers (1986) suggested that the success of DISCUSSION translocation depended largely on the age of the The percentage of translocated bears that bear and the distance it was moved; Sub-adults continued to engage in nuisance behaviors (46%) were more likely to remain at the release site than observed in my study was considerably higher that were adults and the optimum translocation those reported in other studies (Conover 2002). distance to ensure <50% of bears from returning However, those studies used recipient sites where was >64 km. However, in this study the average the potential for continued human-bear interaction translocation distance was significantly less than was low (i.e. released in remote locations) (Linnell 64 km, and less than 50% of all translocated bears et al. 1997, Conover 2002), so their lower rates of returned. Few bears (4 of 12) that returned also recidivism was probably related more to the engaged in a nuisance event, suggesting that reduced potential for conflict in the release area translocation may have been successful in and less with the possible effect of the eliminating recidivism in those individuals. translocation procedure. Linnell et al. (1997) found Release site selection is considered an that bears released in areas with a higher potential important factor affecting translocation success for human-conflict, as characterized by the ONF (Griffith et al. 1989, Bradley et al. 2005). The for this study, often caused more conflict after FWC uses ONF as the release area because, per release. The percent of recaptures as a result of FWC policy, a bear translocated for the first time nuisance behavior (17%) observed in this study must be released within the same population from was similar to the results of other studies whence it came. Bears captured a second time as a (McLaughlin et al. 1981, cited by Rogers 1986). nuisance can be translocated from one population Marking each translocated bear probably to another. However, using these as the primary increased the rate in which nuisances were criteria in determining an acceptable release site reported by the public. However I found that not gives no consideration to population density, the all recidivism events were actually reported. extent of available habitat, or to previously Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that other translocated bears. High population density and nuisances took place where there was no witness, competition for food and space may make it or witnesses overlooked identifying marks (i.e. ear difficult for a newly translocated bear to remain tags, radio collar, etc.), suggesting that the where it was released. My data showed that less nuisance recidivism rate detected in this study is than a third of translocated bears remained in underestimated. ONF. While biological factors and the capture The desired objective of translocation is that experience may play a role in determining site- bears would remain within ONF boundaries; fidelity, it is worth considering that population therefore the return of nuisance bears back to their density and subsequent habitat availability may

Table 1. Sources of mortality for translocated nuisance black bears in Florida, May 2004 – December 2006.

Bear Sex Age Capture Death Cause Location N20 F 2 7/25/05 7/23/06 HBCa Outside ONF, I-95 Palm Coast, FL N23 F 15 8/31/05 10/5/06 Natural Outside ONF, Paisley, FL N26 M 3* 8/1/04 11/1/04 Euthanized Inside ONF, Lynne, FL N08 M 4 12/24/04 1/19/05 Illegal/unkb Outside ONF, Blackwater Creek, SR-44 N15 M 2 6/29/05 12/5/05 Illegal/Shot Outside ONF, Eustis, FL N27 M 15 9/15/05 8/17/06 Wildfire Inside ONF, Juniper Prairie W.A. N38 M 5 12/15/05 6/9/06 HBC Outside ONF, SR-20 Palatka, FL N39 M 6 12/17/05 7/2/06 Illegal/Shot Outside ONF, Bostwick, FL *Age estimated a HBC = Hit By Car b Method unknown, collar found dumped in creek at bridge crossing

also be a factor affecting site-fidelity. overlooked identifying marks (i.e. ear tags, radio When analyzed by sex translocated bears in collar, etc.), or witnesses chose not to report the Florida had similar survival estimates to that of nuisance. This suggests that the nuisance non-translocated bears, which suggest that recidivism is inherently underestimated. translocation did not increase mortality from The public view that bears can be moved to a natural causes. Although there was a slight place where they can’t get back into trouble is not difference in annual survival between translocated a realistic one. Today there are precious few places and non-translocated females the difference may where bears can be translocated without the be due to the small sample size of translocated likelihood of further human interaction. Recent females. increases in human-bear conflicts in Florida have I lost track of 1 adult male during the study. It resulted in an increase in translocated nuisance is possible his collar failed during the study, bears. Considering the mediocre success of using however, considering his well documented translocation to eliminate further nuisance nuisance history post-translocation (he was a behaviors, efforts may be better focused on persistent chicken killer and had been shot in the community education and outreach, and other non- face) the possibility exists that he was illegally lethal management efforts to eliminate nuisance killed and his collar destroyed. For example, the behaviors at the site of conflict. These efforts will collar of an illegally killed sub-adult male was not only be useful at reducing human-bear both destroyed and disposed of, and a sub-adult conflicts but will also help promote the female’s collar was destroyed by the vehicle that coexistence of bears near communities in the long killed her. Had the illegal kill not been witnessed term. Where conflicts are unavoidable, and non- and reported to law enforcement, and the road- lethal tools are not available, management cleanup crew not discovered the remains of the agencies need to educate the public to accept that female’s collar, the fate of these 2 bears would some lethal control may be a necessity. In this way have also remained unknown. public focus can be shifted from managing the individual to the management of a whole MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS population (Linnell et al. 1997). Translocation is not always successful at eliminating nuisances and the modification of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS nuisance behaviors is probably most affective Financial and logistical support was provided when performed on bears captured early in their by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation progression towards nuisance behaviors (Clark et Commission’s Bear Management Section and al. 2002). Because the FWC resorts to the Florida Wildlife Research Institute, U.S. translocation of a nuisance bear as a final Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and the management option, the bears they translocate University of Florida Department of Wildlife may already be food-conditioned and/or Ecology and Conservation. We thank those that habituated. Translocating these types of bears may assisted in data collection, especially S, Carroll- just transfer the nuisance problem to a new area, Douglas, K. Isaacs, C. Peters, A. Pries, B. Scheick, and contribute to the high percentage of nuisance H. Scott, and R. Towater. We also thank the many recidivism and subsequent re-captures post- private landowners and state agencies for allowing translocation. access to their lands. Finally, we thank R. Annis, J. Determining the extent to which translocated Hill, P. Kubilis, P. Ross, and S. Simek for nuisance bears resume their nuisance behaviors is providing invaluable advice and support. imperative when evaluating the efficacy of relocation (Linnell et al. 1997). However, LITERATURE CITED identifying a free-roaming ear-tagged bear is Aydelott, D. G., H. G. Bullock, A. L. Furman, H. difficult, and without other identifying O. White, and J. W. Spieth. 1975. Soil survey of characteristics (e.g. radio collar, prominent chest Ocala National Forest area, Florida. U. S. blaze, etc.) it is challenging to tell one ear-tagged Department of Agriculture Forest Service, bear from another. Collaring each translocated Southern Region-21, Atlanta, Georgia. bear increases the identification of those that Athreya, V. 2006. Is relocation a viable engaged in nuisances, and probably increases the management option for unwanted animals? The rate in which nuisances are reported. However not case of the leopard in India. Conservation and all recidivism events are actually reported. Society 4(3):419–423. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that nuisances took place where there was no witness, witnesses

Blanchard, B. M. and R. R. Knight. 1995. Linnell, J. D., R. Aanes, J. E. Swenson, J. Odden, Biological consequences of relocating grizzly and M. E. Smith. 1997. Translocation of bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Journal of carnivores as a method for managing problem Wildlife Management 59(3):560–565. animals: a review. Biodiversity and Bradley, E. H., D. H. Pletscher, E.E. Bangs, K. E. Conservation 6:1245–1257. Kunkel, D. W. Smith, C. M. Mack, T. J. Meier, McCown, J. W., P. Kubilis, T. Eason, and B. J. A. Fontaine, C. C. Niemeyer, and M. D. Scheick. 2004. Black bear movements and Jimenez. 2005. Evaluating wolf translocation as habitat use relative to roads in Ocala National a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts Forest, Pages 1-134. Florida Fish and Wildlife in the northwestern United States. Conservation Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Biology 19(5): 1498–1508. O’Bryan, M. K. and D. R. McCullough. 1985. Brady, J. R., and D. S. Maehr. 1982. A new Survival of black-tailed deer following method for dealing with apiary-raiding black relocation in California. Journal of Wildlife bears. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Management 49(1):115–119. Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Pollock, K. H., S. R. Winterstein, C. M. Bunk, and Agencies. 36:571–577. C. P. D. 1989. Survival analysis in telemetry Clark, J. D., D. Huber, and C. Servheen. 2002. studies: the staggered entry design. Journal of Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges. Wildlife Management 53:7–15. Ursus 13:335–345. Rogers, L. L. 1986. Effects of translocation Clark, J. E., F. T. van Manen, and M. R. Pelton. distance on frequency of return by adult black 2002. Correlates of success for on-site releases bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:76–80. of nuisance black bears in Great Smoky Simek, S. L., S. A. Jonker, B. K. Scheick, M. J. Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Endries, and T. H. Eason. 2005. Statewide Bulletin 30(1):104–111. Assessment of Road Impacts on bears in six Comly, L. M. 1993. Survival, reproduction, and study areas in Florida from May 2001- movements of translocated nuisance black bears September 2003. Florida Fish and Wildlife in Virginia. M. S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Sullivan, B. K., M. A. Kwiatkowski and G. W. Virginia. 113pp. Schuett. 2004. Translocation of urban Gila Craven, S., T. Barnes, and G. Kania. 1998. Toward Monsters: a problematic conservation tool. a professional position on the translocation of Biological Conservation 117:235–242. problem wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin Swihart, R. K., N. A. Slade, and B. J. Bergstrom. 26(1):171–177. 1988. Relating body size to the rate of home Fischer, J. and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2000. An range use in mammals. Ecology 69:393–399. assessment of the published results of animal Willey, C. H. 1974. Aging black bears from first relocations. Biological Conservation 96:1–11. premolar tooth section. Journal of Wildlife Griffith, B, J. M. Scott, J. W. Carpenter, and C. W. Management 38:97–100. Reed. 1989 Translocation as a species Wolf, C. M., B. Griffith, C. Reed, and S. A. conservation tool: status and strategy. Science Temple. 1996. Avian and mammalian 245:477–480. translocations: update and reanalysis of 1987 Hellgren, E. C., D. W. Carney, N. P. Garner, and survey data. Conservation Biology 10(4):1142– M. R. Vaughan. 1988. Use of breakaway cotton 1154. spacers on radio collars. Wildlife Society Wooding, J. B., N. L. Hunter, and T. S. Hardisky. Bulletin 16:216–218. 1988. Trap and release apiary-raiding black bears. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 42:3336–.35

EFFECTS OF AVERSIVE CONDITIONING ON NUISANCE LOUISIANA BLACK BEAR BEHAVIOR

JENNIFER LEIGH, 333 Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, email: [email protected] MICHAEL J. CHAMBERLAIN, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA

Abstract: Consistent habitat loss and fragmentation are contributing factors to the rise of human-bear conflicts in south Louisiana. Complaints associated with Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) nuisance activity experienced in this region have steadily increased since 2000, commanding intervention by state and federal agencies. As a threatened species, nuisance Louisiana black bears require non-lethal management referred to as aversive conditioning. In our study we used rubber buckshot and dogs to test the effectiveness of management techniques used by the state to deter nuisance activity. Bears (n=11) were captured in residential and industrial areas reporting nuisance activity. Bears were fit with radio- transmitting collars and released within 2 km of the capture site. Each bear was randomly placed within 1 of 2 treatments; treatment 1 (n=5) used rubber buckshot and treatment 2 (n=6) used the rubber buckshot in combination with dogs. Bears were monitored using telemetry to estimate movements and interactions with anthropogenic resources. All bears remained within 2 km of capture sites 2 weeks following release. Of 11 bears, 10 (91%) returned to nuisance behavior <5 months, regardless of treatment. Mean distance from capture sites did not differ between treatments (P>0.05). Results suggest that aversive conditioning techniques used to deter bears from nuisance activity have limited short-term effectiveness when used independent of practices addressing food source.

Nuisance behavior is a habitual response designed to provide the offending animal with a influenced by an animal’s environment. negative experience by deploying the use of Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat due to various deterrent measures like rubber buckshot, human related activities such as industrial, loud noise, and dogs in hopes that the offender agricultural, and residential development largely resigns from nuisance behavior. contributes to wildlife nuisance behavior. Many The goal of this research is to assess the wildlife populations, like the Louisiana black bear effectiveness of aversive conditioning methods by (Ursus americanus luteolus), reside in highly examining space use, movements, and interactions fragmented areas consisting of only a small with urbanized and anthropogenic resources number of individuals living in isolated pockets of following release and conditioning of bears. Such habitat, separated by obstacles such as high-speed evaluation will provide information on bear roadways and sprawling urban and suburban behavior following conditioning, ultimately development that consequently place them close to indicating the effectiveness of individual (rubber humans, where conflicts inevitably arise. buckshot) and combined techniques (rubber According to Louisiana Department of buckshot and dogs) used to deter black bear Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) nuisance reports, nuisance activity in south Louisiana. the amount of complaints associated with nuisance black bear activity experienced in this area has STUDY AREA steadily increased since 2000, warranting further This study was conducted in the coastal region state and federal intervention. of the Atchafalaya River Basin (ARB) of south As a threatened species listed under provision Louisiana in St. Mary, Iberia, and Vermilion of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1992, Parishes (Fig.1) which encompass 6112 km2 of nuisance Louisiana black bears are federally freshwater marshes and bayous, lowland cypress- protected and require non-lethal management. In gum forests, agriculture and farm lands, industrial, response to increased bear-human conflicts, recreational (private and public), and residential LDWF and USDA Wildlife Services implemented areas that hosts a human population of 180,963 a commonly used technique referred to as aversive (U.S. Census Bureau 2005) and an estimated conditioning. Aversive conditioning is a method abundance of 77+ 9 bears (Triant et al. 2004).

The Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in St. Mary Parish is composed of 37 km2 (9,028 acres) of designated black bear habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The refuge, like much of the study area, is fragmented by improved and unimproved roadways which present bears in this region with the greatest obstacle when traversing their home ranges in search of food. Roadways like U.S. highway 90 are major contributors to black bear mortality in the study area (Pace et al. 2001). Habitat degradation is evident throughout the study area where the emergence of golf courses and parks, subdivisions, and shopping centers rapidly encroach into once historic bear habitat, escalating bear-human Figure 1. Map of the study area located in the Coastal region of interaction due to the subsequent loss the Louisiana Atchafalaya River Basin (ARB) Complex. of natural food items and the increasing presence of refuse generated by humans Tooth wear, body size, and condition were (Rogers et al. 1976, Singer and Bratton 1980, correlated to estimate age, and in some cases the Nyland 1995). Man-made channels and canals, in first pre-molar was extracted for precise age addition to pipelines and levees created by oil and determination by counting cementum annuli of gas companies and the U.S. Army Corps of laboratorial sectioned teeth. Engineers, further degrade and fragment habitat throughout the region. Industrial areas such as oil, Aversive Conditioning and Telemetry gas, and salt plants are prominent components on Following work-up, bears were placed in Louisiana’s coastal landscape that contribute culvert traps where they were allowed to fully greatly to the region’s economy, supplying jobs to recover (for up to 24 hrs.) at the capture site. Once thousands of local and transient contractors. recovered, each bear was randomly placed within Consequently large amounts of trash are 1 of 2 treatments upon release. Bears were generated, causing bears to become highly assigned treatments by choosing one at random, habituated to human contact (Nyland 1995). and then allocating them systematically thereafter to ensure balance in the number of bears assigned METHODS to each treatment. Bears assigned to Treatment 1 Black Bear Capture and Handling were conditioned upon exit from the trap with 12 Black bears were captured from April 2005 to Gauge rubber buckshot (Less Lethal Wildlife February 2006 in areas of St. Mary, Iberia, and Control Lightfield Ammunition), loud voices, and Vermilion Parishes reporting nuisance activity excessive noise. Bears assigned to Treatment 2 using a combination of culvert traps and modified were conditioned using the same methods in Aldrich snares (Johnson and Peyton 1980). Bears combination with being chased by dogs (black- were chemically immobilized with an mouthed curs) until the bear is known to have left intramuscular injection of Telazol® delivered by the affected area. Attempts were made to recapture bears exhibiting reoccurring nuisance behavior; blow dart or CO2 gun. Adult and subadult bears (males > 70 kg and females > 45 kg) were fitted successfully recaptured bears were reconditioned with mortality-sensitive radio collars (Advanced using Treatment 2 protocol regardless of the initial Telemetry Systems) with break-away leather treatment used. Reoccurring nuisance (RoN) bears spacers, ear tags, and corresponding lip tattoo and that could not be recaptured were reconditioned pit-tag microchip (injected under the skin between using Treatment 1 methods when observed shoulder blades) identification numbers. In displaying nuisance behavior. addition to recording body measurements and All bears were monitored intensively with weight; blood, tissue, and hair samples were radio-telemetry following their release to estimate collected for DNA analysis on all bears captured. movements, space use, survival, and interactions

with anthropogenic resources throughout their time period to respective capture sites using environment (Schmutz and White 1990, Taylor ArcMap 9.1. The same method was conducted, 1971). Each bear was located once per hour during using locations collected during the entire study, to the first 4 hours after their release, then once every estimate overall mean distance bears moved from 4 hours for the first 24 hours following release. capture sites in addition to estimating relative Monitoring intensity subsequently declined during mean distance bears moved between consecutive periods following release, unless the individual locations. To further evaluate movement patterns exhibited reoccurring nuisance behavior. for each bear I converted locations to paths for Monitoring protocol > 48 hours following release each period using Animal Movements from included 4 locations/bear/ day recorded during Hawths tools in ArcMap 9.1. I evaluated possible days 2-7, 2 locations/bear/day during days 8-14, 3- interactions with anthropogenic resources by 5 locations/bear/ week during days 15-90, and dividing the number of bear locations found within occasional (several times monthly) locations 1 km of urbanized areas by the overall number of thereafter to document survival and location locations collected during the entire study. I relative to human activities. All locations were additionally calculated percentage home range and distributed throughout the diel period to monitor core area overlap for each bear to investigate how movements during diurnal and nocturnal periods. habitual behavior influences interaction with other Locations were derived from bearings taken at bears captured in the same area by using the same temporary and fixed stations using a Global method to calculate percentage space use overlap Positioning System (GPS) in Universal Transverse for each bear exhibiting home range and/or core Mercator (UTM) coordinates. Locations were area overlap. Locations found inside other bear triangulated using field maps to ensure accuracy home ranges and/ or core areas were divided by during data collection, and then triangulated using total number of locations collected (Chamberlain radio-telemetry based software (Locate II and and Leopold 2000). LOAS 3.2) for precise location and relative error estimation. Data analysis All statistical analyses were conducted using Home range and space use SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, I used 790 locations distributed among 11 USA). I used paired t-tests to evaluate differences bears (9 male and 2 female) collected from April in mean home range (HR95) and core area (HRcore) 2005 to July 2006 to estimate home range and core size between treatments among all bears captured. area sizes, distance moved from capture sites I additionally used a 2-tailed t-distribution to test during the first 24 hours and 2 weeks following differences in mean home range (HRMCP) size release, and total distance bears moved during the between male bears (non-nuisance) captured in my entire study. Movements between consecutive study area from 1992 to 1994 (Wagner 1995) and locations were estimated to evaluate the amount of male nuisance bears captured during my study; movement within each bear’s range following female bears were ignored due to the conditioning and release, providing insight into disproportionate number of females captured in how bears traversed their home range and each study (Wagner n=20 and Leigh n=2). Due to interacted with anthropogenic resources. To a small sample size, least squared estimates with evaluate home range and core area sizes, I confidence intervals (95% about the mean) were estimated 95% home ranges (HR95) and 50% core used to investigate differences between treatments areas (HRcore) using fixed kernel estimators based on mean distances all bears moved from (Seaman and Powell 1996, Powell et al. 1997) for capture sites for: (1) periods of 24 hours and 2 each bear in the Home Range, Animal Movement, weeks following release; (2) periods until bears and Spatial Analyst Extensions in ArcMap 9.1 were observed displaying RoN behavior; and (3) (Environmental Systems Research Institute, the entire study. Tests were conducted using a 5% Redlands, California, USA). To compare home Type I error rate and considered marginally range size with previous research conducted in the significant when 0.10 < P > 0.05. same study area (Wagner 1995); I used MCP Analysis Tools from the Home Range Extension in RESULTS ArcMap 9.1 to derive minimum convex polygons Home range (HRMCP) for each bear. To estimate mean distance Home range (HR95) and core area (HRcore) size bears moved from capture sites during the first 24 did not differ between treatments for all bears hours and 2 weeks following release, I spatially captured (HR95: tdf=9 = -0.89, Pdf=9 = 0.40 and joined telemetry locations of each bear for each HRcore: tdf=9 = -0.62, P df=9 = 0.55). Mean home

2 range and core area sizes for males (12.7 km ) distance of 1172 m (CI Lower = 3.4, CI Upper = 2 were noticeably larger than females (0.86 km ); 2340.3) and those conditioned with Treatment2 however, no statistical analysis was conducted moved a mean distance of 2091 m (CI Lower = between sexes due to the unbalanced ratio of 1019.7, CI Upper = 3169.1) from capture sites 2 females (n=2) to males (n=9) captured during the weeks following release. See Figure 3 for study. movement comparisons 24 hours and 2 weeks following release of bears placed within separate Home range comparison (Leigh vs. Wagner) treatments. Home range (HRMCP) size did not differ A similar trend was demonstrated in the mean among male non-nuisance bears (n=4) captured in distance bears (n=10) moved until being observed 1994 (Wagner 1995) and male nuisance bears displaying RoN behavior following release; bears (n=9) captured during my study (tdf=11=0.21, conditioned with Treatment1 moved a mean SE=12.5, Pdf=11=0.83). Mean home range size distance of 1312 m (CI Lower = -470.8, CI Upper = 2 reported by Wagner (1995) was 44.05 km 3094.2) and those conditioned with Treatment2 (SE=10.7, Range=30.1 – 75.9) and mean home moved a mean distance of 3463 m (CI Lower= -7.3, range size estimated during my study was similar CI Upper = 6933.2) from capture sites (Table 1). (mean = 41.39 km2, SE=6.8, Range=20.7 – 83.9). Ten bears (91%) returned to nuisance behavior within 5 months, regardless of treatment Movements following treatment and release used (Table 2). All movements tested showed an observable Only 1 bear returned to its respective capture pattern in mean distance bears moved away from site, the remaining 9 bears displayed RoN behavior capture sites. In all cases, bears conditioned with at new sites. Mean distance these bears were from Treatment2 methods (dogs) moved greater capture sites when exhibiting nuisance behavior at distances following release than those conditioned new sites was 3152 m (min= 38 m, max= 7122 m). with Treatment1 methods (no dogs), suggesting Bears (n=6) that were reconditioned (rubber that bears may have been marginally influenced by buckshot and loud noise) while observed the additional use of dogs. During the 24 hours displaying nuisance behavior moved a mean following release, bears (n=5) conditioned with distance of 949 m (min= 30 m, max= 4,410 m) Treatment1 moved a mean distance of 1197 m (CI from new sites 24 hours following reconditioning. Lower= -14.8, CIUpper =2,409.4), whereas those Only 1 of the 10 RoN bears was recaptured and conditioned with Treatment2 moved 1855 m (CI reconditioned with Treatment2 protocol; he moved Lower= 896.3, CIUpper =2,813.4) from capture sites a distance of 4732 m from the recapture site 24 (Table 1). hours following reconditioning and release, which Bears, on average, remained within 2 km2 of was greater than the distance moved from the first respective capture sites 2 weeks following capture site with a mean distance of 2288 m (min= conditioning and release (Table 2). Bears 1653m, max=2764m) 24 hours following conditioned with Treatment1 moved a mean conditioning and release. Bears exhibiting habitual

Table 1. Mean distance (meters) bears moved from capture sites 24 hours and 2 weeks following release, in addition to mean distance moved until observed displaying reoccurring nuisance behavior (RoN) and overall mean distance bears moved following release between treatments used to deter nuisance black bear activity in southern Louisiana, 2005-06. Distance Moved Distance Moved Distance Moved Overall Distance

After 24 Hours After 2 Weeks Until RoN Moved na X CI n X CI n X CI n X CI -14.8, 3.4, -470.8, 232.1, Treatment b 5 1235 5 1172 5 1312 5 1654 1 2409.4 2340.3 3094.2 3076.3 896.3, 1019.7, -7.3, 913.9, Treatment c 6 1940 6 2091 5 3463 6 2941 2 2813.4 3163.1 6399.2 4967.4 -1948, -2271, -5391, -3518, Tmt – Tmt d -658 -920 -2151 -1286 1 2 633 431.6 1089 945.6 a Variables indicate number of bears in each treatment (n), mean distance bears moved from capture sites (X), 95 % confidence interval (Lower and Upper) of individual movements. b Treatment using rubber buckshot, loud voices, and loud noise. c Treatment plus dogs. d Difference between Treatments.

nuisance behavior (> 3 RoN events) were observed Space use continuing nuisance activity < 48 days after Nine bears (82%) exhibited moderate to reconditioning with a mean distance of 148 m extensive home range overlap with 1 or more (min= 30 m, max= 519 m) between consecutive bears, and 7 bears (64%) had overlapping core events. One bear was observed continuing areas with other neighboring bears captured during nuisance behavior twice in the same day at sites this study. Both females (W-1 and W-2) in our within 450 m of each other. study exhibited the greatest percentage of home Bears conditioned with Treatment1 moved an range overlap 99% with a single male bear (I-3) overall mean distance of 1654 m (CI Lower= 232.1, that reciprocally overlapped their home ranges CI Upper = 3076.3) and those conditioned with with 6 – 10% of his overall home range. Five male Treatment2 moved an overall mean distance of bears (56%) exhibited home range and core area 2941 m (CI Lower= 913.9, CI Upper = 4967.4) from overlap with other male bears. capture sites (Table 1). DISCUSSION Anthropogenic interaction Human-bear conflicts pose significant concern Of the 11 bears studied, 4 possessed home in urban-wildland interfaced communities ranges that substantially overlapped (> 97 %) throughout North America. Nuisance reports urbanized areas, 5 had home ranges with moderate involving black bears have shown a clinal increase to high overlap (51% to 84%) with urbanized in magnitude and frequency, with a rise of > 1,500 areas, and 2 bears had less than 50% of their home cases reported in the last decade throughout ranges overlapping or juxtaposed (within 1 km) to eastern portions of the United States (Spiker urbanized areas. There appeared to be a connection 2007). Increasing human encroachment into once with anthropogenic percentage overlap and historic black bear habitat has significantly reoccurring nuisance behavior by bears captured contributed to the escalation of human-bear during our study; bears with higher percentages of conflicts due to the loss of natural food items and anthropogenic overlap were observed repeating the increasing presence of refuse generated by nuisance behavior on numerous occasions humans. throughout the study (> 2 sightings), and bears In Louisiana, the human population has with lower levels of overlap were observed increased by more than 54,652 since 2000. The displaying nuisance activity less often (< 1 Coastal ARB region, a prevalent source of human- sightings). Bears with access to higher proportions bear conflict reports, has experienced an increase of contiguous natural habitat relative to urbanized of > 2,824 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). areas demonstrated lower percentages of Black bear population estimates from previous anthropogenic interaction. Tmt 1 (No Dogs) Tmt 2 (Dogs)

Table 2. Time period (days) and number of 3500

Louisiana black bears (Ursus americanus luteolus) 3000 released following aversive conditioning treatments that remained away from reoccurring nuisance 2500 (RoN) behavior in southern Louisiana (St. Mary, 2000 Iberia, and Vermillion parishes) from April 2005 to 1500 June 2006. 1000 a b No. days Treatment1 Treatment2 500 Mean Distance (meters) Moved from Capture Site Capture from Moved until RoN (n = 5) (n = 6) 0 < 5 2 1 24 hours 2 weeks Unitl RoN 6 – 15 1 2 Overall 103 – 144 2 2 Period of time following release c > 145 0 1 Figure 2. Mean distance (m) bears moved from a Number of bears conditioned with rubber buckshot capture sites among treatments (No Dogs vs. Dogs) and loud noise. during periods of 24 hours and 2 weeks, for periods b Number of bears conditioned with rubber buckshot, until bears were observed displaying RoN behavior, loud noise, and dogs. and for the entire study following release in c Bear never confirmed RoN during study. southern Louisiana, 2005-06.

mark-recapture research reported an abundance of following conditioning for all periods examined 77 + 9 bears in this region (Triant et al. 2004), between treatments (no dogs vs. dogs); bears revealing the disparity among human and bear treated with rubber buckshot in combination with populations that largely accounts for human-bear dogs moved farther distances from capture sites conflicts throughout southern Louisiana. and stayed away slightly longer than those treated Many states have addressed human-bear with rubber buckshot alone (Fig. 2). conflicts by implementing non-lethal deterrent While statistical tests were unable to detect a measures in addition to adjusting hunting season significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments regulations (length of season, baiting, and bag used during this study (possibly due to small limits). Louisiana is 1 of 8 states in the eastern sample size), marginal differences were observed U.S. that currently does not allow harvest of black using 95% confidence intervals about the mean for bears; the season was closed in 1988 due to the distances bears moved between treatments. I chose decline in bear abundance and the subspecies was to report results using 95% confidence intervals consequently listed as federally threatened in relative to estimated means because they act as a 1992. Since 2000, Louisiana has experienced a better indicator of possible test significance, notable increase in human-bear conflicts. The providing a good estimate of effect size and a Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries measure of its uncertainty; offering more (LDWF) has received an annual average of 200 information than do P-values presented alone nuisance complaints, commanding increased (Johnson 1999). intervention; however, without a hunting season in Comparable patterns in home range and space place state and federal agencies are strictly limited use have been documented throughout existing to non-lethal management practices (aversive black bear subpopulations in Louisiana (Wagner conditioning techniques) to contend with rising 1995, Marchinton 1995, Van Why 2003, Benson nuisance black bear activity. and Chamberlain 2007). Wagner (1995) reported Various methods of aversive conditioning mean home range (44.05 km2) estimates for male such as lithium chloride, loud noise, pepper spray, non-nuisance coastal black bears, which were rubber buckshot, and dogs have been used on analogous to mean home range (41.39 km2) nuisance black bears by state and federal agencies estimates for male nuisance bears in my study, across North America, but limited research has suggesting that habituated behavior may have been conducted testing effectiveness of these limited influence on male space use. Female bears methods in deterring nuisance black bear behavior (n=2) evaluated in my study had very small mean 2 2 (Colvin 1976, Gillin et al. 1994, Hunt 1984, home ranges (HR95=0.86 km and MCP=1.56 km ) Laycock 1987, Ternent and Garshelis 1999, not typical of non-nuisance female bears. Wagner Beckman et al. 2003 and 2004). Louisiana, much (1993) reported coastal female home range like other states, uses aversive conditioning estimates (MCP= 15.3 km2) far larger than our techniques anecdotally, with limited knowledge of estimates. This difference could have been method efficacy on bear behavior following influenced by a number of factors in our study release and conditioning. This study attempted to such as sample size, dropped collars, monitoring address concerns relative to specific aversive periods, and nuisance behavior. Small sample size conditioning methods (rubber buckshot, loud (n=2) made it difficult to quantitatively compare noise, and dogs) used by local state and federal home range size to previous research. Dropped agencies in Louisiana. I found that 91% (n=10) of collars greatly reduced monitoring duration; both bears returned to nuisance behavior, 60% (n=6) of females lost their collars (due to defective leather which returned within 15 days following release spacers) within 5 months following release. and the remaining bears (n=4) returned within 144 Longer monitoring periods could have provided days regardless of the combination of treatments more comprehensive results relative to female used. Similarly, Beckman et al. (2004) reported a nuisance bear home range size. Nuisance behavior, 92% (n=57) return of bears to nuisance behavior, though proven not to be an influential factor in with 70% (n=44) returning within 40 days male home range size in our study, may have following release regardless of treatment used. influenced female home range size. Female home Additionally, they observed behavioral trends ranges and core areas overlapped urbanized areas similar to my observations; bears treated with dogs by more than 96%. Armstrup and Beecham (1976) remained away for slightly longer periods of time hypothesized that female ranges should be large than those treated with other deterrent methods enough to support adequate resources for alone. In my study, this trend also was production and support of offspring. My results demonstrated in mean distance bears moved suggest that female black bears habituated to

urbanized areas with a readily abundant food by many state and federal agencies have limited source may not need to maximize home range size short-term effectiveness (Beckman et al 2004). A if resources are centrally located. more interactive approach should be considered in Sample size, the most documented limiting the management of human-bear conflicts, placing factor in studies monitoring behavior of large greater emphasis on public education of nuisance carnivores, proved to be an important but bear behavior, and providing preventive unavoidable limitation in my study. Although instruction. Additionally, measures addressing bears (n=11) captured during my study represented food source should be aggressively pursued, such approximately 15% of the estimated coastal as implementing the widespread use of bear-proof Louisiana subpopulation (Triant et al. 2004), larger trash containers in all affected areas and governing sample size is needed to adequately detect the true ordinances with stiff penalties against the effectiveness of deterrent methods used. Difficulty intentional feeding of black bears. LDWF, in in attaining a larger sample size was greatly cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife attributed to problems associated with trapping and Service (USFWS), passed a no feeding ordinance nuisance reporting. A large proportion of nuisance in 2002, and subsequently provided residents in bear activity in residential areas was not reported affected areas of St. Mary Parish with bear-proof due in part to confusion concerning the source; trashcans. LDWF has since reported a reduction in many residents consulted during our study did not nuisance bear complaints, suggesting that this actually see bears exhibiting nuisance activity. approach may have been a successful factor in Although a toll-free hotline for reporting nuisance reducing human-bear conflicts in south Louisiana. bear activity was provided by LDWF, many The USFWS and the Black Bear Conservation residents still had limited knowledge of how to Committee (BBCC) have played an active role in approach reporting nuisance activity. I noted on some affected communities, providing education numerous occasions that citizens were discouraged to citizens to heighten bear awareness. The by not knowing whom to contact and dissatisfied USFWS hosts an annual event called the Franklin with responses by local law enforcement and/or Black Bear Festival, located in St. Mary Parish, to state and federal agencies responsible for nuisance encourage the public to learn more about the bear management. The degree of severity and Louisiana black bear through bear-related frequency of nuisance bear activity also appeared literature, presentations, and games. During my to influence reporting of nuisance activity. In cases study, I promoted public education and where nuisance activity was repeatedly reported, it cooperation by encouraging residents to participate was often times observed to be a reoccurring in particular aspects of capturing and releasing nuisance bear already captured and treated. Hence, bears. In addition to allowing the community to the lack of reports of nuisance activity, attributable name bears captured, this also included on-site to bears not already included in the study, education on nuisance behavior and management contributed to our low sample size. The timeliness techniques, placing emphasis on preventive of reports also was imperative due to the brief measures that can be implemented to avoid window of opportunity (usually less than 1 week) conflicts with bears. existing to trap specific individuals in affected Tavss (2005) suggested that human-bear areas. conflicts can be successfully addressed by using Areas with a high distribution of human non-violent programs that include public education refuse, most evident in densely populated about bear propensity to eat garbage (placing great residential areas, posed the greatest challenge in emphasis on never feeding bears intentionally or trapping nuisance bears during my study. The non-intentionally), bear-proofing garbage contain- abundance of trashcans distributed throughout ers, and enforcing ordinances regarding human affected neighborhoods made it difficult to target refuse. U.S. national parks (Yellowstone, and capture specific individuals. Highly habituated Yosemite, and Great Smoky) and communities individuals previously captured and conditioned bordering black bear habitat (Juneau, Alaska; by state and federal agencies prior to this study Elliot Lake, Ontario; and the Lake Tahoe Basin, proved to be difficult to recapture because of trap Nevada) that use this program have reported fewer avoidance observed by citizens and myself, conflicts involving nuisance black bears. In all suggesting that bears retain knowledge of negative instances, the removal of food source has been experiences associated with trapping methods successful in substantially reducing the number of (culvert traps). human-bear conflicts reported by 40 to 80% My findings, similar to previous studies, (Tavss 2005). suggest that deterrent methods currently adopted

My results suggest that aversive conditioning Beckmann, J. P., C. W. Lacky, and J. Berger. methods have limited effectiveness in deterring 2004. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and nuisance bear activity when used independent of dogs to alter behavior of “nuisance” black bears. management practices addressing food source. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1141–1146. Therefore, I recommend that agencies responsible Benson, J. F. 2005. Ecology and conservation of for nuisance bear management use aversive Louisiana black bears in the Tensas River Basin conditioning techniques as a supplemental tool in and reintroduced populations. Thesis. Louisiana support of programs that focus on addressing food State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. source through public education and the use of Benson, J. F., and M. J. Chamberlain. 2007. Space bear-proof trash containers. The combination of use and habitat selection by female Louisiana these practices may improve the probability of black bears in the Tensas river basin of successfully reducing human-bear conflicts in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71 affected areas. (1):117–126. Black Bear Conservation Committee. 2005. Black ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS bear management handbook. Baton Rouge, We thank the Berryman Institute for providing Louisiana. funding for the project and the Black Bear Chamberlain, M. J., and B. D. Leopold. 2000. Conservation Committee for the generous Spatial use patterns, seasonal habitat selection, donation. Thanks to United States Fish and and interactions among adult gray foxes in Wildlife Service: D. Fuller, P. Yakupzack, D. Mississippi. Journal of Wildlife Management Soileau, and J. Ertel; United States Department of 64:742–751. Agriculture and Geological Survey: D. Leblanc, Clark, J. E., F. T. Van Manen, and M. R. Pelton. W. Cotton, R. Choate, and T. Michot; Black Bear 2002. Correlates of the success for on-site Conservation Committee and the Louisiana releases of nuisance black bears in Great Smoky Department of Wildlife and Fisheries: P. Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Davidson, D. Telesco, M. Davidson, B. Wear, T. Bulletin 30:104–111. Blair, and T. Marcentel. Without their guidance Colvin, T.R. 1976. Aversive conditioning black and support this project would not have been bear to honey utilizing lithium chloride. Game possible. and Fish Division, Georgia Department Natural Massive thanks to the technicians and Resources, Fitzgerald, Georgia. volunteers that shed their blood, sweat, and tears Gillin, C. M., P. M. Hammond, and C. M. on this project: D. Clark, J. Yurek, J. Price, and T. Peterson. 1994.Evaluation of an aversive Blair. Thanks to M. Mitchell for supplying the conditioning technique used on female grizzly project with essential supplies and analyzing DNA bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. and blood samples collected. International Conference on Bear Research and Great appreciation is extended to the Management 9:503–512. residential, industrial, and recreational property Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America, owners of St. Mary, Iberia, and Vermilion Parishes Volume 2. John Wiley and Sons, New York, that allowed me access to their lands to trap and New York. conduct telemetry. Special thanks to British Herrero, S. 1983. Social behavior of black bears at Petroleum Co., Degussa Coal Plant, Morton Salt a garbage dump in Jasper National Park. Co., North American Salt Co., Texaco Co., Twin International Conference on Bear Research and Brothers Marine Inc., and the Breaux, Choate, Management 5:54–70. Derouen, Robicheaux, and Michot families for the Hunt, C. L. 1984. Behavioral responses of bears to exceptional cooperation and support that was tests of repellents, deterrents and aversive beneficial to the success of this project. conditioning. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. LITERATURE CITED Jelinski, D. E., R. C. Rounds, and J. R. Jowsey. Armstrup, S. C., and J. Beecham. 1976. Activity 1983. Coyote predation on sheep, and control by patterns of radio-collared black bears in Idaho. aversive conditioning in Saskatchewan. Journal Journal of Wildlife Management 40:340–348. of Wildlife Management 36:16–19. Beckmann, J. P., and J. Berger. 2003. Rapid Johnson, K. G., and M. R. Pelton. 1980. Prebaiting ecological and behavioral changes in carnivores: and snaring techniques for black bears. Wildlife the responses of black bears (Ursus americanus) Society Bulletin 8:46–54. to altered food. Journal of Zoology 261:207– 212.

Johnson D. H. 1999. The Insignificance of Shull, S. D. 1994. Management of nuisance black statistical significance testing. Journal of bears (Ursus americunus) in the interior Wildlife Management 63(3):763–772. highlands of Arkansas. M.S. Thesis. University Laycock, G. 1987. Making bad bears into good of Arkansas. 101 pp. bears could spare bears. Audubon 89:22-28. Singer, F. J., and S. P. Bratton. 1980. Black bear- Marchinton, F. B. 1995. Movement ecology of human conflicts in the Great Smoky Mountains black bears in a fragmented bottomland National Park. International Conference on Bear hardwood habitat in Louisiana. Thesis. Research and Management 4:137–149. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Smith, K. G., J. D. Clark, and P.S. Gipson. 1990. Masterson, L. 2006. Living with bears: a practical History of black bears in Arkansas: over- guide to bear country. Pixyjack Press, LLC. exploitation, near elimination, and successful Masonville, Colorado. reintroduction. Eastern Workshop on Black bear Mattson, D. J. 1990. Human impacts on bear Research and Management 10:5–14. habitat use. International Conference on Bear Spiker, H. 2007. Black bear status report. Research and Management 8:33–56. Proceeding of the 19th Eastern Workshop on Meadows, L. E., Andelt, W. F. and T. I. Beck. Black Bear Management and Research. National 1998. Managing bear damage to beehives. Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, Colorado State University Cooperative West Virginia. Extension Report No. 6519. Tavss, E. A. 2005. Correlation of reduction in Nyland, P. D. 1995. Black bear habitat nuisance black bear complaints with relationships in coastal Louisiana. Thesis. implementation of (a) a non-violent program and Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. (b) a hunt. New Jersey Public Hearing on the Pace R. M., III, D. R. Anderson, S. Shively. 2000. Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy. Sources and patterns of mortality in Louisiana Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, black bears. Proceedings of the Annual New Jersey. Conference, Southeastern Association of Fish Taylor, D. F. 1971. A radio-telemetry study of the and Wildlife Agencies. 54:365–373. black bear (Euarctos americanus) with notes on Pelton, M. R., and F. T. van Manen. 1994. its history and present status in Louisiana. Distribution of black bears in North America. Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Proceeding of the Eastern Workshop on Black Rouge, Louisiana. Bear Management and Research 12:133-138. Ternent, M.A., and D. L. Garshelis. 1999. Taste- Powell, R.A., Zimmerman, J.W. and Seaman, D.E. aversive conditioning to reduce nuisance activity 1997. Ecology and Behaviour of North by black bears in a Minnesota military American Black Bears. Chapman and Hall, New reservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:720– York, New York. 728. Rogers, L. L., D. W. Kuehn, A. W. Erickson, E. Triant D.A., R.M. Pace III, M. Stine. 2004. M. Harger, L. J. Verme, and J. J Ozoga. 1976. Abundance, genetic diversity and conservation Characteristics and management of black bears of Louisiana black bears (Ursus americanus that feed in garbage dumps, campgrounds or luteolus) as detected through noninvasive residential areas. International Conference on sampling. Conservation Genetics. 5:647–659. Bear Research and Management 3:169–175. U.S. Census Bureau Population Division. Samuel, M. D., D. J. Pierce, and E. O. Garton. Louisiana population finder for 1990 to 2005. 1985. Identifying areas of concentrated use Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau, 2005. within the home range. Journal of Animal Van Why, K. R. 2003. Feasibility of restoring the Ecology 54:711–719. Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus SAS Institute. 2005. SAS software: usage and luteolus) to portions of their historic range. reference. Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton North Carolina, USA. Rouge, Louisiana. Seaman D. E., and R. A. Powell. 1996. An Wagner, R. O. 1995. Movement patterns of black evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density bears in south central Louisiana. Thesis. estimators for home range analysis. Ecology Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 77:2075–2085. Louisiana. Schmutz, J. A., and G. C. White. 1990. Error in telemetry studies: effects of animal movement on triangulation. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:506–510.

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEAR SMART PROGRAMMING IN COTTAGE COUNTRY: COTTAGERS, ATTITUDES, EVALUATIONS AND BEHAVIOUR

J. MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Associate Professor, 112 Frank Kennedy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T-6A5, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Across North America communities are struggling with the problem of managing habituated bears. Over the past decades there has been an increase in negative interactions between humans and bears. This increase is thought to be, in part, the result of increasing human development in bear habitat. Many of these conflicts take place in recreational locations such as cottage communities and ski resorts, where bears may be seen as part of the “attraction”. As such there is often the additional conflict between those who wish to attract bears (through feeding) and those who feel bears do not belong in the community. Habituated bears pose a potential threats to residents and their property and in turn to themselves, when bears are destroyed to protect human safety. In response to these concerns a number of initiatives such as Bear Smart, Bear Aware and Bear Wise have evolved to help communities learn to deal with bears. All these programs share the goals of educating people about how to avoid attracting bears to their property or campsite and what to do should a bear approach. This study examines the efficacy of the Bear Smart program in 2 cottage communities along the shores of Lake Winnipeg. Audits of bear attractants were conducted on cottage properties prior to and after the implementation of the bear smart awareness program. In addition, a survey was distributed to determine cottagers’ beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and intentions regarding bear smart behavior. Results indicate that while most cottagers expressed a high degree of support for the bear smart program and engaging in bear smart behavior, results of the audits showed little had actually been done to reduce cottage properties attractiveness to bears. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Over the past few years we have witnessed a important of these is the behavior of people living number of dramatic and tragic events resulting in bear habitat. from conflicts between humans and black bears in To date, this has by and large taken the form Manitoba. This has resulted in one human fatality of educating the public regarding how they can and numerous bear deaths and reflects trends in minimize the attractiveness of their property and human-bear conflict across Canada and the United communities to bears, particularly during periods States. The reasons behind the apparent increase in of food shortage and the important fall pre- conflicts between bears and humans are complex hibernation season. The importance afforded to and have been posted to include factors such as education programs cannot be understated and has increasing human encroachment and activity in been a key focus of bear-conflict management for bear habitat (Beckmann and Berger 2003), decades (McCullough 1982, McCarthy and Seavoy population fluctuations (Peine 2001), seasonal 1994, Peine 2001) Despite the generally accepted food shortages (Peine 2001, Warburton and use of education to influence humans to engage in Maddrey 1994), habituation (McCullough 1982, bear smart behavior; there has been relatively little Williams 2002) and a reduction in population research to examine its effectiveness. When one controls (Schull 1994) among others. In Manitoba, considers that most education efforts and public the Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch awareness take place after periods or events of attempts to maintain provincial bear populations at intense human-bear conflict (conflicts that might or below biological and social carrying capacity have been the result of population eruptions, and as such reduce the potential for human-bear management actions, or food shortages; Peine conflicts (Manitoba Conservation). Clearly many 2001) it is naïve to assume that any reduction in of the factors that influence the potential for conflict is the result of anything other than a conflicts between humans and bears to occur are reversal of the conditions that lead to the increase beyond the control of provincial wildlife in the first place. That is, the education or managers. Therefore it is essential that wildlife awareness efforts, regardless of how well management agencies focus their efforts on those intentioned, might not be the reason for subsequent factors they can influence. One of the most reductions in conflicts. Furthermore, the increased

public awareness that results from dramatic events level of bear attractants on cottage properties was such as those that occurred in the summer of 2005 collected through a series of attractant audits does not ensure that people understand how their conducted in the communities. behavior can affect human-bear conflict. Finally, where the newly learned behavior is not Survey responsible for the reduction in conflict, any lapses The survey instrument used in this study is in behavior will not be negatively reinforced and based upon the Theory of Planned Behavior The as such likely to persist. theory posits that the antecedent determinant of In order to begin to understand how public any particular behavior is the intention to perform education programs influence behavior and what said behavior and that this is in turn guided by elements of the programs are most effective a three types of considerations (Ajzen 1991): multi year study of attitudes and behavior was behavioral beliefs (beliefs about outcomes of begun in 2006 initially focusing upon three cottage behaviors and the evaluations of these outcomes); communities along the East side of Lake Winnipeg normative beliefs (what we believe others In Manitoba. expectations of us are and our motivation to comply with these beliefs) and; control beliefs STUDY AREA (beliefs about factors that may affect our ability to In order to adequately test and identify which perform a behavior and the perceived power of mitigation measures reduce human-bear conflicts these factors). The survey instrument included an and are cost-effective and appropriate, three overall measure of intention (i.e., likelihood of communities at various stages of problem removing bear attractants, and overall measures of mitigation were included in this study: One attitude (i.e., removing bear attractants is community that has yet to embark upon a plan to acceptable/unacceptable) and subjective norm (i.e., reduce human-bear conflicts, a control community people who are important to me think that I should in which no action is taken for the first 2 years of remove bear attractants from my property). the study and a community where measures are Additionally, a series of seven-point bipolar already in place. Initial consultations with evaluative scales were designed and included to Manitoba Conservation identified cottage assess underlying beliefs, normative influences, communities in the Grand Beach District, along and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen and the east side of Lake Winnipeg, as having among Fishbein 1980). The scale items were based upon the highest incidence of human-bear conflict in the the results of an elicitation survey with a sub- province. As a result of these discussions it was sample of the target population (N=30) to generate determined that the following communities be salient referents, outcomes and control beliefs of examined: (1) Victoria Beach, which has indicated removing bear attractants. a willingness to implement measures to resolve Given that the target population was cottagers human-bear problems and has already begun to and there is no door-to-door mail delivery in the develop initiatives aimed at reducing nuisance bear selected cottage communities, a modified Dilman activity and as such presents an excellent Total Design (2000) approach was used to opportunity to compare program effectiveness facilitate distribution and collection of the survey with a non-park community. (2) Grand Beach instruments. Surveys were delivered in person to Provincial Park, which provides an ideal setting in all cottages in both the Victoria Beach and Grand which to maintain control over the messages being Beach communities. Each cottage site received 2 delivered through co-operation with Parks and follow-up visits with reminder notices distributed Natural Areas Branch. In addition, Grand Beach and a final reminder to all cottages that had not occupies a central location in the region and can responded with a second survey supplied. This act as a multiplier for the benefits of bear smart proved to be an extremely time consuming process programming. and in order to effectively complete the process. This, in combination with the late start of the METHODS project meant there was no time prior to the end of The study is being conducted over a 3-year the cottage season to complete a survey in the period with a follow-up evaluation to take place 5 community of Lester Beach. years after the implementation of mitigation measures and education programs. In the first year Bear Attractant Audits of the study data regarding cottagers’ attitudes, and Bear attractant audits were conducted in intentions were collected through a survey Victoria Beach, Grand Beach and Lester Beach. In questionnaire. In addition data regarding the actual both VB and GB the audits were conducted both

pre- and post survey. Given that there was no Surveys survey for Lester Beach the audits in that Surveys were distributed to a total of 1,127 community were conducted only once they are not cottages in Grand Beach and Victoria Beach included here for analysis. Every cottage property during 3 weeks in August 2006. Three hundred was visited and all bear attractants visible on the and thirty three (333) completed surveys were property were identified and recorded. In order to returned (VB-237, GB-96) for an overall response expedite the process and remove the threat of bias rate of 28%. Of the 333 respondents to the survey by differing observers counts were simple 71% were from the Victoria Beach cottage dichotomous counts, that is attractants were community and 28% from the Grand Beach identified only as present or not. Fifteen types of cottage community. Response rates for each attractants, ranging from natural attractants such as community were Victoria Beach 36% and Grand wild fruit trees and mast to human created Beach 15%, given the relatively low response rate attractants such as garbage and pet food, were for Grand Beach comparisons between the identified and recorded. All property audits were communities in terms of survey results will have linked to property numbers so that the audit results limited value. Therefore responses will be and any subsequent changes could be linked to the combined to provide an aggregate overview of survey. attitudes and intentions with respect to cottagers’ bear smart behavior. The respondents reflected a Education balanced gender profile with 49.2 % male and 49 In addition to the survey and audits, one bear % female. smart presentation was conducted in Victoria As can be seen in Figure 1 a majority of Beach during the field season. Several bear smart respondents (75%) had heard of the Bear Smart articles appeared in the local newspaper program and most were open to learning more throughout the summer and a mail out of the Bear about the program. However, only a third were Smart Pamphlet (produced by the province) was planning on attending a presentation, suggesting sent to all residents in the ROL postal code that other forms of communication will be needed catchment1. Highway signs scheduled to be in for this audience. Following up on this when asked place for the summer cottage season were not if they intended to reduce their cottage property’s erected by the Highways Department until after attractiveness to bears this season 60% of the September long weekend. During the course of respondents indicated that they were very likely to both the survey distribution and the bear attractant do so and nearly 80% evaluated doing so as a audits the students research assistants not only positive measure. Taken together these two results modeled bear smart behavior in terms of personal indicate relatively strong support for the Bear safety (carrying air-horns, pepper spray and belt Smart program and a willingness or desire to learn knives) but also provided education to cottagers how they can reduce bear human conflicts. regarding the project and how to avoid attracting In terms of attitudes towards bears in the bears to ones property. Indeed the visibility of the cottage community’s respondents displayed a wide students and the interest displayed by cottagers range of views, in part dependent upon the context. contributed significantly to the time required for In general respondents could be characterized as the SRA’s to complete their work. 80 RESULTS Yes No 70 Given that the primary goal of this first year of the study was to introduce the bear smart 60 program and to collect baseline data regarding 50 attitudes and intentions with respect to reducing 40 conflicts with bears, the season was moderately successful. Audits of bear attractants were Percent 30 conducted at least once in every cottage lot in all 20 three of the identified cottage communities and 10 surveys were distributed to residents of both Grand Beach and Victoria Beach cottage communities. 0 Heard of Want to Will attend Bear Smart learn more a session

1 Unfortunately, this mail out was not received by many Figure 1. Awareness and intentions regarding cottagers as they receive their mail as General Delivery. Bear Smart.

having quite positive attitudes towards bears. As with most of the responses that did not However, there was fairly strong consensus that score as highly there was a greater variance which bears did not belong in cottage communities. as noted above means that these items could In terms of management actions, respondents engender some conflict. Indeed, several are strongly supportive of management options respondents were quite indignant that bird feeders that involve a proactive approach, for example were not a problem and that it was solely garbage Bear Proofing Garbage (86%very effective) and that attracted bears to the community. less supportive of those that employ a reactive Highest scores were given for removing approach to bear management such as capturing human food attractants and reflect both the belief problem bears (40% very effective). Furthermore, that these are effective actions for reducing a proactive approaches to management not only properties attractiveness and the evaluation that scored positively on average but also exhibited performing these actions were highly acceptable. much lower standard deviations indicating a high Lowest attitudes scores were reported for removal level of coherence among respondents as well. of natural food sources and were most influenced Many reactive management strategies while still by relatively low acceptability evaluations. That is, evaluated positively (though at lower levels) while cottagers believe removing mast and fruit showed far greater variance across the respondents from their property will reduce its attractiveness suggesting that these could become contentious they are less inclined to think it is acceptable. issues for wildlife managers. The influence of subjective norms or Measures of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived social pressure regarding removing bear perceived behavioral control generally showed attractants is presented in Table 2. From this we strong positive responses in terms of respondent’s intention to and support for bear smart behaviors. Table 3. Perceived behavioral control over The most significant departure form this trend was removing bear attractants. with reference to natural attractants and the likelihood or desirability of removing them from Strength Perceived the property. Table 1 displays the range of Control Control of Behavioral Statements beliefs Factor Control behavioral beliefs, outcome evaluations and the Unanticipated 4.71 0.71 2.91 resultant attitudes scores for the removal of a events Feeling tired, ill variety of bear attractants. As is evident from the 4.34 0.34 0.69 table most items were viewed as highly effective listless Family obligations 4.41 0.41 1.63 in reducing a property’s attractiveness to bears constrain with lowest mean score of 5.07 for removing Unanticipated fallen mast. (Surprisingly, there was little issue demands of 4.57 0.57 1.06 (mean = 5.08, sd = 2.0) with the idea of removing work Go to cottage just bird feeders despite the general belief that this was 5.44 1.44 8.54 not a particularly significant attractant (mean = to relax Got to cottage to 4.53, sd = 2.06). 5.46 1.46 8.47 enjoy nature

Table 1. Attitudes towards removing bear attractants.

Behavioral Belief Outcome Evaluation Attitude Effective Acceptable Belief*Evaluation Belief statements (possible range 1to 7) (possible range –3 to 3) (possible range –21 to 21) Learn bear smart behavior 5.81 2.36 14.42 Remove bird feeders 5.92 1.60 11.30 Proper garbage disposal 6.57 2.52 17.12 Remove fruit trees 5.58 0.75 5.79 Securely store BBQ 5.35 0.90 6.65 Remove fallen fruit 5.90 1.58 10.63 No outdoor pet food 6.27 2.47 16.26 Remove fallen mast 5.07 0.79 5.95 No food left unattended 6.36 2.48 16.43 Remove empty bird feeders 4.53 1.07 7.62 Remover compost 5.00 1.20 8.45

can see that respondents believe that others Comparisons of attractants between Grand (friends, neighbors, CO’s) think they should Beach, located inside the Provincial Park, and remove attractants for their property and generally Victoria Beach, located outside the park provide a they are willing to comply. striking contrast, particularly with respect to Among salient referents family and con- anthropogenic attractants (human foods, odors and servation officers emerge as those most likely to visuals). Anthropogenic attractants in VB are influence the decision remove bear attractants significantly higher than in GB and can be largely from cottage property. The significance of attributed to the improper disposal of refuse. Conservation officers suggests an important In addition, improper storage of BBQ’s, avenue for communicating “Bear Smart” coolers and fridges also increase the overall messages. attractant scores for Victoria Beach (mean = 2.72) Results for the impact of perceived behavioral versus those of Grand Beach (mean = 1.07) In control are presented in table 3 below and indicate comparing the result of the bear attractant audits of that respondents generally don’t feel “other Victoria Beach and Grand Beach what is most events” will necessarily affect their ability to striking is the significant difference in level of remove bear attractants from their cottage Human Food attractants identified on cottage properties. Once the full model of Planned properties in the two communities. Victoria Beach Behavior has been run the relative influence of audits identified nearly four times the amount of each of these factors will be determined. At this human food attractants than were identified in stage , however it appears PBC has limited impact Grand Beach despite the communities being of on the behavior in question. similar size. The vast majority of these food attractants were improperly stored BBQ’s (455) Bear attractant audits followed by garbage left out (96) and bird feeders The results of the bear audits are presented in (75). Table 4. Fifteen separate attractants were monitored at each cottage site during the scheduled audits. Each audit took a full week to complete and given the limited time available to Table 4. Results of 2006 bear attractant property audits. the project during cottage season (May long weekend to September long weekend reduced to Victoria Grand July 16 to September 7) a total of 5 audits were all Beach Beach that could be accomplished. The items audited are (n=690) (n=501) identified in Table 1 and were grouped according Food category June Sept June Sept to the predominant attractant value, i.e. natural Natural foods attractant, human foods, visual attractant, and odor mast 390 395 208 208 attractant and reflect the basic manner in which fruit 260 260 117 119 nuisance bear reports are collected for the total 650 660 325 327 province. Human foods veg. garden 28 30 0 0 garbage 142 96 9 7 bird feeder 82 75 72 75 food 3 7 3 1 pet food 10 6 1 0 planted fruit 19 20 4 4 Table 2. The potential influence of others on the compost 24 25 0 0 decision to remove bear attractants from cottage total 322 259 89 87 property (Subjective Norms). Odor BBQ 487 455 94 98 Normative Intention to fire pit/barrel 37 38 19 23 The influence Belief comply Subjective petroleum 18 15 2 3 of others (Should=7) (Will =3) Norm total 532 508 115 123 Family 6.21 1.67 10.66 Visual Neighbors 5.33 1.30 7.09 cooler 30 22 6 5 Cons. Officers 6.03 1.67 10.60 freezer 7 7 0 0 People like me 5.56 1.54 9.47 fridge 27 27 2 2 Friends 5.37 1.36 8.41 total 64 56 8 7 Other cottagers 5.35 1.29 7.85 Grand total 1568 1483 537 544

In contrast, in Grand Beach there 94 BBQ’s could explain the less than enthusiastic response to improperly stored, only 9 reports of garbage left removing bird feeders and BBQs. out, and 72 bird feeders. The average number of As this is only the first year of a 4-year study attractants at a cottage property in Victoria Beach it is too early to make any firm conclusions, was 2.7 and ranged from 0 to 7 attractants per site. however what has been learned in the first year In Grand Beach the average was 1.07 and ranged will be of inestimable value in the subsequent from 0 to 5. Initial comparisons of July and years of the study September audits for both communities reveal no significant differences in the number of attractants LITERATURE CITED at the individual cottage lots. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizationla behavior and human decision DISCUSSION processes. 50:179–211. Initial results indicate that there is a high Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding degree of support for engaging in bear smart Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. behavior in the selected cottage communities when Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey. measured as intentions to perform a behavior. Beckmann, J. P. and J. Berger. 2003. Rapid eco- However, when the actual behavior is measured, in logical and behavioral changes in carnivores: the this case as the results of the audit of bear responses of black bears (Ursus Americanus) to attractants (assumed here to be a surrogate for the altered food. Journal of Zoology 261:207–212. behavior of interest), the evidence suggests that the Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The intention to remove attractants has not resulted in tailored design method. Wiley Publishing, New the behavior of removing attractants. Preliminary York. analysis of the data (modeling is ongoing) suggests McCarthey, T. M. and R. J. Seavoy. 1994. that attitudes with respect to certain key attractants Reducing non-sport losses attributable to food (BBQ’s, bird feeders, Mast, and Fruit trees) may conditioning: human and bear behavior be responsible for the lack of action. While each of modification in an urban environment. these items was recognized to be a bear attractant, International Conference of Bear Research and the acceptability of removing them was Management. 9(1):74–84 significantly lower than for other attractants and McCullough, D. R. 1982. Behavior, bears and this was borne out in the audits. Attitudes towards humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 10(1):27–33. removing bird feeders in particular displayed a Peine, J.D. 2001. Nuisance bears in communities: high degree of variation and suggests that some strategies to reduce conflict. Human Dimen- cottagers are simply unwilling to remove them. In sions of Wildlife. 6:223–237. fact, a number of respondents wrote lengthy Schull, S. D. 1994. Management of nuisance black missives pointing to garbage as the real problem bears (Ursus Americanus) in the interior and minimizing the significance bird feeders. highlands of Arkansas. Unfortunately in a dense cottage community such Warburton, G. S. and R. C. Maddrey. 1994. as Victoria Beach or Grand Beach, less than total Survey of nuisance bear programs in eastern compliance with non-feeding is not likely to be North America. Eastern Workshop Black Bear effective. Furthermore, while perceived behavioral Research and Management. 12:115–23. control does not appear to be a significant Williams, D. 2002. Title unknown. National Parks. influence on the behavior, the stated motives for April/ May 2002. 41–45. cottaging of relaxing and experiencing nature

FOCUS ON THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM: ATTRACTANTS

MARIA W. DAVIDSON, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, P.O. Box 98000, Baton Rouge, LA 70898, phone: 225-763-2385, email: [email protected] PAUL L. DAVIDSON, Black Bear Conservation Committee, P.O. Box 80442, Baton Rouge, LA 70898, phone: 225-763-5425, email: [email protected] DAVID J. TELESCO, Black Bear Conservation Committee, P.O. Box 80442, Baton Rouge, LA 70898, phone: 225-763-5425, email: [email protected]

Abstract: In 1992, the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) was listed as a threatened subspecies under the Endangered Species Act. Because of the bears’ protected status, conflict resolution relies heavily on preventative measures. Non-lethal damage-control measures (e.g., aversive conditioning) are instituted when problems do arise. While general outreach efforts like brochures and meetings are a valid part of prevention, outreach alone does not typically result in the 100% public compliance necessary to obtain a bear-proof environment. Aversive conditioning can provide immediate relief to a problem situation in certain circumstances. However, aversive conditioning is a reaction to the problem of attractants: if attractants remain, conflict resolution will ultimately be limited. Attractants are the root cause of bear conflicts, so a direct focus on attractants is the key solution to the problem. Building a relationship with those who experience bear conflicts as well as those who can implement real change to remove attractants sets the stage for the wildlife agency to be viewed as an ally rather than adversary in this process. Communicating the message that attractant removal is the only sure and long term solution to bear conflicts should be a clear and persistent message when dealing with those people experiencing problems. The steps in dealing with attractants differ with each situation; however, breaking it down into corporate and residential situations can be useful in discussing general approaches to conflict management. In general, the agency’s role is to provide factual information that can be incorporated into action. In corporate situations, the agency can provide specifications for electric fencing or bear-proof dumpsters so decision makers can select the appropriate vendors. In residential situations, the agency can present local government the scope of the problem and recommend solutions, including new solid waste contracts to include bear-proof containers in areas experiencing the most problems. Case studies of conflict management approaches in corporate and residential situations are included.

As human and bear populations increase in state wildlife agencies have sole responsibility for size and range, the potential for conflicts also addressing human/bear conflicts when they occur. increases. In the United States, conflicts between However, the Louisiana black bear’s protected humans and black bears have been increasing since status elicits a federal role in conflict management. the early 1990’s (Conover 1998, Peine 2001, Gore State and federal agencies work as part of a et al. 2006). State agencies estimated significant conflict management team (Team) in cooperation increases in expenditures, personnel hours, and the with the Black Bear Conservation Committee number of complaints related to human/bear (BBCC), a non-profit coalition of public and conflict management between 1990 and 2004 private groups. The Team in Louisiana consists of (International Association of Fish and Wildlife personnel from BBCC, Louisiana Department of Agencies 2005). In Louisiana, human/bear Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Department of conflicts have increased in areas with increasing Agriculture - Wildlife Services, and FWS. human encroachment into bear habitat and a Due to the legal status of the Louisiana black growing bear population. bear, conflict resolution relies heavily on Louisiana black bears (Ursus americanus preventative measures and non-lethal damage luteolus) are one of the 16 recognized subspecies control techniques. BBCC conflict protocol states, of the American black bear (Ursus americanus) in “only in rare and extreme situations should an North America (Hall 1981). The U.S. Fish and animal be relocated [in response to a bear/ human Wildlife Service (FWS) declared the subspecies conflict]” (Black Bear Conservation Committee “threatened” under provisions of the Endangered 2002). Therefore, conflicts are managed primarily Species Act (Neal 1992), primarily because of using public outreach as well as capture, on-site extensive forest habitat loss (Nowak 1986). Most

release, and aversive conditioning for “nuisance” information, and follow up with a site visit. bears. Personnel realize that their role must be viewed as The public outreach program (outreach) an ally rather than the adversary in human/bear provides factual information on how to avoid conflicts. When the Team goes on a site visit, they conflicts with bears. In addition, outreach look at each situation to determine the attractants increases public knowledge (and thereby public that may have caused the conflict. The Team’s job support) about bears. Brochures targeting specific is to make it clear that the primary solution to user-groups and public presentations in conflict human/bear conflict is attractant removal. areas are common tools used in the outreach Solutions that provide feasible and practical program. While outreach efforts are popular, few mechanisms that address the attractants are educational programs have mechanisms in place to presented. evaluate their success in reducing conflicts (Gore While conflict management approaches are et. al. 2006). In addition, outreach requires 100% very situation specific, there are some strategies compliance to eliminate bear conflict. For that can be examined by separating conflicts into example, if only one home in a neighborhood corporate and residential situations. We present a feeds bears, this can result in bears visiting case study for each of these situations to illustrate multiple homes in the area in search of food. the different approaches that can be used to When preventative measures fail, direct address attractants. management of the conflict behavior is initiated. The corporate situation involved an isolated Human/bear conflicts can be altered through live industrial facility with several large, remotely trapping, aversive conditioning, and releasing located dumpsters. Both large roll-off and smaller, bears into the same general area. Aversive lift-lid, dumpsters were being accessed regularly conditioning uses negative reinforcement by bears. In addition, some direct feeding by associated with conflict behavior in order to employees and nearby residents was contributing “teach” bears to cease that behavior. Aversive to the problem. The Team met with facility conditioning can be a successful tool in a proactive managers and corporate officers and explained the conflict management program that includes problem as an on-the-job safety hazard. The preventative measures. However, if attractants corporation was provided contact information for remain accessible to bears, the long-term vendors who could supply electric fencing and effectiveness of any aversive conditioning is bear-proof dumpsters. The Team also offered questionable (McCarthy and Seavoy 1994, specifications and technical assistance to construct Beckmann et al. 2004). a fenced dumpster lot, where dumpsters could be Food conditioning of black bears increases the consolidated and excluded from bears. Solid waste probability of human/bear conflicts (Herrero and disposal services were presented to facility Fleck 1990, Herrero and Higgins 1995, Peine managers who had received specifications for 2001). Therefore, the removal or exclusion of bear-proof containers. In addition, the corporation attractants that cause food conditioning will was offered terminology and a list of safety rules ultimately reduce human/bear conflicts. In some that could be easily incorporated into their regular cases, conflicts may be avoided completely by safety regulation manuals. The Team also offered keeping susceptible resources away from bear on-the-job training to employees as part of their habitat or by removing attractants that lure bears to existing safety training. The company opted to those resources. However, exclusion or removal construct an electric fence around their dumpsters, methods can be cost-prohibitive or require extra incorporate bear safety language in their training effort on the part of the individual experiencing the manuals, and prohibit bear feeding by employees. damage (International Association of Fish and The residential situation involved a Wildlife Agencies 2005). The challenge for neighborhood that is adjacent to bear habitat. The human/bear conflict resolution in Louisiana is to primary attractant in this area was the availability focus on the most effective, non-lethal conflict of garbage. All residents were provided with management techniques that will not overly outreach materials and Team members held burden private individuals and corporations while neighborhood meetings to discuss the problem. maintaining public support for bear restoration Neighborhood feedback indicated that the garbage efforts. pick-up schedule was erratic, and therefore Louisiana’s Team has the traditional role of residents could not follow the typical approach of any wildlife agency in responding to human/bear putting their garbage out the morning of, rather conflicts. In the event of a bear complaint, than the night before, pick-up. Most residents did personnel respond to the call, exchange not have outbuildings in which to store their large

garbage containers and were unwilling to keep Black Bear Conservation Committee. 2002. garbage indoors. The next step was to explain the Nuisance bear protocol for the Louisiana problem and offer alternative solutions to local Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Black government officials. Local officials had been Bear Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, getting complaints from their constituents and Louisiana. were ready to meet with Team members. The Conover, M. 1998. Perceptions of American Team offered the options of consolidated dump agricultural producers about wildlife on their locations in each neighborhood, specifications on farms and ranches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: bear-proof cans for individuals, and suggested 597–604. ‘bear friendly” solid waste disposal companies. Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis, and J. E. Local officials decided to opt for bear-proof cans Shanahan. 2006. Education programs for for 600 households in areas receiving the most reducing American black bear-human conflict: bear conflicts, and bid out their new solid waste indicators of success? Ursus 17:75–80. contracts to require bear-proof cans based on the Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Team’s recommendations. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Effective conflict management involves public New York. outreach, aversive conditioning, and management Herrero, S., and Fleck. 1990. Injury to people of attractants. No one component can be successful inflicted by black, grizzly, or polar bears: Recent without the ability to use other tools to address trends and new insights. International bear conflicts. However, a proactive approach is Conference on Bear Research and Management necessary to shift the focus to the resources that 8: 25–32. are attracting bears and eliciting the conflict Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 1995. Fatal injuries behavior. In addition, the problem and feasible inflicted to people by black bear. Pages 75–82 in solutions must be communicated clearly with J. Auger and H.L. Black, editors. Proceedings of decision-makers who can enact real change the 5th Western Black Bear Workshop, Brigham regarding attractants. Wildlife managers must Young University Press, Provo, Utah. become a resource and partner with communities International Association of Fish and Wildlife and companies to seek solutions to bear conflicts. Agencies. 2005. Case Study #3: Expanding bear populations bring new wildlife management challenges. International Association of Fish and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C. The authors would like to thank the many McCarthy, T. M., and R. J. Seavoy. 1994. members of the BBCC coalition, especially those Reducing nonsport losses attributable to food individuals from Louisiana Department of Wildlife conditioning, human and bear behavior and Fisheries, U.S. Department of Agriculture - modification in an urban Wildlife Services, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife environment. International Conference on Bear Service. We thank individuals at Avery Island and Research and Management 9:75-84. the McIlhenny Company and the St. Mary Parish Neal, W. A. 1992. Threatened status for the Government, especially Bo LaGrange, for working Louisiana black bear and related rules. Federal with us to prevent bear conflicts in coastal Register 57(4):588–595. Louisiana. Nowak, R. M. 1986. Status of the Louisiana black bear. Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish LITERATURE CITED and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Beckmann, J. P., C. W. Lackey, and J. Berger. Peine, J. D. 2001. Nuisance bears in communities: 2004. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and strategies to reduce conflict. Human Dimensions dogs to alter behavior of “nuisance” black bears. of Wildlife 6:223–237. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1141–1146.

EDUCATING NORTH CAROLINA’S CITIZENS ABOUT BLACK BEAR ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT

MARK D. JONES, Black Bear Biologist, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 5275 NC 118 Highway, Grifton, NC 28530.

Abstract: The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is implementing a long-term effort to educate North Carolina’s citizens about black bears. A made-for-TV documentary, The Bear Facts, The Story of a North Carolina Treasure, was released in 2004 and targeted general adult and teenage audiences on statewide TV as well as DVD/VHS. In 2007, NCWRC released an Interactive DVD (IDVD) called The Bear Facts, The Story of a North Carolina Treasure, Interactive Educator’s Edition which expands on the original documentary. The 2007 IDVD was designed to inform teachers, other educators, and students about black bears in North Carolina. The 2007 IDVD contains the original 2004 documentary plus new interactive features for younger children and will be provided free of charge to any educator in North Carolina upon request. Segments of the documentary cover black bear history and biology, black bear research and monitoring, coexisting with black bears, North Carolina’s black bear hunting, and the future of black bears in North Carolina. These segments are primarily designed for adult and teenage audiences. New features in the IDVD include optional formats that give the educator the ability to tailor the documentary presentation for different classes by showing the 5 segments as “episodes” or as a feature- length documentary. Additionally, there are eight interactive functions, most suitable for children in grades K-12, that engage students on key topics: 1) Are Bears Dangerous?, 2) Bear Management, 3) Explore a Bear, 4) Wildlife Extras, 5) Black Bear Facts, 6) Meet the Experts, 7) Meet a Bear Hunter, and 8) Take a Bear Quiz. A CD containing lesson planning materials and additional bear information accompanies the IDVD. Materials on the CD include: 1) A Black Bear Profile, 2) A glossary of terms, 3) Maps, 4) Dozens of Bear-related Activities, 5) Discussion of the fascinating hibernation process, 6) Lesson Plans for grades K-12, 7) A Spanish Translation of the original documentary, and more. NCWRC has partnered with the State Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to advertise and promote the IDVD. Information about how to obtain the free IDVD is available to any public school teacher in North Carolina, and at least one county school system has adopted the IDVD as a part of all science curriculums for middle and high school. NCWRC promotes the IDVD through press releases, its website, and its monthly wildlife magazine. Efforts are being made to inform home schools, private schools, museums, and other educators about this free learning resource. NCWRC Conservation Educators are promoting the IDVD in workshops, at education conferences, and at NCWRC Wildlife Education Centers in all 3 administrative regions of North Carolina. NCWRC’s goals are to inform adults, educators, and children about North Carolina’s black bear issues, to provide bear safety tips, to explain bear management, to address bear-human interactions, and to clear up myths about this state treasure. The documentary program contains excellent footage of black bears in North Carolina and interviews with bear experts. It has aired in major TV markets including Asheville, Raleigh, and Wilmington as well as on state-wide public television numerous times since 2004. We have tested the 2007 IDVD with approximately 80 North Carolina school teachers and with DPI and received resounding support. While the 2004 documentary continues to air on TV throughout the state, over 2,750 copies of the 2007 IDVD have been distributed to educators as of May 2007. We expect to reach as many as 10,000 teachers and educators over the coming two years with the IDVD as this educational effort progresses. By targeting educators, dozens or even hundreds of students in grades K-12 may be exposed to each IDVD distributed. The documentary and IDVD represent steps in a proactive strategy to inform North Carolinians about black bears and foster public understanding and support for NCWRC bear management efforts.

EFFECT OF LENGTHENING THE HUNTING SEASON IN NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ON POPULATION SIZE AND HARVEST RATES OF BLACK BEARS

MARK A. TERNENT, Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110.

Abstract: Since 1986, Pennsylvania has held an annual 3-day, statewide black bear (Ursus americanus) hunting season during the third week of November. In 2002, the hunting season was extended in parts of northeastern Pennsylvania to include the first 6 days of the firearms hunting season for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which begins the following week. The objective was to reduce the bear population in an area where residential development and human-bear conflicts were increasing. Managers proposed that harvest would sufficiently increase with the added hunting opportunity to reduce the bear population. Furthermore, they hypothesized that by allowing bear and deer to be hunted concurrently, areas near residential communities that had low hunting pressure during the traditional bear season would be hunted more and increase harvest of nuisance bears. In Wildlife Management Unit 3D, which was centrally located in the area open to extended hunting, population estimates increased 183 bears/year during the period without an extended season (R2 = 0.17), and declined 604 bears/yr with extended hunting (R2 = 0.99). Harvest during the 3-day season declined 36% after the extended season was created, but combined harvest from both seasons remained similar to pre-change levels. Harvest rates by age-sex class ranged from 0.05 to 0.47 for nuisance bears, and 0.07 to 0.56 for non-nuisance bears. Harvest rates increased an average of 2.8% (range = 0.2–8.6%) for age-sex classes of nuisance bears after the extended season was implemented, and declined an average of 4.0% (range = 1.5–6.1%) for non-nuisance bears. I concluded that timing an additional bear hunting season concurrent with deer hunting can be an effective tool for decreasing bear densities in Pennsylvania while increasing harvest of nuisance bears, but the need for reliable population estimates increases so management can be adapted once population goals are reached.

Extensive residential development and rising vulnerability (Wolgast et al. 2005), although few human-bear conflicts prompted an effort to reduce studies have actually measured harvest rates of black bear (Ursus americanus) abundance in nuisance bears (Weaver 2004). northeastern Pennsylvania by lengthening the I examined the prediction that 6 days of hunting season beginning in 2002. additional bear hunting, timed to overlap with a Bear hunting had been limited to a 3-day popular deer hunting season, would decrease bear season during the third week of November. In abundance by comparing population estimates 2002, the season was extended in select areas to before and after the new season. I also estimated include 6 additional days during the following harvest rates of nuisance and non-nuisance bears week. The extended season was concurrent with during both periods to determine if the new season firearms hunting for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus increased harvest of nuisance bears. virginianus), whereas the traditional 3-day season was not. STUDY AREA Managers proposed that an additional 6 days Data were collected in Wildlife Management of hunting would reduce the bear population. Unit (WMU) 3D, a 5,655 km2 area in northeastern Moreover, they also believed that by timing the Pennsylvania. Black bear reproduction in WMU extended season concurrent with deer hunting, 3D was studied extensively by Alt (1989) and harvest of nuisance bears would increase because reported to be higher than black bear populations hunter densities are greatest during the firearms elsewhere in North America. WMU 3D deer season and hunting often occurs in areas not encompasses the Pocono Mountain region of traditionally used during the regular bear season, northeast Pennsylvania, and has been part of the such as small woodlots adjacent to communities. primary bear range in Pennsylvania for decades, Hunting has been recommended as a tool for including during the 1970s when bear distribution reducing some types of human-bear conflicts (Will was much more restricted (Ternent 2006a). 1980, Poelker and Parsons 1980, Conover 2001, Approximately 85% of the area is forested. Ziegltrum 2004). However, nuisance bears living Two-thirds of the forest cover is classified as near residential areas may have low harvest deciduous mixed-oak (Quercus spp.) and one-third

as northern hardwood (American beech, Fagus were tagged with a locking seal, which was grandifolia; black cherry, Prunus serotina; maple, required to be present if subsequently taken to a Acer spp.). Swamps containing large patches of taxidermist or butcher; (2) Hunter success rates blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) are common through- were <3% and many hunters harvest only 1 bear in out the region. a lifetime, which provides hunters with a sense of Eighty-five percent of the landscape is achievement. Hunters who reported their harvest at privately owned. Residential development has a check station received a Certificate of increased substantially because of close proximity Congratulations from the Game Commission to to major urban centers in adjacent New York and honor that achievement; and (3) Check stations New Jersey. Between 1990 and 2000, the human have been a long-running part of bear hunting population increased 50% and was estimated to be tradition in Pennsylvania. 72 people/km2 in 2002. Hunting season for bear was open Monday– Wednesday, statewide the third week in November METHODS each year (3-day season). Beginning in 2002, the Documenting Human-Bear Conflicts hunting season in WMU 3D was lengthened to Employees recorded the date and location of include Monday–Saturday of the following week human-bear conflicts reported to the Pennsylvania (extended season), which coincided with the first 6 Game Commission’s northeast region office in days of the statewide firearms hunting season for Dallas, Pennsylvania. Reported incidents were white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). considered a human-bear conflict if some action Various areas adjacent to WMU 3D also were (providing information via telephone or visiting open to extended hunting depending on the year the site) was required of the Game Commission to beginning in 2004. resolve the complaint. Each conflict was Hunters were not permitted to use traps, bait, independently recorded regardless of whether dogs, scents, or lures to assist in the harvest of other reports from the same area or address had bear, although cooperative drives by parties of ≤25 been received. hunters were permitted. For each harvested bear, check station attendants recorded sex, weight, ear Capture, Tagging, and Recapture tag and tattoo numbers, if present, and county and Black bears were opportunistically captured at township of harvest. A premolar tooth was sites with human-bear conflicts using a variety of collected for age determination from bears ≥12 techniques described by Alt (1989) and classified months old (Harshyne et al. 1998). as a nuisance bear if physical characteristics (weight, track size, presence/absence of cubs, Hunter Effort distinctive markings) matched those of the bears During March each year, except 2005 (2004- believed to be involved. Bears that did not match 2005 hunting season), a survey was mailed to a the physical characteristics or bears captured at random sample of general hunting license buyers sites without reported human-bear conflicts were using methods described by Librandi-Mumma classified as non-nuisance animals. (2006). For each game species, recipients were Each captured bear was tagged in each ear asked to list up to 4 counties (or 2 Wildlife with a self-piercing numbered metal tag, style 56- Management Units beginning in 2002) where they L, size 36.5 × 9.5 mm (Hasco Tag Co., Dayton, hunted and the number of days spent hunting in Kentucky). Weight, sex, date, and county and each. I recorded the number of bear hunting township of capture and release (if relocated) were licenses sold each year and used response data recorded. Tags were attached to the top portion of from the annual survey to estimate the number of each ear near the skull. Some bears also were bear hunters and hunting effort (hunter-days) in tattooed on the inside of the upper lip using WMU 3D. battery-powered tattooing equipment. Missing ear tags on bears recaptured alive were replaced, and Harvest Rates an upper first premolar was collected for age I estimated probability of harvest using determination from all bears ≥12 month old standard logistic regression for a binary dependent (Harshyne et al. 1998). variable (PROC LOGISTIC; SAS Institute 2001), Bears harvested in Pennsylvania were similar to what was described by Diefenbach et al. required to be presented at an agency-operated (2004). I recorded whether each tagged bear in a check station within 24 hr. Incidents of given year was harvested (1 = harvested, 0 = not noncompliance were believed to be very rare harvested), and I restricted capture–harvest because: (1) Bears examined at check stations intervals to ≤1 year because tag loss was

substantial for greater intervals, especially for where hk = the number of bears harvested in year males (Diefenbach and Alt 1998). That is, if a k, zi is the vector of indicator variables for bear i, tagged bear was not harvested the year it was ˆ tagged, it had to be recaptured in a subsequent year and θ is the vector of estimated coefficients, before I considered it a tagged bear again. ˆ , ˆ ,...,θθθ ˆ . I estimated the probability of harvest, I used the following independent, categorical 10 n ˆ variables in the logistic regression analysis: year of ˆ zp i |( θ ) via a logit link function. If all non- harvest (1998–2005), age (cub, yearling, 2 yrs old, hunting mortalities of tagged bears were excluded 3 yrs old, and >4 yrs old), sex, and whether a bear from the tagged sample, this population estimate was classified as a nuisance. I also included a represented population size immediately prior to dummy variable indicating whether the year was the hunting season. before (1998–2001) or after (2002–2005) the To predict the harvest probability for each extended season was enacted. I grouped all bears harvested bear, I needed the covariate data z for ≥4 years old into the same age class because i approximately 20% of the population was all of the harvested bears and all of the tagged harvested annually and relatively few bears were bears used in developing the linear-logistic model. tagged in older age classes. This was a problem for location of capture and Diefenbach et al. (2004) identified additional harvest because I could only determine for tagged variables that influence harvest rates (e.g., hunter bears where they were captured and for harvested density, region of Pennsylvania, snow cover, etc.) bears where they were recovered. Consequently, I but I did not use these variables because they developed the model using the county of capture tended to be homogeneous across WMU 3D, or I for tagged bears but computed the predictive lacked sufficient data to include these variables in harvest probabilities using the county where the the model. I excluded tagged bears known to have bear was killed. This implicitly assumes that died prior to the hunting season from the analysis tagged bears were in the same WMU when harvest to partially address negative bias in harvest rates occurred; I did not use data from bears tagged caused by nonhunting mortality prior to the outside WMU 3D to model harvest rates, but hunting season, which was identified as a problem simply treated them as if they were not tagged in by Diefenbach et al. (2004). the harvest. ˆ I used AIC to select the most parsimonious I estimated the variance of N k as: model of independent variables and interaction terms for estimating harvest probability (Burnham hk ⎛1− ˆ zp |( θˆ) ⎞ ′ and Anderson 1998) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow ˆ ⎜ i ⎟ ˆ ˆ ˆˆ ˆar(v N k ) = ∑ + () ()DID ()θθθ , ⎜ ˆ zp |( θˆ) ⎟ goodness-of-fit statistic (Hosmer and Lemeshow i=1 ⎝ i ⎠ 2000) to assess model fit for the full model (i.e., all variables and interaction terms). I considered ˆ the full model to include the terms year, age, sex, where D(θ ) is the column-vector sum of partial age×sex, whether a nuisance bear (REASON), and ˆ derivatives of 1 ˆ(zp i |θ ) for all harvested bears in REASON×year. I then fit a series of 7 reduced models by eliminating variables (and any year k, and Iˆ(θˆ) is the estimated variance– associated interaction terms) until only age, sex covariance matrix for the coefficients in the linear- and age×sex remained, which were retained in all logistic model (Borchers et al. 1998). I assumed models because they have been shown to explain Nˆ was distributed log-normally (Chao 1989) and much of the heterogeneity in harvest rates in thus calculated the 95% confidence limits (CI) as: Pennsylvania (Diefenbach et al. 2004).

%95 = ˆ × CNCNCI ,,/ Population Estimation k k

I estimated population size (N) using the H-T where C was calculated as: estimator (Horvitz-Thompson 1952):

hk 1 ⎧ ˆ ⎫ Nˆ = , ⎪ ⎛ ˆar(v N k ) ⎞⎪ k ∑ ˆ ˆ C = ⎨ ⎜1ln96.1exp + ⎟⎬. i=1 zp i |( θ ) ⎜ ˆ 2 ⎟ ⎪ ⎝ (N k ) ⎠⎪ ⎩ ⎭

ˆˆˆ ˆ exp{ i θθθ zz 22110 i ... ++++ θ znin } ˆ zp |( θˆ) = . i ˆˆˆ ˆ exp1 {}i θθθ zz 22110 i ... +++++ θ z nin

RESULTS extended season (1998–2002, the extended season Human-Bear Conflicts began after the 2002 estimate was calculated, R2 = Human-bear conflicts increased 95% between 0.17), and declined 604 bears/yr with extended 1998 and 2002 in the northeast region of hunting (2003–2005, R2 = 0.99; Fig. 3). Pennsylvania before the extended season started and declined 70% after 2002 (Fig. 1). A similar Hunter Effort trend was not observed in WMU 3D, but data were Response rates for the hunter survey averaged unavailable in 2002, which was the year with the 58.5%. Of the 77,793 responses received (annual most reported conflicts in the region. Instead, mean = 11,113), 10,699 (13.8%) purchased a bear conflicts in WMU 3D remained stable around hunting license and 896 (1.2%) reported hunting 325/yr, except for a noticeable decrease in 2005 (Fig. 1). WMU 3D NE Region

1,200 Capture, Tagging, and Harvest

Seven hundred thirty-eight bears were tagged 1,000 in WMU 3D during the study (mean number of captures/yr = 92.3, SE = 9.3), with 34.7% 800 classified as nuisance animals (mean number of nuisance captures/yr = 32.0, SE = 4.9). Forty-five 600 tagged bears (24 nuisance and 21 non-nuisance) were recovered dead prior to the hunting season 400 and excluded from analysis. Number Human-Bear Conflicts Harvest during 1999 was uncharacteristically 200 low (Fig. 2) because warm temperatures and fog occurred throughout the state on opening day of 0 the season (G. L. Alt, personal communication). 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Excluding 1999, harvest during 1998–2001 was Year relatively stable and averaged 422 bears/year (SE Figure 1. Number of human-bear conflicts reported = 10.7). Harvest during the 3-day season decreased in Wildlife Management Unit 3D and the larger 13- once the extended season began in 2002 (mean = county area that comprised the Pennsylvania Game 270 bears/yr, t = 6.06, 5 df, P = 0.002), but total Commission’s northeastern administrative region, harvest remained similar (mean = 428 bears/yr, t = 1998–2005. Data for WMU 3D were not available in -0.27, 5 df, P = 0.797; Fig. 2). Harvest during the 2002. extended season averaged 158 bears/yr (SE = 6.8).

Harvest Rates and Population Estimates 3-Day Extended One hundred forty-eight tagged bears were 500 harvested (43 nuisance and 105 non-nuisance). The best model for probability of harvest included 400 year, age, sex, age×sex, REASON, and REASON×year (Table 1), and this model fit the 300 2 data ( χ 8 = 5.94, P = 0.654).

Average harvest rates by age-sex class ranged Harvest 200 from 0.05 to 0.47 for nuisance bears, and 0.07 to 0.56 for non-nuisance bears (Table 2). Within both 100 classifications, male and female yearlings had the highest harvest rates (range = 0.28–0.56), followed 0 by adult females, whereas adult males had the 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 lowest harvest rates (range = 0.05–0.08). Harvest Year rates increased an average of 2.4% for age-sex classes of nuisance bears after the extended season Figure 2. Annual black bear harvest in Wildlife was implemented, and declined an average of Management Unit 3D, Pennsylvania, USA during 3.7% for non-nuisance bears (Table 2). 1998–2005. A 3-day hunting season occurred each Point estimates of population size increased year with an additional 6-day extended season beginning in 2002. 183 bears/year during the period without an

bear in WMU 3D. Annual bear license sales Thus, an estimated 2,600 additional people likely averaged 116,889 and totaled 818,223 during the began hunting bear in WMU 3D when the survey period (2004 excluded because no hunter extended season was created. A similar increase of survey was conducted that year). 30% also occurred in bear license sales between Annual estimates of participation and effort 2001 and 2005. during the 3-day season were unaffected by creating the extended season and remained relatively constant during the 8-year period (participation R2 = 0.05; effort R2 = 0.30). An estimated 7,000 to 10,000 people (mean = 8,472, SE = 388.3) and 6,000 to 8,000 people (mean = Table 1. Linear-logistic models created to estimate 7,201, SE = 539.7) annually hunted bear in WMU the probability of harvest for black bears, number of 3D during the 3-day and extended seasons, parameters (k), difference in Akaike's Information respectively. Hunting effort was estimated to be Criteria (ΔAIC) values, and relative model weights 1.3 and 3.3 days/hunter for the 3-day and extended (wAIC), Pennsylvania, USA, 1998–2005. The full seasons, respectively. 2 model (k = 25) fit the data ( χ 8 = 5.94, P = 0.654) and Thirty-three percent of respondents (annual included the variable indicating whether a bear was mean = 36%, SE = 4.9%) who hunted in the captured because it caused property damage or a extended season did not hunt in the 3-day season. human disturbance (REASON).

Model variables k ΔAIC wAIC Year, age, sex, age×sex, 25 0.00 0.53 REASON, REASON×year 8,000 7,000 Year, age, sex, age×sex, 18 3.03 0.12 REASON 6,000 5,000 Year, age, sex, age×sex 17 2.25 0.17 4,000 Age, sex, age×sex 9 3.64 0.09 3,000 Time, age, sex, age×sex 10 5.11 0.04 2,000 1,000 Time, age, sex, age×sex, 11 5.59 0.03 0 REASON 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Time, age, sex, age×sex, 12 7.03 0.02 REASON, REASON×time Figure 3. Estimates and 95% confidence intervals of black bear abundance in Wildlife Management Unit Null model (intercept only) 1 47.20 <0.01 3D, northeastern Pennsylvania, during 1998-2005.

Table 2. Average probability of harvest by sex-age class for nuisance and non-nuisance black bears in Wildlife Management Unit 3D, Pennsylvania, USA. Probability of harvest was estimated using a linear-logistic model, which included the categorical variables age, sex, age×sex, year, whether a nuisance bear when captured, and an interaction term for year and reason for capture. Hunting was a 3-day season during 1998–2001, and included an additional 6 days during 2002–2005.

Nuisance bears Non-nuisance bears 1998– 2002– 1998– 2002– Sex-age class 2001 2005 Difference 2001 2005 Difference Male cubs 0.18 0.20 0.02 0.27 0.23 -0.04 Female cubs 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.16 0.13 -0.03 Male yearlings 0.28 0.33 0.05 0.42 0.36 -0.06 Female yearlings 0.38 0.47 0.09 0.56 0.50 -0.06 Male 2 yr-olds 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.17 -0.03 Female 2 yr-olds 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.21 0.17 -0.03 Males 3+ yrs 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.07 -0.02 Female 3+ yrs 0.24 0.29 0.04 0.37 0.32 -0.05

DISCUSSION vulnerable to harvest. Variation in litter size and Agencies responsible for managing human- cub survival is related to the weight of adult bear conflicts typically use education and outreach females (Rogers 1987, Eiler et al. 1989, Elowe and programs as their primary strategy for resolving Dodge 1989, Kolenosky 1990). In Pennsylvania, complaints or reducing availability of attractants nuisance, adult female bears have slightly greater (Gore 2004, Gore et al. 2006). Other practices that body weights than non-nuisance female bears focus on correcting or removing individual (means = 177 lbs vs. 167 lbs; Pennsylvania Game problem bears also are used, such as aversive Commission, unpublished data). conditioning, relocation, or euthanasia. Population Nuisance bears in WMU 3D had lower management, on the other hand, is used to alter harvest probabilities than non-nuisance bears, bear density, which often correlates poorly with which supports the claim that nuisance bears may human-bear conflict trends (Garshelis 1989, be partially protected from hunting because they Garshelis and Noyce 2001). live close to people where hunting is less common Encounters between people and bears can (Wolgast et al. 2005). However, once the hunting increase without a change in bear density if human season was changed, harvest rates increased for abundance increases. Thus, even with education nuisance bears and decreased for other bears. In and other nuisance response programs in use and a southern West Virginia, Weaver (2004) reported relatively stable bear population, more frequent that nuisance male bears had 15% better survival human-bear encounters can lead to the perception during hunting seasons than non-nuisance males, that bears have become too abundant, which is but among females, survival was similar. what occurred in northeastern Pennsylvania. Despite a reduction in the bear population and Regulated hunting is the most cost-effective increase in harvest probability for nuisance bears, method available for reducing wildlife populations human-bear conflict levels remained relatively (Conover 2001), but with bears, the consequence constant in WMU 3D throughout the study period. of overharvest may be high because populations As a result, solely measuring conflict levels can require years to recover (Miller 1989). without monitoring population size or harvest rate Reliable population monitoring, which may be less would have been a poor method for assessing the important when populations are managed effect of the extended hunting season on conservatively, becomes essential when the population trends. objective is to reduce a population. Several studies have reported that annual I was able to estimate population size annually fluctuations in nuisance activity correlate well with using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator. Estimates natural food availability and poorly with bear appeared biologically plausible based on population size (Rogers 1976, Rogers 1987, reproductive characteristics previously studied in Garshelis 1989, Garshelis and Noyce 2001). the area (Alt 1989) except during 2000 and 2002, Natural food conditions in Pennsylvania were which appeared to be underestimates. Diefenbach rated as very poor in 2002 and above average in et al. (2004) also observed population estimates for 2005 (Ternent 2006b), which corresponded to bears in Pennsylvania that exhibited unrealistic years with the highest and lowest number of annual fluctuations. They hypothesized that human-bear conflicts in the northeastern region, underestimates periodically occurred because respectively. availability of adult females decreased during years of poor food availability when most pregnant ACKNOWLEDGMENTS females entered dens before the hunting season. I thank the many Pennsylvania Game According to a statewide survey of food conditions Commission personnel and volunteers who have that began in 2002, food availability was captured and marked black bears in Pennsylvania noticeably below average in 2002 (Ternent or examined harvested bears at check stations 2006b). Thus, population size may have been during the past 2 decades. Duane R. Diefenbach closer to 3,800 bears in 2002 when the extended assisted with data analysis and population season began. estimation. This research was funded by the If true, the bear population in WMU 3D Pennsylvania Game Commission. appeared to decline 40% after 4 years of extended hunting, but without a significant increase in total harvest. One possible explanation is that with extended hunting, harvest pressure shifted to bears with the greatest reproductive rates and a greater proportion of the female population became

LITERATURE CITED Harshyne, W. A., D. R. Diefenbach, G. L. Alt, and Alt, G. L. 1989. Reproductive ecology of female G. M. Matson. 1998. Analysis of error from black bears and early growth and development cementum-annuli age estimates of known-age of cubs in northeastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania black bears. Journal of Wildlife Dissertation. West Virginia State University, Management 62:1281–1291. Morgantown, West Virginia. Horvitz, D. G. and D. J. Thompson. 1952. A Borchers, D. L., S. T. Buckland, P. W. Doedhart, generalization of sampling without replacement E. D. Clarke, and S. L. Hedley. 1998. Horvitz- from a finite universe. Journal of the American Thompson estimators for double-platform line Statistical Association 47:663–685. transect surveys. Biometrics. 54:1221–1237. Hosmer, D. W. and S. Lemeshow. 2000. Applied Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 1998. Model logistic regression. Second edition. John Wiley selection and inference: a practical information- & Sons, New York, New York, USA. theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, Kolenosky, G. B. 1990. Reproductive biology of New York. black bears in east-central Ontario. International Chao, A. 1989. Estimating population size for Conference on Bear Research and Management sparse data in capture-recapture experiments. 8:385–392. Biometrics 45:427–438. Librandi-Mumma, T. M. 2006. Game take and Conover, M. R. 2001. Effect of hunting and furtaker surveys. Annual project report, trapping on wildlife damage. Wildlife Society Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Bulletin 29:521–532. Pennsylvania. 12 pp. Diefenbach, D. R. and G. L. Alt. 1998. Modeling Miller, S. D. 1989. Population management of and evaluation of ear tag loss in black bears. bears in North America. International Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1292–1300. Conference on Bear Research and Management Diefenbach, D. R., J. L. Lake, and G. L. Alt. 2004. 8:357–373. Spatio-temporal and demographic variation in Poelker, R. J. and L. D. Parsons. 1980. Black bear the harvest of black bears in Pennsylvania. hunting to reduce forest damage. International Journal of Wildlife Management 68:947–959. Conference on Bear Research and Management Eiler, J. H., W. G. Wathen, and M. R. Pelton. 4:191–193. 1989. Reproduction in black bears in the Rogers, L. L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop southern Appalachian mountains. Journal of failures on survival, growth, and reproductive Wildlife Management 53:353–360. success of black bears. Transactions North Elowe, K. D. and W. E. Dodge. 1989. Factors America Wildlife Natural Resources Conference affecting black bear reproductive success and 41:431–438. cub survival. Journal of Wildlife Management Rogers, L. L. 1987. Effects of food supply and 53:962–968. kinship on social behaviour, movements, and Garshelis, D. L. 1989. Nuisance bear activity and population growth of black bears in northeastern management in Minnesota. Pages 169–180 in M. Minnesota. Wildlife Monograph 97. Bromley, editor, Bear-people conflicts: Ternent, M. A. 2006a. Management and biology proceedings of a symposium on management of black bears in Pennsylvania: ten year plan, strategies. Northwest Territories Department of 2006–2015. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Natural Resources, Yellowknife, Northwest Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 74pp. Territories, Canada. Ternent, M. A. 2006b. Statewide wildlife food Garshelis, D. L. and K. V. Noyce. 2001. Trends in survey. Annual project report, Pennsylvania black bear-human conflicts during a 2-decade Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 8 burgeoning bear population. Proceedings pp. Western Black Bear Workshop 7:13. Weaver, H. W. 2004. Biometric analysis and Gore, M. L. 2004. Comparison of intervention aversive conditioning of black bears in southern programs designed to reduce human-bear West Virginia. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia conflict: a review of literature. Human University, Morgantown, West Virginia. 56 pp. Dimensions Research Unit Series No. 04-4, Wills, G. B. 1980. Black bear-human conflicts and Department of Natural Resources, Cornell management considerations to minimize and University, Ithaca, New York, USA. 25 pp. correct these problems. Proceedings Eastern Gore, M. L., B .A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis, and J. E. Workshop on Black Bear Management and Shanahan. 2006. Education programs for Research 5:75–88. reducing American black bear-human conflict: indicators of success? Ursus 17:75–80.

Wolgast, L. J., W. S. Ellis, and J. Vreeland. 2005. Ziegltrum, G.J. 2004. Efficacy of black bear New Jersey Fish and Game Council supplemental feeding to reduce conifer damage comprehensive black bear (Ursus americanus) in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife management policy. New Jersey Fish and Game Management 68:470–474. Council, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, USA. 63 pp.

A FAST AND RELIABE HARD MAST INDEX FROM ACORN PRESENCE- ABSENCE TALLIES

CATHRYN H. GREENBERG, U.S. Forest Service, Bent Creek Experimental Forest, 1577 Brevard Rd., Asheville, NC 28806

GORDON S. WARBURTON, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 783 Deep Woods Drive, Marion, NC 28752

Abstract: Acorn crop sizes vary considerably among oak (Quercus) species, years, and places, which directly affect oak regeneration, and wildlife species that depend on acorns for food. Many methods have been developed to index sizes of acorn crops. However, use of different visual survey methodologies makes comparisons among states difficult. We used 21 years of acorn data from visual surveys conducted in western North Carolina to develop predictive equations for hard mast indices based on the proportion of trees bearing acorns. We also assessed minimum sample sizes required to achieve specific levels of precision when estimating the proportion of trees bearing acorns. We found that the proportion of trees bearing acorns and percentage of oak crowns with acorns are correlated and function synchronously to affect acorn crops. We used the proportion of trees bearing acorns, calculated from visual surveys of acorn presence-absence to create predictive equations to determine hard mast indices. The proportion of trees bearing acorns alone was also an indicator of crop size. However, a standardized protocol for assigning acorn presence-absence must be used to ensure that hard mast indices or estimates of the proportion of trees bearing acorns are consistent among geographic locations and years. By substituting this faster and simpler survey method over the labor-intensive counting of twigs and acorns used in some other visual survey methods, land managers can use the time savings to sample more trees within oak subgroups or local areas to improve hard mast index accuracy. Our hard mast index method provides land managers with a reliable method for predicting hard mast indices that are comparable to past estimates for states using the Whitehead method, thus providing continuity in tracking long-term acorn production patterns. Because the proportion of trees bearing acorns can also be used as a stand-alone index of acorn production, state and federal agencies can easily standardize their hard mast surveys, thus ensuring that acorn production data are comparable at local, regional, or national scales.

POSTER PRESENTATIONS

• Spatial characteristics of black bears and bear hunters in Garrett County, Maryland

• A comparison of occupancy model and mark-recapture abundance estimates of black bears on Fort Drum Military Installation, NY

• Recommendations for using the modified M-15 pipe snare

• Prevalence of Babesia microti in New Jersey black bears

• Black bear-human conflict protocols: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America

• Spatial distribution of black bears in southeastern Oklahoma using hair-snare samples

• Abundance and landscape genetics of Ontario black bears

• Ontario’s Bear Wise program: a strategy for reducing human-bear conflicts

• Living with black bears educational DVD

• University of Kentucky 2007 black bear research summary

SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BLACK BEARS AND BEAR HUNTERS IN GARRETT COUNTY, MARYLAND

EDWARD ARROW, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506 JOHN EDWARDS, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506 HARRY SPIKER, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Oakland, MD 21550

Abstract: We used GPS technology to examine spatial relations of black bear hunters and black bears (Ursus americanus) in Garrett County, Maryland. During the 2005 hunting season, we equipped 35 hunters and 4 adult female black bears with GPS transmitters to track their movements. We compared the following spatial variables relative to both bear and hunter movements: road corridors, riparian corridors, slope and habitat type. Hunters used a variety of habitats, with mixed forests and wetlands used in greater proportions than expected. Hunters generally remained within 260 m from road and 400 m from riparian corridors while hunting. Because of logistical challenges spatial data was only available from one of four bears during the 2005 hunting season; the bear’s fall home range encompassed approximately 12 miles2. One GPS hunter was found to have hunted within close proximity of a GPS bear, although any interaction between the two could not be confirmed. Results from this 3-year study will help managers understand black bear movements and aid in development of nuisance bear strategies and future harvest regulations.

A COMPARISON OF OCCUPANCY MODEL AND MARK-RECAPTURE ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES OF BLACK BEARS ON FORT DRUM MILITARY INSTALLATION, NY

MICHAEL WEGAN, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, Tel: 636-484 0487 PAUL D. CURTIS, Department of Natural Resources, Room 114, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 MILO E. RICHMOND, New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 RAYMOND RAINBOLT, Fish and Wildlife Program Manager, Natural Resources Branch, Fort Drum Military Installation CHRIS DOBONY, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Natural Resources Branch, Fort Drum Military Installation

Abstract: Understanding the population ecology of black bears (Ursus americanus) is necessary to enhance management efficiency and efficacy. This information is paramount in regions where bears and people overlap, such as the Fort Drum Military Installation in northern New York. Improved methods for reliable estimation of abundance are needed to inform such understanding. Traditional mark-recapture techniques require identification of specific individuals to create encounter histories, and are resource (e.g., financial, labor) intensive. Occupancy models may provide an alternative approach that requires less investment; identification of individuals is unnecessary. The objectives of this study were to: (1) estimate black bear abundance at Fort Drum; and (2) compare two methods for generating a population estimate. We collected black bear hair samples (n = 407) from two-stranded, barbed-wire hair snares (n = 38) on Fort Drum, June- July 2006. Hair samples were analyzed at 6 microsatellite markers, and the success rate of assigning each sample to an individual was 88%. Genetic results were used to calculate a mark-recapture population estimate from Program MARK. Abundance estimates from the occupancy model were derived from weekly detection/non-detection data at each hair-trap site. We report population estimates generated by both methodologies, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each approach within the context of Ft. Drum black bear management. Implications for black bear management will be discussed.

100

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USING THE MODIFIED M-15 PIPE SNARE

COLIN P. CARPENTER, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, 2006 Robert C. Byrd Drive, Beckley, WV 25801, Tel: 304-256-6947 PHILLIP A. WORLEY, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, 2006 Robert C. Byrd Drive, Beckley, WV 25801 MARK E. RICHARDSON, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, 2006 Robert C. Byrd Drive, Beckley, WV 25801 CRAIG A. LAWSON, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, HC 63, Box 937 Panther, WV 24872 LARRY A. BERRY, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, 2006 Robert C. Byrd Drive, Beckley, WV 25801

Abstract: In 2004 we purchased 12 M-15 “bucket-style” bear snares. The throw arm was designed to be set inside an 18.92L (5-gallon) bucket with a 17.78cm (7”) hole cut in the plastic lid. Instructions included with the snares claimed a 95% catch rate and no harm to captured bears. Our goal was to examine the feasibility of M-15 snares as an additional capture device that could be used in situations where Aldrich foot snares would not work. During 2004 and 2005, we followed manufacturer instructions but had limited success. Our 2004 and 2005 capture rates were 8.33/100 trap nights and 1.49/100 trap nights, respectively. We encountered a number of problems when setting M-15 snares as described by the manufacturer, with the most troubling being 2 bears caught by their heads (neither bear died). In 2006, we began using 45.72cm (18”) long, 15.24cm (6”) outside diameter PVC pipes in place of the buckets. The smaller diameter of the PVC pipe necessitated modification of the throw arm. We also modified 3 M-15 throw arms to trigger in the opposite direction of the original design. In 2006, we captured 14 bears at 8.86 captures/100 trap nights with modified M-15 pipe snares. Capture rates improved as modifications were made. Capture rates with modified M-15 pipe snares on 3 trap lines were 2.13/100 trap nights (first modification), 9.43/100 trap nights (second modification), and 13.79/100 trap nights (final modifications). Size of the pipe did not prevent capture of large bears. Two bears with front paw pad widths of 12cm and 12.4cm (4.72 and 4.88”) were captured. Modifications to the M-15 snare have thus far prevented head captures. Modified M-15 pipe snares may be especially useful in areas where the ground is too rocky to set an Aldrich foot snare. An additional benefit is the reduced set-up time compared to Aldrich foot snares because they only need to be fastened to the tree and snare cable secured to complete the set. We conclude that modified M-15 pipe snares were an effective tool for capturing black bears.

PREVALENCE OF Babesia microti IN NEW JERSEY BLACK BEARS (Ursus americanus)

SHAMUS P. KEELER, Department of Biological Sciences, Northeast Wildlife DNA Laboratory, East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301 KELCEY I. BURGUESS, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Clinton Wildlife Management Area, Hampton, NJ 09927 JANE E. HUFFMAN, Department of Biological Sciences, Northeast Wildlife DNA Laboratory, East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301

Abstract: Babesia microti is an intraerythrocytic parasite and a causative agent of human babesiosis in North America. The objective of this study was to establish the prevalence of B. microti in New Jersey black bears. Blood samples were collected from 100 black bears in New Jersey from April 2005 to July 2006. DNA was extracted from the blood samples and screened using a species specific nested PCR assay. Of the 100 blood samples screened, 38% were found to be infected with B. microti. Nineteen of the 44 females (43.2%) and 19 of the 56 males (33.9%) were positive for B. microti. This is the first report of the prevalence of B. microti in black bears.

101

BLACK BEAR-HUMAN CONFLICT PROTOCOLS: A SURVEY OF WILDLIFE AGENCIES IN NORTH AMERICA

ROCKY D. SPENCER, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501 RICHARD A. BEAUSOLEIL, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501 DONALD A. MARTORELLO, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501

Abstract: Managing interactions between humans and American black bears (Ursus americanus) has evolved from public feeding and viewing of garbage-habituated bears to nationwide bear education campaigns focused on removing food attractants. We conducted a questionnaire survey to assess various elements of bear-human conflict protocols and to identify techniques currently used by wildlife agencies to manage bear conflicts throughout United States, Canada, and Mexico. Forty-eight agencies responded to the survey and provided answers about current bear populations, levels of complaints, and types of interactions. In this manuscript, we compile and compare management strategies across North America, and discuss strengths and weaknesses of those programs so that management agencies can learn from the experiences of other states, provinces, and countries and consider updating their own bear education and management protocols. Based on our findings, the public prefers non-lethal techniques to deal with bears involved in human conflict and most agencies relocate problem black bear, but few believe is an effective management tool. Most agencies do not maintain databases to monitor results of non-lethal methods such as relocation and on-site release. Public education is an important component in most black bear management programs across North America.

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK BEARS IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA USING HAIR-SNARE SAMPLES

ANGELA G. BROWN, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK LYNNE C. GARDNER-SANTANA, Dept. of Zoology, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK ERIC C. HELLGREN, Cooperative Wildlife Research Lab, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale, IL RONALD A. VAN DEN BUSSCHE, Dept. of Zoology, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK DAVID M. LESLIE, JR., Coop. Fish and Wild. Res. Unit, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK

Abstract: Historically, black bears (Ursus americanus) were present in Oklahoma but were extirpated in the early 1900s due to habitat loss and unregulated hunting. Reintroduction of black bears in the Ozark and Ouachita national forests of Arkansas between 1958–1968 by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission successfully reestablished populations. Recent expansion of this black bear population into eastern Oklahoma has led to management questions regarding abundance and distribution. To learn more about the population in Oklahoma, 125 hair snares were set in 4.8 x 4.8 km grid cells over approximately 3,400 km2 of the Ouachita Mountains. The hair snare enclosures consisted of barbed wire stretched around 3–6 trees at a height of 30.5–61.0 cm and baited with sardines and raspberry extract. Hair snares were checked for hair samples and rebaited approximately every 7 days. After 7 weeks of sampling in June–August, 2004, 2005, and 2006, 1165 hair samples were collected. Hair was collected from 75.2% (n=94) hair snare enclosures, averaging 2.87 hair samples/snare in 2004, 2.70 hair samples/snare in 2005, and 4.1 hair samples/snare in 2006. Genetic analysis of 174 samples identified 161 (92.5%) unique individuals and (7.4%) recaptures. A robust design in Program MARK estimated 128±38 (95% CI=77–234) females and 51±3 (95% CI=47–61) males. Initial density estimates indicate a higher numbers of bears on the 2 main mountain ridges of the Ouachita National Forest and more bears in the eastern part of the study area compared with the western part.

102

ABUNDANCE AND LANDSCAPE GENETICS OF ONTARIO BLACK BEARS

M. E. OBBARD, Wildlife Research and Development Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Dr., Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8 C. J. KYLE, Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Dr., Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8 E. J. HOWE, Wildlife Research and Development Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Dr., Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8 K. WOZNEY, Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Dr., Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8 B. N. WHITE, Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Dr., Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8

Abstract: As part of Ontario’s Enhanced Black Bear Management Program, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre are conducting research to estimate abundances, and investigate landscape genetics of Ontario’s black bears. The research entails noninvasive genetic sampling at sites across Ontario, and then genetic profiling to identify individuals (including gender), and local population allele frequencies, followed by mark-recapture analysis to estimate abundance and density. Objectives of the study are: (1) Produce a more robust estimate of the size of the provincial black bear population; (2) Obtain local (within Wildlife Management Units) estimates of black bear densities to aid management of local harvest levels; (3) Investigate landscape-scale genetic patterns in Ontario’s black bear population; and (4) Investigate barriers to gene flow, gene flow out of large protected areas, and genetic differences between bears in different ecoregions. Sampling routes of ~25 barbed-wire corrals (Woods et al. 1999) spaced 2 km apart were established along secondary or tertiary roads. Stations were sampled 4 or 5 times at 1 or 2-week intervals. Sampling was conducted in spring and early summer prior to dispersal of subadults and before summer foraging excursions. To date, 36 routes have been sampled across the province from 2004-2006. Results for 2004 showed differences among regions and provided data on bear abundance from many areas not previously sampled. Results from 2005 and 2006 are pending. Results of the study are expected to provide superior information on the status of the provincial bear population, facilitate improved local management of bear harvests and human-bear conflicts, improve our understanding of the effects of habitat, harvest, and protected areas on bear abundance across the landscape, and contribute to our understanding of gene flow in Ontario’s black bear population.

ONTARIO’S BEAR WISE PROGRAM: A STRATEGY FOR REDUCING HUMAN-BEAR CONFLICTS

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 7000, Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5, Tel: 705-755-1364; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Ontario has an estimated 75,000-100,000 bears, and human-bear conflicts receive significant public and media attention, particularly since the 1999 cancellation of the spring hunt. Contributing factors include: concern about a potential increase in bears since the cancellation; expansion of human settlement into bear habitat; bear adaptation and continued expansion into developed areas of southern Ontario likely due to habitat improvement at the southern edge of bear range; increased public awareness due to the initiation of the Bear Wise program in 2004; fluctuations in abundance of natural foods; and safety concerns following several serious bear encounters across Canada and the 2005 human fatality in Ontario’s Missinaibi Provincial Park. In 2004, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) launched the Bear Wise program - a multi-pronged approach to reducing human-bear conflicts through prevention, education and awareness, reporting and response. The cooperative approach calls on municipalities, police and citizens to work together to reduce conflicts, with OMNR taking the lead role in coordinating the active management of problems. The program includes: (1) Prevention – emphasis on a broad scope of actions that can be taken by communities and individuals to reduce attraction and unnecessary destruction of problem bears. A

103

funding program supports community activities associated with prevention, awareness and education - 338 community projects were funded in 2004-06 (e.g., hazard assessments, bear-resistant containers, electric fencing). It includes by-law guidelines to reduce human-bear conflicts, and response memorandums and protocols with many communities and police services. A community recognition and champion program will be launched in 2007 to promote and recognize the importance of community partnerships. (2) Awareness and Education – a comprehensive awareness and education program promoting practices to reduce human-bear conflicts, advising the public on what to do when they encounter bears, and emphasizing the important role bears play in our natural heritage and ecology. Communication initiatives include a multi-media campaign featuring a website (http://bears.mnr.gov.on.ca), newspaper, magazine and web advertising, earned media, and educational products such as factsheets, posters, magnets, door hangers, technical notes and tool kits for municipalities and OMNR staff. Educational materials to support schools include factsheets, posters, activity workbooks, an electronic book, a curriculum-based bear education program for Grades 2, 4 and 7, and a video on black bear safety for young persons. Information is offered in English, French, Ojibway and Cree. (3) Reporting – includes a provincial Bear Reporting Centre and a year-round 24/7 toll-free phone line for reporting human-bear conflicts staffed from Apr 1 to Nov. 30. (4) Response – includes an electronic occurrence and response information application to track problem bears calls, notify local offices of problems and record their response, and development of decision support information and common bear handling and training protocols for OMNR staff, service providers and agents of landowners. The application and other survey tools are used to provide important information and metrics on the Bear Wise program, and associated activities and outcomes. Finally, there has been effort since 2004 to evaluate the effectiveness of bear deterrents (e.g., electric fencing, aversive conditioning, bear-resistant containers) through cooperative partnership research studies.

LIVING WITH BLACK BEARS EDUCATIONAL DVD

DAN BERTALAN, Living with Black Bears Educational Partnership, 6260 Onwentsia Trail, Suite B, Oregon, WI 53575, Tel: 608-835-0435

Abstract: With black bear populations surpassing 100-year highs in many states, wildlife officials agree that public education about sharing the landscape with bears is perhaps their biggest priority. To meet this educational need, the Living with Black Bears Educational Partnership joined forces to fund and produce a public educational DVD documentary on Living with Black Bears. Over two years in the making, the one- hour documentary was developed with technical input from over 20 bear professionals from 10 states and parts of Canada. It was produced in partnership with a team of award-winning wildlife education multimedia producers. The end result is what a growing number of wildlife experts are calling the most comprehensive and up-to-date educational video ever produced to help the public understand the crucial facts about living with black bears. Using a striking collection of professional black bear footage and a variety of bear expert interviews, this educational production covers black bear history and population dynamics over the past 200 years. It presents the unique biology and characteristics of black bears in an easy to understand presentation, then explores the complex challenges of living with them in a limited landscape. This film reveals the myths and truths of this reclusive giant of the forest in its struggle to maintain its valuable niche in changing ecosystems. Threatened at almost every turn by its natural need for high-calorie foods in a human-dominated world where they are often seen as dangerous predators, the bear’s story is finally told here with scientific logic yet compelling irony. It also addresses how to avoid encounters with black bears and how to react in different types of encounters. Finally, the production reveals how today’s wildlife professionals wrestle with the complexities of managing this large omnivore within the delicate arena of cultural carrying capacities using an array of scientific tools in modern wildlife management. Now that this national production is complete, it is being offered by the educational partnership to other states and agencies to educate their citizens about responsibly sharing the landscape with black bears. Currently, over 20 other states and agencies are currently reviewing this program to join in the growing partnership with Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, The North American Bear Foundation and others to offer both a comprehensive educational tool, plus present their state-specific bear management challenges and programs.

104

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 2007 BLACK BEAR RESEARCH SUMMARY

DAVID S. MAEHR, DAVID E. UNGER, HANNAH B. HARRIS, WADE A. ULREY, REBEKAH JENSEN, JOSEPH M. GUTHRIE, VINCE FRARY, JEFFERY L. LARKIN, ANDREA N. SCHUHMANN, LAUREN M. DAHL, JOHN J. COX, and JOHN H. HARRELSON, University of Kentucky, Thomas Poe Cooper Building, Lexington, KY, 40546

Abstract: Research at the University of Kentucky includes ongoing studies on black bear ecology, population estimation, and human dimensions in eastern Kentucky; spatial analyses of a small population in south central Florida; and proposed work to examine bear/highway issues in both states. Since August 1987, 128 (102M:20F, 6 unknown) non-cub black bears were handled by Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) and University of Kentucky (UK) personnel. Of these, 41 were adult (32M, 8F, 1 unknown), 74 were subadult (59M, 11F, 4 unknown), 13 were not aged (12M, 1 Female), and suggest a small but growing population. Telemetry locations (n=8567) were closer to mixed (p=0.003) and deciduous (p<0.0001) forest and farther from urban (p=0.001), open (p=0.03), and shrub habitat (p=0.02) than randomly selected sites, based on Euclidean distance analysis. Bears chose rough terrain (p=0.028) and steep slopes (p=0.0004) for natal dens. Surveys and interviews of people who live in or near black bear habitat revealed a range of attitudes toward a species that was absent from Kentucky for more than a century until the mid-1980s. Locally, nuisance activity appears divisive in human communities and among visitors to state parks where more could be done to reduce the availability of garbage to bears. Although intentional feeding has led to bear deaths near Kingdom Come State Park, a highly visible segment of this bear population promotes wildlife tourism. Elsewhere we are using hair snares and genetic analyses to estimate population size, and employing forward-looking infrared (FLIR) technology to refine population estimates and the current distribution of the black bear in eastern Kentucky. In 2006, we collected approximately 225 hair samples, of which 38 were likely from black bear. The samples were produced by 14 hair snares located in 5 far-eastern counties. Planning is underway to initiate a study of highway effects on black bear movements and habitat use, with an emphasis on how new highways might limit the population’s colonization potential. Field work will focus on data collection via GPS-based radio collars, and more intensive habitat analyses that are coupled with behavioral observations, field sign, and intensive location monitoring. Our study in south-central Florida is heading into its third year of field work. We have captured 41 bears (20 females, 21 males), all but one of which was radio-collared. Males move more widely, however, females crossed paved roads more frequently. Nearly half (44%) of the population is vulnerable to highway mortality based on home range position in the landscape. In a preliminary analysis, 7 of 18 females crossed paved roads a minimum of 140 times (mean = 20 times per female); whereas 8 of 18 males crossed paved roads a minimum of 51 times (mean = 6 times per male). Crossing events occurred on 15 area roads, with the most on CR 619 (n=40), Old SR 8 (n=39), and US 27 (n=35). At present, highway size and traffic volume do not appear to affect the probability that bears cross paved roads, and mortality has occurred on roads of all sizes. However, highways such as US 27 represent home range boundaries, particularly in southeastern Highlands County, suggesting highways influence bear ecology beyond simple habitat fragmentation. Interchange among the 3 largest habitat patches has been infrequent. Highway collisions account for 50% of known mortality among radio-collared bears. In 2006 a subadult male dispersed 56 km to the Peace River in Hardee County, an area previously not known to support a bear population. Ongoing work will examine genetic structuring in this small population and will develop a least cost pathway simulation of landscape- and habitat-scale connectivity.

105

SUMMARY OF PRE-WORKSHOP SURVEY ON AVERSIVE CONDITIONING AND HUMAN-BEAR CONFLICT OUTREACH EDUCATION

STEVE L. McMULLIN, Virginia Tech, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife 108 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061; e-mail: [email protected] JAMES A. PARKHURST, Virginia Tech, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife 144 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061; e-mail: [email protected]

Aversive conditioning means different things not necessary; and 4) ‘Long-term’ behavior modi- to different people. We constructed the definition fication may be unrealistic. below based on an electronically-mediated Based on the totality of all comments re- discussion among a group of black bear managers. ceived, and our interpretation of what individuals were telling us, the definition was revised and a “Aversive conditioning is any nonlethal technique new working definition for “aversive condition- designed to cause fear of humans and longterm ing” arose from the remains of the original behavior modification of black bears by reducing definition. the appeal of undesirable behaviors through negative experiences with particular places, “Aversive conditioning is any legal, humane objects, or behavior, so that the animal will avoid technique designed to modify undesirable behavior those places, objects, or behaviors in the future.” of black bears and cause them to avoid specific places or objects.” Using this definition, we developed a web- based survey about aversive conditioning and cir- Although there was not complete consensus culated an e-mail invitation to take the survey to on this revised definition, there was sufficient approximately 240 people, which included atten- agreement among participants to suggest that this dees from the 2 previous Eastern Black Bear revised definition could be used during the course Workshops, people registered for the 2007 of discussions at the Workshop to describe what Workshop, and various wildlife administrators in the concept meant and how participants would eastern states and provinces. Surveys were com- view the concept whenever it was referenced in the pleted prior to the 2007 Eastern Black Bear discussion. Workshop with the intent of using the results as a Participants were asked to describe the fre- foundation for facilitated discussions during the quency with which their agency used a variety of Workshop. We received 125 completed surveys. commonly accepted aversive conditioning This document is a summary of survey results. techniques. Clearly, the use of electric fencing, on- A more detailed summary, which includes re- site trapping/capture of bears, and trapping and sponse statistics for each question on the survey relocation of bears were commonly implemented and additional comments provided by survey respondents, was provided to Workshop attendees Agree Disagree No opinion Any nonlethal during the Workshop; copies are available upon technique request. Additionally, we also hope to include designed to cause survey results in a peer-reviewed manuscript. fear of humans The survey began by dividing the definition of aversive conditioning into subcomponents and and long-term behavior modification asked participants to state their level of agreement by reducing the or disagreement on the appropriateness and rele- appeal …. vance of each component. There was a relatively high level of agreement for most components of through negative experiences … the definition (Fig. 1). Respondents also were able to provide com- so that the animal will avoid …. ments about how to modify the definition. The 0 20 40 60 80 100 most common or important areas of disagreement Percent of respondents included: 1) Does it have to be nonlethal; 2) It should be humane; 3) ‘Fear of humans’ language Figure 1. Support for 6 components of a definition on aversive conditioning.

106

techniques (Fig. 2). As a follow-up to gaining informa- Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never No answer/Other tion about the frequency of use of these Electric fencing aversive techniques, respondents were asked to provide comment on the effec- Trap/on-site tiveness of the same techniques. Many Trap/relocate respondents stated that they did not Rubber bullets have sufficient or any experience with Pyrotechnics many of these techniques and could not provide an opinion based on first-hand Chase w/ dogs experience. Among those who did offer Noise opinion, electric fencing was viewed as Odors being an effective deterrent. About a Other half-dozen other techniques appeared to Motion-sensing lights provide some level of satisfaction to those respondents who used one or Capsaicin more of them in the past (Fig. 3). Thrown objects Respondents highlighted a variety Bean bag bullets of issues that they believed were im- Paint balls portant concerns for the list of tech- Spray water niques we provided. Economic concerns Electric garbage cans (e.g., labor costs, transportation) were prominent in capture-related techniques. Emetics Dealing with public opinion to an 020204060801000 4060 80100 Percent of Respondents agency’s use and of several techniques also was key (e.g., trapping, rubber Figure 2. Use of aversive conditioning techniques. bullets, chasing with dogs). As a general rule, ethical concerns never rose to a level comparable to the other key concerns (Fig. 4). Usually Occasionally Not usually DK/NA Given the fact that relatively few aversive conditioning techniques actu- Electric fencing ally appear to be used today, we wanted Chase w/ dogs to gain insight as to why that was so. Trap/relocate Respondents were asked to comment (via agreement or disagreement to pro- Trap/on-site vided statements) on why their agency Rubber bullets did not use these approaches more Pyrotechnics often. The inability to be at the scene at Bean bag bullets the time a situation occurred was a major deterrent to using some of these Noise techniques; if you aren’t there on the Capsaicin scene, you can’t implement many of the Electric garbage cans techniques. Additionally, many agen- Odors cies believed they did not have a suffi- Emetics cient labor pool available to devote to implementing some techniques. Throw objects Similarly, economic and budgetary Paint balls limitations prevented agencies from Spray water purchasing materials or devoting Motion-sensing lights limited resources to deterrent strategies Other applicable only to bears (Fig. 5). 020 4060 80100 Respondents were asked to identify Percent of Respondents and/or describe the types of conflicts they or their agency were confronting Figure 3. Effectiveness of aversive conditioning with bears. Responses were diverse techniques.

107

(Fig. 6), although many probably fall within what outreach was identified as a major cause (Fig. 8). managers might label as “nuisance” situations. A majority of respondents believed that out- Several types represent more significant conflicts reach was important as a means to convey critical and portend of situations that have the potential to information to clients, especially for reducing or escalate to higher-level conflicts. eliminating events that lead to conflicts (such as Respondents were asked to rate the level of providing food resources). Outreach also was severity associated with the human-bear conflicts viewed as a necessary and important vehicle to that they or their agency responded to. Very few prepare the public for the inevitable confrontations conflict situations were described by respondents as Ethics Public safety Public relations Cost being severe in nature; most Trap/relocate conflicts were viewed as Trap/on-site being of only slight to moderate severity (Fig. 7). Rubber bullets When asked whether the Emetics agency within which the Electric garbage cans respondent currently works has a formal outreach plan or Chase w/ dogs protocol in place that dic- Bean bag bullets tates how the agency will act Paint balls or respond to such events, 46.5% (n=53) said yes, Pyrotechnics 28.1% (n=32) said no, and Capsaicin 25.4% (n=29) provided no Electric fencing answer. These results raise Throw objects the obvious question of what does the agency without a Noise formal plan do when Motion-sensing lights confronted with a human- Spray w/ water bear conflict that hits the front page or 6:00 PM local Odors news? 0 20 40 60 80 100 Among those agencies Percent of Respondents that have a formal outreach Figure 4. Concerns regarding aversive conditioning plan, a sizeable majority techniques. (nearly 60%) appear to have comprehensive programs that are designed to reach Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree multiple audiences, both within and outside the agency. Can't be at scene When asked to describe why their agency did not Shortage of personnel have a formal outreach plan in place, a lack of sufficient Cost of implementing people, time, and/or money to develop and implement Cost of equipment such a program all were listed as common reasons. Agency directive Not knowing what to say or to whom to direct such a Public resistance message were not viewed as being problems. In about 020406080100 50% of these cases, the lack Percent of Respondents of administrative support for Figure 5. Reasons for not using aversive conditioning.

108

with bears that clients someday may find themselves facing. Common Rare Never

Although dissemination of basic Bird feeder/pet food ecological and life history information was seen as an Garbage important outreach effort, it was Dispersal in town not seen as being as important as information needs associated Vehicle collision with reducing or avoiding Bee hives conflicts. When asked about the best Campground approach(es) to convey informa- Crop damage tion about black bear life history, Damage property respondents indicated that a wide variety of options were seen as Fruit trees being effective tools. In fact, a Break into home comprehensive approach that utilized multiple options was Depredation--livestock viewed as being necessary to Depredation--pets reach different audiences effectively. Human attack/threat When the focus shifts from 020406080100 general life history information Percent of Respondents to transmission of specific infor- Figure 6. Frequency of human-bear interactions. mation about coping with conflicts or responding to bear encounters most effectively, im- pressions of which outreach methods were best changed Severe Moderate Slight noticeably. Respondents wanted to be sure that the agency’s first Bee hives responders (i.e., law enforcement Garbage personnel) were well informed and knowledgeable about proper Vehicle collision procedure and techniques that Bird feeder/pet food could be passed on to clients. Face-to-face contact opportuni- Crop damage ties remained high on the list, as Damage to property did various forms of literature resources (either hard copy or Dispersal in town electronic). Other first responders Campground also were seen as critical people in need of training and resource Fruit trees material if they were to be effec- Break in home tive in helping the public (Fig. 9). In terms of how best to Depredation--livestock transmit the message of “do not Human attack/threat feed bears,” most respondents Depredation--pets again believed that various forms of written literature, face-to-face 0 20 40 60 80 100 presentations with various Percent of Respondents constituent groups, and having a Figure 7. Severity of human-bear interactions. well-trained law enforcement staff were desired options.

109

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Lack personnel

Lack time

, Lack funding

Lack admin support Lack of message

Issue too complicated

Audience too diverse

020406080100 Percent of Respondents Figure 8. Reasons for not having an outreach program.

Very important Somewhat important Somewhat unimportant Not at all important

Training--LE Newspaper article

Presentations--civic groups

Printed fact sheets Presentations--educators Electronic fact sheets

PSA-TV Training--1st responders PSA--radio Presentations--students

Public meeting TV program Agency magazine

Radio program

Podcasts & blogs 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Respondents Figure 9. Importance of outreach techniques for relaying information about how to cope with a human-bear conflict.

110

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP BREAKOUT SESSION DISCUSSIONS AND RESULTS

Attendees were separated into 4 breakout • Problems associated with feeding; spread of diseases groups. Each group was provided a list of human- • Alternative delivery methods or food types bear conflict scenarios and directed to have a • Provide a review of feeding regulations, if applicable facilitated discussion to identify stakeholders and appropriate outreach responses. Bears roaming campgrounds Breakout groups used flip-charts to record • Keep message simple & consistent discussion points. Important points about outreach • It is not an emergency; don't overact messages that were identified from flip-chart • Bears are not rare animals transcripts include: • Campgrounds occur in habitats used by bears • May not be unusual for a bear to be seen in area • Some level of coexistence should be expected Bears raiding residential/business garbage cans • Securing/eliminating attractant is paramount • Keep message simple & consistent • Problem easily corrected if food rewards eliminated • It is not an emergency; don't overact • Provide a review of feeding regulations, if applicable • It is not an unusual problem • Train camp staff to deal with bears still on-site • Bears are not rare animals • Activity may be transient or related to food shortages • Bears are part of the landscape • Train camp staff on what requires immediate response • Some level of coexistence should be expected • Communication between camp & wildlife agency • Utilize a complaint form to log pertinent information • Provide information on bear-resistant containers • Securing/eliminating attractant is paramount • Don’t crowd bear; habituated bears are wild animals • Problem easily corrected if food rewards eliminated • Don't feed bears • Provide information on bear-resistant containers • Aversive conditioning if attractants secured • Electric fencing may be useful in some situations • Relocation if bear not yet habituated • Reduce amount of time garbage is curbside • Euthanasia necessary depending on bear's history • Don't approach a bear; give the bear space

• “A fed bear is a dead bear” or similar message Bears roaming neighborhoods • There may be liability issues if attractants not secured • Keep message simple & consistent • Leads to habituation and more serious problems • It is not an emergency; don't overact • Provide a review of feeding regulations, if applicable • May not be unusual for a bear to travel in area • Relocation concerns; homing, mortality, stress • Control the seen so that the bear has an escape route • Ammonia may be a short-term aid • Promote tolerance for some level of periodic sightings • Train police to deal with bears still on-site • Avoiding food rewards; associating people with food • Bears may be attracted by neighbors’ activities • Sightings reduced by eliminating attractants

• Sightings transient; related to food supplies, dispersal Bears raiding birdfeeders • Don't approach, crowd, or inadvertently corner bear • Keep message simple & consistent • Provide a review of feeding regulations, if applicable • Review I&E materials that promote birdfeeding • Relocation may be necessary if no escape route • It is a common problem fixed by removing feeders

• Winter feeding OK, but not in spring and summer Bears attracted to landfills • How to make feeders inaccessible if you must feed • Reduce attractiveness by covering garbage daily • Use a tarp to catch & clean dropped food • Electric fencing may be appropriate • Types of feed most attractive to bears • Potential for conflict small if only in non-public areas • Alternatives for attracting birds; landscaping, houses • Keep bears out of public areas • Store birdfeed indoors • Aversive conditioning may have temporary benefits • In garages/sheds, store feed away from exterior walls • Chasing bears with dogs may be useful

• Use motion-sensitive lights, sounds, or water devices Bears damaging deer feeders • Review I&E materials that promote wildlife feeding

111

Bears denned under homes/porches • Provide info on fence assist. program, if applicable • Minimal risk to pets, people, property • Site selection influences attractiveness to bears • Provide life history information • Confirm damage is caused by bears • If early winter, can move/chase away • Timeliness of response critical; avoid more losses • In mid-winter, best to do nothing, educate homeowner • Elevated platforms/poles useful in some situations • In late winter, may move/chase away • Temporarily moving hives may be useful • Secure entrances while bear is away • Motion-sensitive lights, sounds, radio • Relocation if hives are subsequently secured Bears killing/injuring pets • Euthanasia for repeat-offenders • Confirm that it is bear depredation • Sympathize with pet owner Bears along roadways • Typically opportunistic and rare behavior • Seasonal, based on breeding, dispersal, & food • Pet owner responsibility to control pets • Record location data to identify high-collision areas • Secure pet food attractants • Wildlife feeding in vicinity may be attracting bears • Risk of human injury when saving pet • If bear hit by car, but still mobile, do nothing • Disease transmission to people possible, rabies • Secure the scene; wait and watch • Move pet cages/tie-outs closer to buildings • Provide information about resilience of bears to injury • Electric fencing may be useful • If bear killed, preserve ability to collect data • Euthanasia of repeat offenders • Provide information on how to dispose of bear • Motion-sensitive lights, sounds, or water devices • Provide info on possessing carcass, if applicable • Identify the location to prevent multiple responses Bears causing crop damage • If cubs present, move carcass of sow away from road • Bears expected to occur in rural landscapes • Provide contact info for agency if euthanasia required • Explain efforts to manage bear populations • Have decision matrix on rehab injured/orphaned bears • Damage influenced by natural food conditions • Damage is seasonal; varies depending on crop Bears breaking into vehicles • Explain compensation program, if applicable • Problem easily corrected by removing attractants • Confirm that damage is being caused by bear • Entry may be due to visual attractants • Be sympathetic to economic significance • When hauling garbage, drop it off quickly • Explain laws on killing bears to protect crops • Clean or rinse vehicle after hauling garbage • Explain depredation kill permits, if applicable • Stress cost of not securing attractants • Relocation may be useful, but difficult to trap • Wait until caller is calm to educate • Electric fencing in special circumstances • Determine if immediate response or complaint • Hound pursuit possible, but trespass issues • Euthanasia may be necessary for repeat-offenders • Euthanasia required for repeat offenders • Focus hunting in problem areas Bears entering homes • Encourage hunter access • Determine method of entry, frequency • Asses threat level; is the bear still there Bears killing/injuring livestock • Train local police on dealing with bears still on-site • Confirm that it is bear predation • Provide information on what to do in an encounter • Be sympathetic to economic significance • Behavior usually rare unless prior habituation • Typically opportunistic and rare behavior • Activity may be related to food shortages • May increase seasonally; calving time • Reducing attractants important • Improving animal husbandry may help • Low tolerance for behavior; euthanasia may be • Increase vigilance at critical times needed • Disposal of dead stock; avoid attracting bears • Guard dogs may be beneficial Bears injuring people • Electric fencing in some situations • Bears are common in many rural/suburban areas • Securing feed to avoid attracting bears • Most human-bear encounters do not involve injury • Hound pursuit possible, but trespass issues • Extremely rare behavior; but bear should be respected • Make message positive rather than focus on fear Bears damaging bee hives • Provide info on how to react in an encounter • Circulate I&E materials to Beekeeper Associations • Provide info on how to camp in bear habitats • Circulate I&E materials through Extension Offices • Determine if curious, defensive, or predatory behavior • Electric fencing nearly 100% effective • Hunters, don't clean animals near camp • Importance of prevention before losses occur • Hunters, hang animals away from camp/home • Provide information on design and materials • Hunters, don't use food-based cover scents • Review I&E materials for consistent design/message • Treestand hunters, don't yell, cubs may climb tree • Be consistent & factual with media about incidents

112

At the end of the facilitated discussion, each Each workshop participant also selected individual also ranked his/her top 5 techniques for which aversive conditioning techniques they responding to the human-bear conflict scenarios thought were the highest priorities for further discussed by the group. Rankings were pooled research. The pooled results were: across the four groups and the top 3 responses for each human-bear conflict scenario were identified 1. Chasing/treeing nuisance bears with dogs. (Table 2). After hearing a summary of discussions held 2. Trapping, harassing, and releasing by each of the 4 facilitated groups, attendees nuisance bear at or near the conflict site. selected which human-bear conflict situations were their highest priority. The pooled results 3. Shooting nuisance bears with rubber- were: pellet shotgun ammunition.

1. Bears raiding residential garbage. 4. Trapping, handling (i.e., immobilizing and tagging), then relocating nuisance 2. Bears raiding bird feeders or pet food. bears away from the conflict site.

3. Bears roaming in neighborhoods. Notably, although not commonly considered aversive conditioning techniques, many workshop 4. Bears raiding restaurant/business garbage. participants also included “removing attractants” as a research priority. 5. Bears damaging corn crops.

6. Bears damaging bee hives.

113

Table 2. Three most commonly recommended responses selected by Workshop attendees for 28 human-bear conflict scenarios.

Response to Human-Bear Conflict Scenario (increasing difficulty or resource commitment )

Human-Bear Conflict Scenario Do nothing Remove attractants Apply offensive odors Install auditory device husbandry Modify livestock Install electric fencing Compensation payments Display human dominance Use pepper spray Repel with pyrotechnics Discharge gun over head Shoot with bean bag Shoot with rubber pellets Chase with dogs Trap, harass, then release Trap, handle, then relocate Euthanize Other Accessing landfill ● ● ● Near roads, potential collision ● ● ● At roadside dumpster ● ● ● Denned under building ● ● ● (increasing emotionorseverity Roaming neighborhood ● ● ● Roaming campground ● ● ● Approaching homes ● ● ● Raiding business garbage ● ● ● Raiding campground garbage ● ● Raiding home garbage ● Raiding bird feeder/pet food ● ● Damage at military facilities ● ● ● Deer feeder damage ● ● Fence damage ● ● ● Fish hatchery damage ● ● ● Berry crop damage ● ● ● Orchard crop damage ● ● ●

) Damage to outbuildings ● ● ● Bee hive damage ● ● Corn crop damage ● ● ● Livestock loss/injury ● ● ● Damage to parked vehicle ● ● ● Pet loss/injury ● ● ● Bear entering buildings ● ● ● Attack/threat to hunter in stand ● ● ● Attack/threat to hunter placing bait ● ● ● Attack/threat to camper or hiker ● ● ● Attack/threat to homeowner ● ● ●

114

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AVERSIVE CONDITIONING WITH A FOCUS ON BLACK BEAR

JORDAN D. GREEN, Virginia Tech, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Blacksburg, VA, 24061; e- MAIL: [email protected] STEVE L. McMULLIN, Virginia Tech, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife 108 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061; e-mail: [email protected] JAMES A. PARKHURST, Virginia Tech, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife 144 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061; e-mail: [email protected]

Throughout the last decade of the 20th century is available electronically from the second and and the first decade of the 21st century, black bear third authors or editors of the Workshop proceed- populations have been increasing steadily and their ings. Due to copyright considerations, we cannot range throughout much of eastern North America include full-text copies of the articles cited in the has expanded. These increases have produced a final document, but electronic copies of many of growing number of human-black bear interactions, the individual articles are on file with the second many of which unfortunately have spawned unde- and third authors and are available upon request. sirable outcomes. Black bears are quick to learn The funding necessary to complete this analy- where to find food, and humans, often unwittingly, sis of the literature was provided by the 19th often provide attractive food resources for bears, Eastern Black Bear Workshop. including garbage, pet foods, bird feeders, agricultural crops, apiaries, and orchards. Bears also CITATIONS are becoming more frequent visitors to suburban Alt, G. L. 1980. Relocating nuisance bears. Pennsylvania and urban neighborhoods, where they cause much Game News 51:20-22. excitement and frequently make the evening news. Ambrose, J. T., and O. T. Sanders. 1978. Magnitude of black bear depredation on apiaries in North Carolina. Proceedings Although people enjoy seeing bears, these of Eastern Black Bear Workshop 4:137-179. animals can be destructive and potentially danger- Andelt, W. 1992. Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs ous, especially where they associate humans with for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildlife Society provision of food, such as around homes or camp- Bulletin 20:55-62. grounds. Wildlife managers have been dealing Andelt, W. F. 1999. Relative effectiveness of guarding-dog breeds to deter predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. with “problem” bears for years, but they constantly Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(3):706-714. are looking for more effective ways to resolve or Andelt, W. F., R. L. Phillips, K. S. Gruver, and J. W. prevent such conflicts. One area of human-bear Guthrie. 1999. Coyote predation on domestic sheep deterred conflict management that has received increasing with electronic dog-training collar. Wildlife Society attention from the public and natural resources Bulletin 27(1):12-18. agencies is aversive conditioning. Andelt, W. F., and S. N. Hopper. 2000. Livestock guard dogs reduce predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. Journal of This document contains citations for 335 arti- Range Management 53:259-267. cles that deal with the topic of aversive condition- Anderson, C. R., M. A. Ternent, and D. S. Moody. 2002. ing, primarily with a focus on black bear. We de- Grizzly bear-cattle interactions on two grazing allotments in fined aversive conditioning as: Any legal, humane northwest Wyoming. Ursus 13:247-256 technique designed to modify undesirable behavior Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan, and J. G. Woods. 2006. Land- of black bears and cause them to avoid specific scape partitioning and spatial inferences of competition between black and grizzly bears. Ecography 29:561-572. places or objects. Armistead, A. R., K. Mitchell, and G. E. Connolly. 1994. Our investigation of the literature concentrates Bear relocations to avoid bear/sheep conflicts. Proceedings on the period from 1984 through to the present. As of Vertebrate Pest Conference 16:31-35. such, it was our intent to pick up and continue Aumiller, L. D., and C. A. Matt. 1994. Management of where previous efforts (i.e., those of Carrie Hunt McNeil State Game Sanctuary for viewing brown bears. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research 1983) left off and to not duplicate earlier work, but and Management 9(1):51-61 rather supplement those efforts. Ayres, L. A., L. S. Chow, and D. M. Graber. 1983. Black Because of space limitations, only citations bear activity patterns and human induced modifications in are presented herein; however, the same citations Sequoia National Park. Proceedings of International complete with abstracts and a subject/keyword Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:151-154 index are part of larger (115 page) document that Baker, S. E., S. A. Ellwood, R. W. Watkins, and D. W. Macdonald. 2004. A dose-response trial with ziram-treated

115

maize and free-ranging European badgers Meles meles. Breck, S. W., N. Lance, and P. Callahan. 2006. A shocking Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93:309-321. device for protection of concentrated food sources from Baker, S. E., S. A. Ellwood, R. Watkins, and D. W. black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 4:23-34. Macdonald. 2005. Non-lethal control of wildlife: using Breck, S. W., R. Williamson, C. Niemeyer, and J. A. Shivik. chemical repellents as feeding deterrents for the European 2002. Non-lethal radio activated guard for deterring wolf badgers Meles meles. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:921- depredation in Idaho: summary and call for research. 931. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:223-226. Barden, M. E., D. Slate, R. T. Calvert, P. W. Debow. 1995. Bromley, C., and E. M. Gese. 2001. Surgical sterilization as Strategies to address human conflicts with raccoons and a method of reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep. black bears in New Hampshire. Proceedings of Eastern Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):510-519. Wildlife Damage Control Conference 6:22-29. Bryant, B. P., A. Savchenko, L. Clark, and J. R. Mason. Bargali, H. S., N. Akhtar, and N. P. S. Chauhan. 2004. 2000. Potential for cell culture techniques as a wildlife Nature of sloth bear attacks and human casualties in North management tool for screening primary repellents. Bilaspur Forest Division (NBFD), Chattisgarh, India. Pro- International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 45:175- ceedings of International Conference on Bear Research and 181. Management 15:7 Burns, R. J. 1980. Evaluation of conditioned predation Beckmann, J. P., C W. Lackey, and J. Berger. 2004. Evalua- aversion for controlling coyote predation. Journal of tion of deterrent techniques and dogs to alter behavior of Wildlife Management 44(4):938-942. “nuisance” black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin Burns, R. J., and P. J. Savarie. 1989. Persistence of tartrazine 2(4):1141-1146. in marking sheep wool. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Beckmann, J. P., and J. Berger. 2003. Rapid ecological and Damage Control Conference 4:95-100. behavioural changes in carnivores: the responses of black Calvert, R., D. Slate, and P. Debow. 1993. An integrated bears (Ursus americanus) to altered food. Journal of approach to bear damage management in New Hampshire. Zoology 261:207-212. Proceedings of Eastern Black Bear Workshop 11:96-107. Beringer, J. J., S. G. Seibert, and M. R. Pelton. 1990. Inci- Cardoza, J. E. 1985. Black bear damage and control in dence of road crossing by black bears on Pisgah National Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Forest, North Carolina. Proceedings of International Wildlife Westborough, Massachusetts, USA. Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:85-92 Carpenter, W. J. 1989. The Canadian Eskimo dog: the origi- Black Bear Conservation Committee. 1996. Black Bear nal defense against the polar bear. Page 71 in M. Bromley, Management Handbook for Louisiana, Mississippi, south- editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium ern Arkansas, and East Texas. Black Bear Conservation on management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Committee Document. 20-24. Chauhan, N. P. S. 2003. Human casualties and livestock Black, H. L., and J. S. Green. 1984. Navajo use of mixed- depredation by black and brown bears in Indian Himalaya, breed dogs for management of predators. Journal of Range 1989-98. Ursus 14:84-87. Management 38(1):11-15. Chauhan, N. P. S. 2004. Black bear-human conflict in Blackshaw, J. K., G. E. Cook, P. Harding, C. Day, W. Bates, Garhwal and Kumoun hills, Uttaranchal, India. Proceedings J. Rose, and D. Bramham. 1990. Aversive responses of of International Conference on Bear Research and dogs to ultrasonic, sonic and flashing light units. Applied Management 15:32. Animal Behaviour Science 25:1-8. Chauhan, N. P. S. 2004. Crop depredation by Himalayan Blejwas, K. M., B. N. Sacks, M. M. Jaeger, and D. R. black bear and mitigation strategies in the Great Himalayan McCullough. 2002. The effectiveness of selective removal National Park, Himachal Pradesh, India. Proceedings of of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation. Journal of International Conference on Bear Research and Wildlife Management 66(2):451-462. Management 15:29. Bodenchuck, M., J. Childs, B. Hutchings, S. Labrum, and E. Chi, D. K., and B. K. Gilbert. 2000. Habitat security for Sutherland. 1995. Panel discussion: hounds and black bears. Alaskan black bears at key foraging sites: are there thresh- Proceedings of Western Black Bear Workshop 5:135-149. olds for human disturbance? Ursus 11:225-238. Bomford, M., and P. H. O'Brien. 1990. Sonic deterrents in Claar, J. J., R. Karsky, K. Barber, M. Hinschberger, and J. J. animal damage control: A review of device tests and effec- Jonkel. 2004. Sanitation in bear country: methods, proto- tiveness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:411-422. cols, and equipment to minimize bear/human conflicts. Bowman, J. L., B. D. Leopold, F. J. Vilella, D. A. Gill, H. A. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research Jacobson. 2001. Attitudes of landowners toward American and Management 15:7 black bears compared between areas of high and low bear Claar, J. J., R. W. Klaver, C. W. Servheen. 1983. Grizzly populations. Ursus 12:153-160. bear management on the Flathead Indian reservation Bradley, E. H., D. H. Pletscher, E. E. Bangs, K. E. Kunkel, Montana. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear D. W. Smith, C. M. Mack, T. J. Meier, J. A. Fontaine, C. C. Research and Management 6:203-208. Niemeyer, and M. D. Jimenez. 2005. Evaluating wolf Clark, D. J. S. Dobey, D. V. Masters, B. K. Scheick, M. R. translocations as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock Pelton, and M. E. Sunquist. 2005. American black bears conflicts in the northwestern United States. Conservation and bee yard depredation at Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Biology 19:1498-1508. Ursus 16:234-244. Brady, J., and D. Maehr. 1982. A new method for dealing Clark, J. D., D. L. Clapp, K. G. Smith, and T. B. Wigley. with apiary-raiding black bears. Proceedings of Annual 1991. Black bear damage and landowner attitudes toward Conference of Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife bears in Arkansas. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Agencies 36:571-577. Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Brannon, R. D. 1987. Nuisance grizzly bear, Ursus arctos, 45:208-217. translocations in the greater Yellowstone area. The Clark, J. E. 1999. Capture and on-site release of nuisance Canadian Field-Naturalist 10:569-575. black bears and survival of orphaned black bears released in

116

the Great Smoky Mountains. Thesis, University of Davies, J. C., and R. F. Rockwell. 1986. An electric fence to Tennessee, USA. deter polar bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:406-409. Clark, J. E., F. T. VanManen, and M. R. Pelton. 2003. Sur- Decker, D. J., and J. O'Pezio. 1989. Consideration of bear- vival of nuisance American black bears released on-site in people conflicts in black bear management for the catskill Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ursus 14:210-214. region of New York: application of a comprehensive man- Clarkson, P. L. 1989. The twelve gauge shotgun: a bear agement model. Page 181 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear- deterrent and protection weapon. Page 55 in M. Bromley, people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. on management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Decker, D. J., R. A. Smolka Jr., J. O’Pezio, T. L. Brown. Clarkson, P. L. (chairman). 1989. Workshop II. Deterring, 1983. Social determinants of black bear management for the capturing, and handling problem bears. Pages 243-244 in Northern Catskill Mountains. Pages 239-248 in Samuel L. M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a Beasom and Sheila F. Roberson, editors. Game Harvest symposium on management strategies. Northwest Management. Cesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Territories, Canada. Kingsville, Texas, USA. Clarkson, P. L., and I. Stirling. 1994. Polar Bears. Pages C- Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, D. L. Hustin, S. H. Clarke, and J. 25-C-34 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. O’Pezio. 1981. Public attitudes toward black bears in the Larson, editors. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Catskills. New York Fish and Game Journal 28:1-20. Damage. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. 2003. A Nebraska, USA. framework for black bear management in New York. Clarkson, P. L., and P. A. Gray. 1989. Presenting safety in Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New bear country information to industry and the public. Page York, USA. 203 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceed- Dodson, M. M. 2001. Bear-human interaction on Cherokee ings of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest National Forest from 1998-2000. Proceedings of Eastern Territories, Canada. Black Bear Workshop 16:110. Collins, G. H., and R. B. Wielgus. 1999. Behavioral ecology Dorrance, M. J. 1983. A philosophy of problem wildlife of black bear damage to conifer stands. Intermountain management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:319-324. Journal of Sciences 5:44. Dvivedi, S, S. Sood, V. Mehrotra, and J. Dvivedi. 2003. Comly-Gericke, L. M., and M. R. Vaughan. 1997. Survival Injuries caused by the black Himalayan bear in the foothills and reproduction of translocated Virginia black bears. of Garhwal, Himalayas. Tropical Doctor 33:115-117. Proceedings of International Conference of Bear Research Dyck, M. G. 2006. Characteristics of polar bears killed in and Management 9:113-117. defense of life and property in Nunavut, Canada, 1970- Commonwealth of Virginia. 2005. Black Bear Damage 2000. Ursus 17:52-62. Programs. Report of the Department of Game and Inland Ellins, S. R. 1985. Coyote control and taste aversion: a Fisheries to the Governor and General Assembly of predation problem or a people problem? Appetite 6:272- Virginia. House Document 95, Richmond, USA. 275. Conover, M. R. 1995. Behavioral principles governing Ernst, R. 1974. Activities and behavior of the black bear in conditioned food aversions based on deception. Pages 30- Georgia. Proceedings of Eastern Workshop on Black Bear 41 in Proceedings of the 1995 National Wildlife Research Management and Research 2:179-189. Center Repellents Conference. U.S. Department of Fagen, J. M., and R. Fagen. 1994. Interaction between wild- Agriculture National Wildlife Research Center Symposia, life viewers and habituated brown bears, 1987-1992. 8-10 August 1995, Denver, Colorado, USA. Natural Areas Journal 14:159-164. Conover, M. R., J. G. Francik, and D. E. Miller. 1977. An Fecske, D. M., R. E. Barry, F. L. Precht, H. B. Quigley, S. L. experimental evaluation of aversive conditioning for con- Bittner, and T. Webster. 2002. Habitat use by female black trolling coyote predation. Journal of Wildlife Management bears in Western Maryland. Southeastern Naturalist 41(4):775-779. 1(1):77-92. Coppinger, R., J. Lorenz, and L. Coppinger. 1983. Introduc- Fleck, S., and S. Herrero. 1989. Polar bear conflicts with ing livestock guarding dogs to sheep and goat producers. humans. Page 201 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people con- Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage Control flicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strate- Conference 1:129. gies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Creachbaum, M. S., C. Johnson, and R. H. Schmidt. 1998. Floyd, Timothy. 1999. Bear-inflicted human injury and Living on the edge: a process for redesigning campgrounds fatality. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 10:75-87. in grizzly bear habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning Forbes, G., P. Chamberland, E. Daigle, and W. Ballard. 42:269-286. 1994. Lack of problem bear issues in Fundy National Park. Dalle-Molle, J. L., and J. C. VanHorn. 1989. Bear-people Proceedings of Eastern Workshop for Black Bear Research conflict management in Denali National Park, Alaska. Page and Management 12:155. 121 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: Fredriksson, G. 2005. Human-sun bear conflicts in East proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Ursus 16:130-137. Northwest Territories, Canada. Garner, N. P., and M. R. Vaughan. 1989. Black bear-human Dau, C. P. 1989. Management and biology of brown bears at interactions in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Page cold bay, Alaska. Page 19 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear- 155 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceed- people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on manage- ings of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest ment strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Territories, Canada. Davidson, P. L., M. W. Davidson, and D. J. Lablanc. 2003. Garshelis, D. L. 1989. Nuisance bear activity and manage- The “tough love” approach to dealing with nuisance bears ment in Minnesota. Page 169 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear- in Louisiana. Proceedings of Eastern Black Bear Workshop people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on manage- 17:147. ment strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada.

117

Garshelis, D. L., and M. R. Pelton. 1980. Activity of black Northwest forests. 25-27 March 1987, Spokane, bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal Washington, USA. of Mammalogy 61:8-19. Graber, D. 1979. Depredation and campground problems. Garshelis, D. L., R. S. Sikes, D. E. Andersen, and E. C. Proceedings of Western Black Bear Workshop 1:213-234. Birney. 2000. Landowners’ perceptions of crop damage and Graber, D. M. 1986. Conflicts between wilderness users and management practices related to black bears in east-central black bears in the Sierra Nevada National Parks. Pages 197- Minnesota. Ursus 11:219-224. 202 in Lucas, R. C., compiler. Proceedings of National George, S. L., and K. R. Crooks. 2006. Education and con- Wilderness Research Conference Current Research. U.S. servation on the urban-wildland interface: testing the effi- Forest Service General Technical Report INT-212, cacy of informational brochures. The Southwestern Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA. Naturalist 51(2):240-250. Graber, D. M. 1989. Ecological and behavioural responses of Gese, E. M. 2003. Management of carnivore predation as a black bears in national parks of the Sierra Nevada, means to reduce livestock losses: the study of coyotes California, to anthropogenic foods, and to management (Canis latrans) in North America. Proceedings of strategies designed to reduce conflicts. Page 47 in Bear Workshop sobre Pesquisa e Conservacao de Carniovoros People Conflicts: Proceedings of a Symposium on Neotropicais 1:85-102. Management Strategies. 6-10 April 1987, Yellowknife, Gibeau, M. L., S. Herrero, B. N. McLellan, and J. G. Woods. Northwest Territories, Canada. 2001. Managing for grizzly bear security areas in Banff Graham, K., A. P. Beckerman, S. Thirgood. 2005. Human- National Park and the central Canadian Rocky Mountains. predator-prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses Ursus 12:121-130. and patterns of management. Biological Conservation Gilbert, B. K. 1989. Behavioural plasticity and bear-human 122:159-171. conflicts. Page 1 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people Gray, P. A., and Sutherland M. 1989. A review of bear conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management detection systems. Page 61 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear- strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on manage- Gilbert, B. K., and L. D. Roy. 1975. Prevention of black bear ment strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. damage to beeyards using aversive conditioning. Pages 93- Gray, R. M. 2001. Digestibility of foods and anthropogenic 102 in Phillips, R. L. and C. Jonkel, editors. Proceedings of feeding of black bears in Virginia. Thesis, Virginia the 1975 predator symposium. Montana Forest Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Conservation Experiment Station University of Montana, Virginia, USA. Misssoula, Montana, USA. Gray, R. M., M. R. Vaughan, and S. L. McMullin. 2004. Gillin C. M., I. Chestin, P. Semchenkov, and J. Claar. 1997. Feeding wild American black bears in Virginia: a survey of Management of bear-human conflicts using laika dogs. Virginia bear hunters. Ursus 15:188-196. International Conference on Bear Research and Green, D., D. Masters, and J. M. Higley. 2004. Bear-human Management 9:133-137 conflicts on the Hoopa Reservation in northwest California: Goldstein, I., S. Paisley, R. Wallace, J. P. Jorgenson, F. what's the problem? Proceedings of International Cuesta, and A. Castellanos. 2006. Andean bear-livestock Conference on Bear Research and Management 15:29-30. conflicts: a review. Ursus 17:8-15. Green, J. S. 1981. Reducing coyote damage to sheep with Goodrich, J. M., and D. G. Miquelle. 2005. Translocation of non-lethal techniques. Proceedings of Great Plains Wildlife problem Amur tigers Panther tigris altaica to alleviate Damage Control Workshop 5:122-131. tiger-human conflicts. Oryx 39(4):454-457. Green, J. S. 1989. APHIS animal damage control livestock Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis, and J. E. Shanahan. guarding dog program. Proceedings of Great Plains 2006. Education programs for reducing American black Wildlife Damage Control Workshop 9:50-53. bear-human conflict: indicators of success? Ursus 17:75-80. Green, J. S. 1989. Donkeys for predation control. Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis, and J. E. Shanahan. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage Control 2006. Stakeholder perceptions of risk associated with Conference 4:83-86. human-black bear conflicts in New York’s Adirondack Park Green, J. S. 1994. Coyotes. Pages C-51-C-76 in S. E. campgrounds: implications for theory and practice. Wildlife Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, editors. Society Bulletin 34:36-43. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. University of Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis, and J. E. Shanahan. Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 2007. Campground manager and user perceptions of risk Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1983. The use of Eurasian associated with negative human-black bear interactions. dogs to protect sheep from predators in North America: A Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12:31-45. summary of research at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis, and J. E. Shanahan. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference 1:119-124. 2007. Factors influencing risk perception associated with Green J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1983. The use of three human-black bear conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife breeds of dog to protect rangeland sheep from predators. 12:133-136. Applied Animal Ethology 11:141-161. Gore, M. L., W. F. Siemer, J. E. Shanahan, D. Schuefele, Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1988. Breed comparisons and D. J. Decker. 2005. Effects on risk perception of media and characteristics of use of livestock guarding dogs. coverage of a black bear-related human fatality. Wildlife Journal of Range Management 41(3):249-250. Society Bulletin 33:507-516. Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1993. Bears, ostriches and Gourley, M., M. Vonocil. 1987. Public involvement in a specialized grazing: putting guarding dogs to work. black bear damage control program on private land. Pages Proceedings of Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control 149-153 in D. M. Baumgartner, R. L. Mahoney, J. Evans, J. Workshop 11:105-108. Caslick, and D. W. Breuer, co-chairs. Proceedings of the Green, J. S., R. A. Woodruff, T. T. Tueller. 1984. Livestock- symposium of animal damage management in Pacific guarding dogs for predator control: costs, benefits, and practicality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:44-50.

118

Gunther, K. A. 1990. Visitor impact on grizzly bear activity Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 2003. Human injuries inflicted in Pelican Valley, Yellowstone National Park. Proceedings by bears in Alberta: 1960-98. Ursus 14:44-54. of International Conference on Bear Research and Highley, K. 2001. To give wildlife a boost, The Montana Management 8:73-78. Fish, Wildlife and Parks Foundation is: swinging for the Gunther, K. A. 1994. Bear management in Yellowstone fences. Montana Outdoors 32:21-23. National Park. Proceedings of International Conference on Holmshaw, F. 1994. Bear-Proof Food Storage and Solid Bear Research and Management 9:549-560. Waste Collection Systems. Proceedings of Eastern Gunther, K. A., and H. E. Hoekstra. 1999. Bear-inflicted Workshop Black Bear Research and Management 12:156- human injuries in Yellowstone National Park, 1970-1994. 157. Ursus 10:377-384. Howard, W. E. 1967. Biological control of vertebrate pests. Gustavson, C. R. 1978. An experimental evaluation of aver- Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 3:137-157. sive conditioning for controlling coyote predation: a Hunt, C. L., et. al. 1996. Annual Summary Report. Wind critique. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(1):208-209. River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Hansen, I., and M. Bakken. 1999. Livestock-guarding dogs Utah. in Norway: part I. interactions. Journal of Range Hunt, C. L., et. al. 1997. Annual Summary Report. Wind Management 52:2-6. River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Hansen, I., M. Bakken, and B. O. Braastad. 1997. Failure of Utah. LiCl-conditioned taste aversion to prevent dogs from Hunt, C. L., et. al. 1998. Annual Summary Report. Wind attacking sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, 54:251-256. Utah. Hansen, I., and M. E. Smith. 1999. Livestock-guarding dogs Hunt, C. L., et. al. 1999. Annual Summary Report. Wind in Norway part II: different working regimes. Journal of River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Range Management 52(4):312-316. Utah. Hanson, R. G. 1989. Dangerous bear policy and the estab- Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2000. Annual Summary Report. Wind lishment of bear response teams in Alberta. Page 73 in M. River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a Utah. symposium on management strategies. Northwest Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2001. Annual Summary Report. Wind Territories, Canada. River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Hastings, B. C., and B. K. Gilbert. 1987. Extent of human- Utah. bear interactions in the backcountry of Yosemite National Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2002. Annual Summary Report. Wind Park. California Fish and Game 73:188-191. River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Hastings, B. C., B. K. Gilbert, and D. L. Turner. 1986. Black Utah. bear aggression in the backcountry of Yosemite National Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2003. Annual Summary Report. Wind Park. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Research and Management 6:145-149. Utah. Hastings, B. C., B. K. Gilbert, and D. L. Turner. 1989. Effect Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2004. Annual Summary Report. Wind of bears eating campers' food on human-bear interactions. River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Page 15 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: Utah. proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2005. Annual Summary Report. Wind Northwest Territories, Canada. River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Hastings, B. C., M. R. Pelton, and P. A. Petko-Seus. 1986. Utah. Use of backcountry visitor areas by problem bears in Great Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2006. Annual Summary Report. Wind Smoky Mountains National Park. Conference on Science in River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, The National Parks, Proceedings, Volume 2 Wildlife Utah. Management and Habitats. Proceedings of the Triennial Hunt, C. L., et. al. 2007. Annual Summary Report. Wind Conference on Research in the National Parks and River Bear Institute: Partners-In-Life Program, Heber City, Equivalent Reserves 4:82-88. Utah. Hayashi, T. 1984. The people attacked by the Japanese black Hunt, C. L., F. Hammond and C. Peterson. 1988. Behavioral bear-instances in Fukui Prefectrue from 1970 to 1983. responses of Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears to aver- Journal of Mammalogy Society of Japan 10:55-62 (In sive conditioning techniques. Wyoming Game and Fish Japanese, English abstract). Department, Progress Report, Cody, Wyoming, USA. Herrero, S. 1989. The role of learning in some fatal grizzly Hunt, C. L. 1985. Descriptions of five repellant/deterrent bear attacks on people. Page 9 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear- products for use on bears. Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordi- people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on manage- nator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana, ment strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. USA. Herrero, S. 1990. Injury to people inflicted by black, grizzly Hunt, C. L. 1984. Behavioral responses of bears to tests of or polar bears: recent trends and new insights. Proceedings repellents, deterrents, and aversive conditioning. Thesis, of International Conference on Bear Research and University of Montana, Missoula, USA. Management 8:25-32. Hunt, C. L. 1983. Deterrents, aversive conditioning, and Herrero, S. and A. Higgins. 1995. Fatal injuries inflicted to other practices; an annotated bibliography to aid in bear people by black bear. Proceedings of Western Black Bear management. National Park Service Report, Glacier Workshop 5:75. National Park, Montana, USA. Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 1998. Field use of capsicum Huygens, O. C., M. Goto, S. Izumiyama, H. Hayashi, and T. spray as a bear deterrent. Ursus 10:533-537. Yoshida. 2001. Asiatic black bear conservation in Nagano Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 2000. Human injuries inflicted Prefecture, central Japan: problems and solutions. by bears in British Columbia: 1960-97. Ursus 11:209-218. Biosphere Conservation 3(2):97-106.

119

Hygnstrom, S. E. 1988. Animal damage control in Keay, J. A., and M. G. Webb. 1989. Effectiveness of human- Wisconsin. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, bear management at protecting visitor and property in USA. Yosemite National Park. Page 145 in M. Bromley, editor. Hygnstrom S. E. 1994. Black Bears. Pages C-5-C16 in S. E. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, editors. Pre- management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. vention and Control of Wildlife Damage. University of Kelley, C. D. 1985. The role of state and wildlife agencies in Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. wildlife damage control. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Hygnstrom, S. E., and T. M. Hauge. 1989. A review of Damage Control Conference 2:259-261. problem black bear management in Wisconsin. Page 163 in Kelly, G. 1994. Black bears of Missouri: a guide to nuisance M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a prevention. Missouri Department of Conservation, symposium on management strategies. Northwest Conservation Commission, Jefferson City, Missouri, USA. Territories, Canada. Kerr, W. A., and E. A. Wilman. 1988. A proposed formal Inglis, J. E. 1993. An analysis of human-black bear conflicts structure for assessing bear-human encounters. in Algonquin provincial park, Ontario (1973-1990). Environmental Management 12:173-179. Proceedings of Eastern Black Bear Workshop 11:108-123. Kessler, K. K. 1995. Financial compensation for wildlife Ingram, D. K. 1995. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National damage: a review of programs in North America. Parks-black bear management techniques and program Proceedings of Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control update. Proceedings of Western Black Bear Workshop Workshop 12:90. 5:22-25. Kleckner, C. 2001. A study of urban black bear (Ursus Jacobs, M. J., and C. A. Schloeder. 1992. Managing brown americanus) distribution in the anchorage area of southcen- bears and wilderness recreation on the Kenai Peninsula, tral Alaska. Thesis, University of Alaska, Anchorage, USA. Alaska, USA. Environmental Management 16:249-254. Kleiven, J., T. Bjerke, and B. P. Kaltenborn. 2004. Factors Johnson, M. 2004. Collaboration on tangible projects to influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore reduce grizzly bear/human conflicts. Proceedings of behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1647-1658. International Conference on Bear Research and Knarrum, V., O. J. Sorensen, T. Eggen, T. Kvam, O. Opseth, Management 15:31. K. Overskaug, and A. Eidsmo. 2006. Brown bear predation Jonkel, Charles. 1994. Grizzly/brown bears. Pages C-17-C- on domestic sheep in central Norway. Ursus 17:67-74. 24 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, Knight, J. E. 1994. Mountain Lions. Pages C-93-C-100 in S. editors. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, editors. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. University of Jonker, S. A., and J. A. Parkhurst. 1997. Survey of black Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. bear depredation in agriculture in Massachusetts. Koehler, A. E., R. E. Marsh, and T. P. Salmon. 1990. Fright- Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage Management ening methods and devices/stimuli to prevent mammal Conference 7:108. damage-- a review. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Jonker, S. A., J. A. Parkhurst, R. Field, and T. K. Fuller. Conference 14:168-173. 1998. Black bear depredation on agricultural commodities Koehler, G. M., and D. J. Pierce. 2003. Black bear home- in Massachusetts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:318-324. range sizes in Washington: climatic, vegetative, and social Jope, K. L. 1985. Implications of grizzly bear habituation to influences. Journal of Mammalogy 84:81-91. hikers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:32-37. Koval, M. H., and A. G. Mertig. 2004. Attitudes of the Jorgensen, C. J. (Chairman). 1978. Management of black Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel toward bear depredation problems. Proceedings of Eastern Black lethal wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin Bear Workshop 4:297-321. 32:232-243. Kaczensky, P., D. Huber, F. Knauer, H. Roth, A. Wagner, Lackey, B. K. 2002. Empirical and theoretical analysis of and J. Kusak. 2006. Activity patterns of brown bears (Ursus communication focused on human-black bear conflicts in arctos) in Slovenia and Croatia. Journal of Zoology Yosemite National Park. Dissertation, University of Idaho, 269:474-485. Moscow, USA. Kaminski, T. J., K. L. Barber, S. M. Marsh, B. Schweitzer, Lackey, B. K., and S. H. Ham. 2003. Contextual analysis of and C. L. Wolf. 2004. Managing bears and people: recom- interpretation focused on human-black bear conflicts in mendations for implementing food storage and sanitation Yosemite National Park. Applied Environmental Education efforts on national forests in the greater Yellowstone and Communication 2:11-21. ecosystem. Proceedings of International Conference on Lafon, N. W. 2002. Evolution of stakeholder knowledge, Bear Research and Management 15:33. attitudes, and opinions throughout a participative process to Kasbohm, J. W., M. R. Vaughan, and J. G. Kraus. 1994. develop a management plan for black bears in Virginia. Black bear harvest and nuisance behavior in response to Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, gypsy moth infestation. Proceedings of Annual Conference Blacksburg, USA. of Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Lafon, N. W., S. L. McMullin, and D. E. Steffen. 2003. 48:261-269. Knowledge and opinions of stakeholders of black bear Kasworm, W. F., and T. L. Manley. 1990. Road and trail management in Virginia. Ursus 14:55-64. influence on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Landa, A., and Bjorn A. T. 1997. A test of aversive agents Montana. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear on wolverines. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2):510- Research and Management 8:79-84 516. Kearney, S. R. 1989. The polar bear alert program at Landriault, L. J. 1998. Nuisance black bear (Ursus Churchill, Manitoba. Page 83 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear- americanus) behavior in central Ontario. Thesis, Laurentain people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on manage- University, Sudbury, Ontario. ment strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Landriault, L. J., M. E. Obbard, and W. J. Rettie. 2000. Nuisance black bears and what to do with them. NEST

120

Communications, Northeast Science and Technology Maehr, D. S., and J. R. Brady. 1982. Florida black bear- Technical Note TN-017. Timmons, Ontario, Canada. beekeeper conflict: 1981 beekeeper survey. American Bee Lariviere, Serge. 2001. Ursus americanus. American Society Journal 122:372-375. of Mammalogists 647:1-11 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. 2003. Larson, S., and T. P. Salmon. 1988. Predators and sheep Bears in the backyard: what do you do now? Augusta, management practices in Sonoma County, California. Maine, USA. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 13:230-234. Manley, T., and J. Williams. 1998. Bearproofing solid waste Lee, D. J., and M. R. Vaughan. 2003. Dispersal movements containers for grizzly and black bears in Lake and Cascade by subadult American black bears in Virginia. Ursus Counties, Montana. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 14:162-170. 4:101. Lemieux, R., and S. Czetwertynski. 2006. Tube traps and Marker, L. L., A. J. Dickman, and D. W. Macdonald. 2005. rubber padded snares for capturing American black bears. Perceived effectiveness of livestock-guarding dogs placed Ursus 17:81-91. on Namibian Farms. Rangeland Ecology and Management Leonard, R. D. 1989. Polar bear-human conflict on the 58:329-336. national historic park and site in the Churchill area. Page 75 Marsh, R. E., W. E. Howard, S. M. McKenna, B. Butler, and in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings D. A. Barnum. 1982. A new system for delivery of pre- of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest dacides or other active ingredients for coyote management. Territories, Canada. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 10:229-233. Lindsey, K. J., and C. E. Adams. 2006. Public demand for Martin, D. 1995. Problem black bears. Virginia Wildlife information and assistance at the human-wildlife interface. 56:15-9. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:267-283. Martin, D., D. Kocka, K. Delozier, and D. Carlock. 1994. Linhart, S. B., G. J. Dasch, R. R. Johnson, J. D. Roberts, and Protocols for handling nuisance black bears. Eastern C. J. Packham. 1992. Electronic frightening devices for Workshop Black Bear Research and Management 12:99- reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep: efficacy 106. under range conditions and operational use. Proceedings of Mason, J. R., D. L. Nolte, and B. P. Bryant. 1996. Effective- Vertebrate Pest Conference 15:386-392. ness of thirteen vertebrate repellents as rodent trigeminal Linnell, J. D. C., J. Odden, M. E. Smith, R. Aanes, and J. E. stimulants. Physiology and Behavior 60(6):1449-1452. Swenson. 1999. Large carnivores that kill livestock: do Mason, J.R., J. A. Shivik, and M. W. Fall. 2001. Chemical “problem individuals” really exist? Wildlife Society repellents and other aversive strategies in predation Bulletin 27:698-705. management. Endangered Species Update 18:175-181. Linnell, J. D. C., R. Aanes, J. E. Swenson, J. Odden, and M. Mason, J. R., and M. J. Bodenchuk. 2002. Depredation E. Smith. 1997. Translocation of carnivores as a method for management outside the box: logical adaptations of suc- managing problem animals: a review. Biodiversity and cessful practices with other species and situations. Conservation 6:1245-1257. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:219-222. Loe, J., and E. Roskaft. 2004. Large carnivores and human Massopust, J. L. 1984. Black bear homing tendencies, safety: a review. Ambio 33:283-288. response to being chased by hunting dogs, reproductive Longcor, R. P. Carr, and K. Burguess. 2003. Media, public biology, denning behavior, home range, diel movements, opinion and New Jersey black bear management: a content and habitat use in northern Wisconsin. Thesis, University of analysis. Eastern Black Bear Workshop 17:157 Wisconsin, Stevens Point. Lyons, A. J. 2005. Activity patterns of urban American black Massopust, J. L., R. K. Anderson. 1984. Homing tendencies bears in the San Gabriel Mountains of southern California. of translocated nuisance black bears in northern Wisconsin. Ursus 16:255-262. Proceedings of Eastern Workshop for Black Bear Lyons, A. L., W. L. Gaines, and C. Servheen. 2003. Black Management and Research 7:66-73 bear resource selection in the northeast Cascades, Matthews, S. M., J. J. Beechman, H. Quigley, S. S. Washington. Biological Conservation 113:55-62 Greenleaf, and H. Malia Leithead. 2006. Activity patterns Macdonald, D. W., and S. E. Baker. 2004. Non-lethal control of American black bears in Yosemite National Park. Ursus of fox predation: the potential of generalized aversion. 17:30-40. Animal Welfare 13:77-85. Mattson, D. J. 1990. Human impacts on bear habitat use. Mace, R. D., and J. S. Waller. 1996. Grizzly bear distribution Proceedings of International Conference on Bear and and human conflicts in Jewel Basin Hiking Area, Swan Research and Management 8:33-56. Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:461-467. Maw, R. R. 1989. Visitor attitudes, perceptions, and knowl- MacHutchon, A. G., and D. W. Wellwood. 2002. Assessing edge concerning bears and bear management practices, the risk of bear-human interaction at river campsites. Ursus Waterton Lakes National Park, Canada. Thesis, University 13:293-298. of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada MacHutchon, A. G., and D. W. Wellwood. 2002. Reducing McCool, S. F., and A. M. Braithwaite. 1989. Beliefs and bear-human conflict through river recreation management. behaviors of backcountry campers in Montana toward Ursus 13:357-360. grizzly bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:514-519. Maddrey, R. C., and M. R. Pelton. 1995. Black bear damage McCrory, W. P., S. Herrero, and G. Jones. 1989. A program to agricultural crops in coastal North Carolina. Proceedings to minimize conflicts between grizzly bears and people in of Annual Conference of Southeast Association of Fish and British Columbia Provincial Parks. Page 93 in M. Bromley, Wildlife Agencies 49:570-579 editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium Maehr, D. S. 1983. Black bear depredation on bee yards in on management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Florida. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage Control McCullough, D. R. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Conference 1:133-135. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:27-33. McCutchen, H. E. 1990. Cryptic behavior of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Rocky Mountain National Park,

121

Colorado. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest Research and Management 8:65-72 Territories, Canada. McDonald, J. E. Jr. 2003. Methods for capturing free- O'Brien, J. M., and R. E. Marsh. 1990. Vertebrate pests of ranging black bears, Ursus americanus, in difficult loca- beekeeping. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference tions. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 117:621-625. 14:228-232. McKillop, I. G., and R. M. Sibly. 1988. Animal behaviour at O’Donnell, M. A., and L. W. VanDruff. 1984. Wildlife electric fences and the implications for management. conflicts in an urban area: occurrence of problems and hu- Mammal Review 18:91-103. man attitudes toward wildlife. Proceedings of Eastern Meadows, L. E., W. F. Andelt, and T. D. I. Beck. 1998. Wildlife Damage Control Conference 1:315-323. Managing bear damage to beehives. Colorado State O’Pezio J., S. H. Clarke, and G. B. Will. 1983. Minimizing University Cooperative Extension, Fort Collins, Colorado. black bear problems at New York State public Meagher, M., and S. Fowler. 1989. The consequences of campgrounds. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage protecting problem grizzly bears. Page 141 in M. Bromley, Control Conference 1:137-139. editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium Otter, M. D., and H. Morrison. 2004. National Park visitors on management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours toward bears. Miller, G. 1987. Field tests of potential polar bear repellents. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research and Management 15:30. and Management 7:383-390. Paczkowski, J., and R. Wheate. 2004. Geographic informa- Mitani, M., H. Mitsuhashi, M. Uotani, H. Sakata, M. tion systems (GIS) as a tool for reducing bear-human Yokoyama, and M. Asahi. 2001. Moving-site-selectivity of conflict. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear an irregularly wondering Japanese black bear: GIS analyses Research and Management 15:5. of human-bear encounters recorded in areas of southeastern Parker, S. 2000. Lessons in manners: biologists are trying Hyogo including Rokkou Mountain, northern Osaka and high-tech ‘aversion therapy’ to reduce predator attacks. southwestern Kyoto, in 2000. Humans and Nature 12:55-62 Report Newsmagazine August 2000:52-54. (In Japanese, English Abstract). Peine, J. D. 2001. Nuisance bears in communities: strategies Mitchell, B. R., M. M. Jaeger, and R. H. Barrett. 2004. to reduce conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:223- Coyote depredation management: current methods and 237. research needs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1209-1218. Peirce, K. N., and L. J. Van Daele. 2006. Use of a garbage Morgan, C., and J. Davis. 2004. The North Cascades grizzly dump by brown bears in Dillingham, Alaska . Ursus bear outreach project: promoting understanding. 17:165-177. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research Powell, R. A. 2005. Evaluating welfare of American black and Management 15:33. bears (Ursus americanus) captured in foot snares and in Musiani, M., C. Mamo, L. Boitani, C. Callaghan, C. C. winter dens. Journal of Mammalogy 86:1171-1177. Gates, L. Mattei, E. Visalberghi, S. Breck, and G. Volpi. Pozzanghera, S. 1994. Washington Status Report. 2003. Wolf depredation trends and the use of fladry barriers Proceedings of Western Black Bear Workshop 5:43-45. to protect livestock in western North America. Rajpurohit, K. S., and P. R. Krausman. 2000. Human-sloth- Conservation Biology 17(6):1538-1547. bear conflicts in Madhya Pradesh, India. Wildlife Society Nadeau, M. S. 1989. Movements of grizzly bears near a Bulletin 28:393-399. campground in Glacier National Park. Page 27 in M. Rauer, G. P. Kaczensky, and F. Knauer. 2003. Experiences Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a with aversive conditions of habituated brown bears in symposium on management strategies. Northwest Austria and other European countries. Ursus 14:215-224. Territories, Canada. Reagan, S. R., J. M. Ertel, P. Stinson, P. Yakupzack, and D. Naves, J., A. Fernandez-Gil, and M. Delibes. 2001. Effects Anderson. 2002. A passively triggered foot snare design for of recreation activities on a brown bear family group in American black bears to reduce disturbance by non-target Spain. Ursus 12:135-140. animals. Ursus 13:317-320 Nemtzov, S. C. 2002. Management of wildlife-human Revenko, I. A. 1997. Brown bear (Ursus arctos piscator) conflicts in Isreal: a wide variety of vertebrate pest prob- reaction to humans on Kamchatka. Proceedings of lems in a difficult and compact environment. Proceedings International Conference on Bear Research and of Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:348-353. Management 9:107-108. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Black Reynolds, J. C., and S. C. Tapper. 1996. Control of mam- bears: damage and nuisance prevention. New Jersey malian predators in game management and conservation. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, New Jersey, USA. Mammal Review 26:127-156. Nolte, D. L., K. K. Wagner, and A. Trent. 2003. Timber Robbins, C. T., C. C. Schwartz, and L. A. Felicetti. 2004. damage by black bears: approaches to control the problem. Nutritional ecology of ursids: a review of newer methods U.S. Forest Service, Technology and Development and management implications. Ursus 15:161-171. Program, Missoula, Montana, USA. Rogers, L. L. 1984. Reactions of free-ranging black bear to Nolte, D. L., T. J. Veenendaal, G. J. Ziegltrum, and P. capsaicin spray repellent. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:59- Fersterer. 2001. Bear behavior in the vicinity of supple- 61. mental feeding stations in Western Washington. Rogers, L. L. 1986. Effects of translocation distance on Proceedings of Western Black Bear Workshop 7:106-111. frequency of return by adult black bears. Wildlife Society Nolte, D. L., T. J. Veenedall, S. T. Partridge, C. T. Robbins, Bulletin 14:76-80. G. J. Ziegltrum, and P. Fersterer. 2002. Bear response to Rogers, L. L. 1989. Black bears, people, and garbage dumps supplemental feed offered to reduce tree peeling. in Minnesota. Page 43 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:330-339. conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management Nyholm, E. S. 1989. The problem bears of Finland. Page 133 strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings

122

Roop, L. and C. Hunt. 1986. Applications of aversive condi- Smith, K. G., and J. D. Clark. 1994. Black bears in tioning techniques to Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears. Arkansas: characteristics of a successful translocation. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Progress Report, Journal of Mammalogy 75:309-320. Cody, Wyoming, USA. Smith, M. E., J. D. C. Linnell, J. Odden, and J. E. Swenson. Rutberg, A. T. 2001. Why state agencies should not advocate 2000. Review of methods to reduce livestock depredation: hunting or trapping. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:33- I. guarding animals. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica, Section 37. A Animal Science 50:279-290. Samuel, M. D., D. J. Pierce, and E. O. Garton. 1985. Identi- Smith, M. E., J. D. C. Linnell, J. Odden, and J. E. Swenson. fying areas of concentrated use within the home range. 2000. Review of methods to reduce livestock depredation Journal of Animal Ecology 54:711-719. II. Aversive conditioning, deterrents and repellents. Acta San Julian, G. J. 1987. The future of wildlife damage control Agriculture Scandinavica, Section A Animal Science in an urban environment. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife 50:304-315. Damage Control Conference 3:229. Smith, T. S. 1998. Attraction of brown bears to red pepper San Julian, G. J., H. A. Phillips, R. B. Hazel, and D. T. spray deterrent: caveats for use. Wildlife Society Bulletin Harke. 1985. Black bears: North Carolina animal damage 26(1):92-94. control manual. The North Carolina Agricultural Extension Smith, T. S., S. Herrero, and T. D. De Bruyn. 2005. Alaskan Service, North Carolina Animal Damage Control Manual brown bears, humans, and habituation. Ursus 16:1-10. No. 9, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Smith, T., T. D. Debruyn, T. Lewis, R. Yerxa, and S. Schirokauer, D. W., and H. M. Boyd. 1998. Bear-human Partridge. 2004. Bear-human interactions at Glacier Bay conflict management in Denali National Park and Preserve, National Park and Preserve: conflict risk assessment. 1982-94. Ursus 10:395-403. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research Schmore, M. R. 1999. An exploration into bear deterrents, as and Management 15:33. related to mountain biking, and the design of an ultrasonic Stowell, L. R., and R. C. Willging. 1992. Bear damage to bear warning device. Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta agriculture in Wisconsin. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Canada. Damage Control Conference 5:96-104. Sekerak, C. M., T. H. Eason, and C. R. Small. 2002. Using Stringham, S. F. 1989. Demographic consequences of bears partnerships to address human black bear conflicts in eating garbage at dumps: an overview. Page 35 in M. central Florida. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies symposium on management strategies. Northwest 56:136-147. Territories, Canada. Servheen, C. 1989. The management of the grizzly bear on Stringham, S. F. 2004. When does "habituation" make bears private lands: some problems and possible solutions. Page less dangerous? Proceedings of International Conference on 195 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: Bear Research and Management 15:8. proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Struzik. E. 1989. Problems between wildlife scientists and Northwest Territories, Canada. the media. Page 209 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people Shideler, R. T. 2004. Bear/human interactions: aspects of conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management food-conditioning in Prudhoe Bay grizzly bears. strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research Telesco, D. J, and F. T. Van Manen. 2006. Do black bears and Management 15:28. respond to military weapons training? Journal of Wildlife Shivik, J. A. 2001. The other tools for wolf management. Management 70(1):222-230. Wolf! Magazine 19(2):3-7. Ternent, M. A., and D. L. Garshelis. 1999. Taste-aversion Shivik, J. A. 2004. Non-lethal alternatives for predation conditioning to reduce nuisance activity by black bears in a management. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 19:64-71. Minnesota military reservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin Shivik, J. A. 2006. Tools for the edge: what’s new for 27(3):720-728. conserving carnivores. Bioscience 56: 253-259. Thomas, D. J. 1999. Killing garbage bears. Beautiful British Shivik, J. A., A. Treves, and P. Callahan. 2003. Nonlethal Columbia 41:16-21. techniques for managing predation: primary and secondary Thompson, S. C., and K. E. McCurdy. 1994. Black bear repellents. Conservation Biology 17:1531-1537. management in Yosemite National Park; more a people Shivik, J. A., and D. J. Martin. 2000. Aversive and disruptive management problem. Proceedings of Western Black Bear stimulus applications for managing predation. Proceedings Workshop5:105-111. of Wildlife Damage Management Conference 9:111-119. Townes, D. A., and M. K. Laughlin. 2000. The black bears Siemer, W. F., D. J. Decker, and J. Shanahan. 2007. Media of Yosemite National Park: bear-induced injuries-the role of frames for black bear management stories during issue improper food storage. Wilderness and Environmental emergence in New York. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Medicine 11:67-68. 12:89-100. Treves, A., and K. U. Karanth. 2003. Human-carnivore Sillings, J. L., T. N. Tomsa Jr., and J. E. Forbes. 1989. Dem- conflict and perspectives on carnivore management world- onstration electric fences to control black bear damage to wide. Conservation Biology 17:1491-1499. apiaries. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, E. K. Harper, D. J. Conference 4:142-146. Mladenoff, R. A. Rose, T. A. Sickley, and A. P. Wydeven. Smith, B. L., and D. G. Lindsey. 1989. Grizzly bear 2004. Predicting human-carnivore conflict: a spatial model management concerns associated with a northern mining derived from 25 years of data on wolf predation on town garbage dump. Page 99 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear- livestock. Conservation Biology 18:114-125. people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on Treves-Naughton, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. Paying for tolerance: rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology 17:1500-1511.

123

Tunberg, G. 2004. Be bear aware. Proceedings of Weber, K. T. 1994. Black bear densities and human International Conference on Bear Research and populations. Proceedings of Eastern Workshop for Black Management 15:32. Bear Research and Management 12:165. Turbak, G. 1999. Adventures afield: this scientist has a White, T. H. Jr., C. C. Shropshire, and M. Staten. 1997. doggone good way to deal with nuisance bears. National Black bear damage in the Mississippi alluvial valley. Wildlife 37:20. Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Tuyttens, F. A. M., and D. W. Macdonald. 1998. Fertility Conference 7:109-117. control: an option for non-lethal control of wild carnivores? Wilkerson, C. 2004. Bear aware community education: Animal Welfare 7:339-364. Tahoe Council for Wild Bears. Proceedings of International Vail, T. N.D. Solid waste management in black bear Conference on Bear Research and Management 15:31. nuisance abatement. Unknown Source:176-177. Will, G. B. 1980. Black bear-human conflicts and Vaisfeld, M. A., and V. S. Pazhetnov. 1992. Bear-human management considerations to minimize and correct these conflicts in developed landscapes of European Russia. problems. Proceedings of Eastern Black Bear Workshop on Proceedings of International Conference on Bear Research Research and Management 5:75-87. and Management 9:332-337 Willging, R. C. 1994. Cooperative bear nuisance control Van Manen, F. T., and M. R. Pelton. 1997. A GIS model to efforts in Wisconsin. Proceedings of Eastern Workshop for predict black bear habitat use. Journal of Forestry 95:6-12. Black Bear Research and Management 12:167. Vaughan, M. R., and P. F. Scanlon. 1990. The extent and Wilman, E. A., P. N. V. Tu, and W. A. Kerr. 1986. Of bears management of damage by black bears. Proceedings of and people: close encounters in the national parks. Journal International Congress of Game Biologists 19:581-591. of Environmental Management 24:181-196. Vaughan, M. R., P. F. Scanlon, S. E. P. Mersmann, and D. Wilson, S. M., M. J. Madel, D. J. Mattson, J. M. Graham, J. D. Martin. 1989. Black bear damage in Virginia. A. Burchfield, and J. M. Belsky. 2005. Natural landscape Proceedings of Eastern Wildlife Damage Control features, human-related attractants, and conflict hotspots: a Conference 4:147-154. spatial analysis of human-grizzly bear conflicts. Ursus Vequist, G. W. 1989. Management of beach camping to 16:117-129. reduce human-bear conflicts in Glacier Bay , Alaska. Page Wilson, S. M., M. J. Madel, D. J. Mattson, J. M. Graham, T. 129 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: Merrill. 2006. Landscape conditions predisposing grizzly proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. bears to conflicts on private agricultural lands in the Northwest Territories, Canada. western USA. Biological Conservation 130:47-59. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2002. Wilson, S. N., S. Henderson, D. L. Akers. 1995. 1994 nui- Black bear of Virginia: what to do when bears become a sance black bear technical assistance report. Arkansas nuisance. Richmond, VA, USA. Wildlife Management Division In-Service Document, Little Wade, D. A. 1982. The use of fences for predator damage Rock, Arkansas, USA. control. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 10:24- Witmer, G. W., and D. G. Whittaker. 2001. Dealing with 33. nuisance and depredating black bears. Proceedings of Walton, M. T., and C. A. Feild. 1989. Use of donkeys to Western Black Bear Workshop 7:73-81. guard sheep and goats in Texas. Proceedings of Eastern Witmer, G. W., D. L. Nolte, and W. B. Stewart. 2000. Inte- Wildlife Damage Control Conference 4:87-94. grated pest management of black bear reforestation damage. Warburton, G. S., and R. C. Maddrey. 1994. Survey of Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 19:228-235. nuisance bear programs in eastern North America. Wooding, J. B., N. L Hunter, and T. S. Hardisky. 1989. Trap Proceedings of Eastern Workshop of Black Bear on and release apiary-raiding black bears. Proceedings of Research and Management 12:115-123. Annual Conference of Southeast Association of Fish and Ward, J. (chairman). 1989. Interjurisdictional problem bear Wildlife Agencies 42:333-336. management: can it work? Page 221 in M. Bromley, editor. Woodroffe, R. and L. G. Frank. 2005. Lethal control of Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on African lions (Panthera leo): local and regional population management strategies. Northwest Territories, Canada. impacts. Animal Conservation 8:91-98. Warner, S. H. 1987. Visitor impact on brown bears, Ybarra, M. J. 2000. Smarter than the average tourist. Admiralty Island, Alaska. Proceedings of International California Wild 53:8-13. Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:377-382. Yoneda, M. 1995. Bears and their damage to beekeeping. Watts, P. D., and P. S. Ratson. 1989. Tour operator avoid- Mitsubachi Kagaku (Honeybee Science) 16:145-152. (In ance of deterrent use and harassment of polar bears. Page Japanese, English summary). 189 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: Zardus, M. J., and D. J. Parsons. 1977. Black bear manage- proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. ment in Sequoia and Kings National Parks. Bears their Northwest Territories, Canada. Biology and Management 4:1980. Weaver, H. W., J. T. Anderson, J. W. Edwards, and T. Zeugin, M. 2001. Backyard Bear Bonanza. New Jersey Dotson. 2003. Physical and Behavioral Characteristics of Outdoors 29:7-11. Nuisance and Non-nuisance Black Bears in Southern West Ziegltrum, G. J. 2004. Efficacy of black bear supplemental Virginia. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeast feeding to reduce conifer damage in western Washington. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 57:308-316. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3)470-474. Weber, K. T. 1994. Analysis of black bear habitat in north- Ziegltrum, G. J., and D. L. Nolte. 2001. Black bear forest eastern Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy damage in Washington State USA: economic, ecological, of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 82:109-119. social aspects. Ursus 12:169-172.

124

CLOSING COMMENTS FOR THE 19TH EASTERN BLACK BEAR WORKSHOP

MICHAEL R. PELTON, Professor Emeritus, Wildlife Science, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

This 19th Eastern Black Bear Workshop has historically strong populations, black bear numbers had the most focused agenda in its 35 year history. are still increasing but at a decreasing rate and This focus speaks to the explicit need and many areas that previously were classified as non- importance given to the nuisance bear issues that bear or marginal habitats are now occupied. Other plague virtually every state/provincial organization states (e.g., MD, NJ) are recently enjoying represented at this meeting. As most attendees harvestable populations and some states (e.g., KY, quickly realized, the topic is neither cut and dry OH) are witnessing the return of bears, and could nor very simple to grasp. We have always had eventually support harvestable populations. nuisance bear issues but we are now working at a The sigmoid curve also is reflective of the much greater level of magnitude regarding growth of human populations. Population statistics occurrence and intensity of bear incidents. This for the USA indicate that we are experiencing shift has forced us to begin examining all potential continuing growth but also at a decreasing rate. paradigms regarding nuisance bear management. Along with this increase, people are enjoying Clearly, we will continue addressing this issue considerable prosperity. With that prosperity with regularity at future workshops. comes more flexibility, mobility, leisure time, Technologically, we have progressed farther technological advances, and so on. And with all and faster than anyone would have ever imagined. those amenities comes negative affects when it Our skills at capturing, marking, handling, and comes to habitat for wildlife in general and bears monitoring bears and analysis of our data have specifically- urban sprawl, roads, subdivisions, come from the dark ages of problematic traps (e.g., strip developments, second /vacation homes. Too steel leg- hold traps), archaic immobilization drugs often this uncontrolled growth is accomplished (e.g., ether sprayed with fly spray cans into barrel with limited, shortsighted planning or zoning. traps), to GIS, DNA, GPS, stable isotopes, Consequently, the interface between bears and tetracycline, sophisticated models, and fancy humans becomes more problematic. So we end up software packages. One has to wonder where we with two intelligent omnivores trying to occupy will be in another 35 years from now. Yet, despite and coexist on the same habitats, often leading to all these advances, we still have substantial predictable but undesirable interactions between management challenges, of which nuisance bear them. management is one of the greatest. I feel that this We are all familiar with the next curve, the workshop began the long and complicated process classic Bell-Shaped Curve which is often used to of teasing out the relevant ideas that seem to work explain the range of human behaviors. Most of our and give us a better picture of what directions we information and education attention is directed at need to go in the future. My comments today the vast majority of people, but the outliers often revolve around the broad and fundamental cause a disproportionate amount of trouble, and questions that I feel are relevant to our success in unfortunately receive most of the attention and the future in the human dimensions arena of bear publicity. Timothy Treadwell is a classic example. management. And, just as there are outliers in human To elaborate on the above issue I want to populations, there are outliers in bear populations discuss “curves”. The first is the classic Sigmoid with individual bears whose behaviors do not fit Growth Curve and the incredible growth of black what we expect. It is those individual bears that bear populations in eastern North America. The remind us to educate the public that wild animal annual harvest from Pennsylvania southward was behavior truly is unpredictable, just as we 360- 750 between 1968 and 1977. In 1989 that recognize this in human populations. I believe we harvest had climbed to 3,773. In 2000 it reached are all aware that much of our job regarding 6,335 and in 2006 it was 7,836. This latest harvest nuisance bears is an educational challenge. Only exceeds the total number of bears we even thought by educating the public can we be effective in existed in the region when we held our first eastern dealing with the issue. This brings me to the last workshop in 1972. Preliminary examination of curve and, in my opinion, the most daunting one. growth trends indicates that we may have reached The Learning Curve in my opinion is the most Rm on the sigmoid curve. In areas with challenging of all. Reaching a point on this curve

125

where a high percentage of the public understands amount of time people are glued to the TV, and appreciates “things wild and free” is computer, and video games- on average over 4 problematic. The burden placed on those hours per day. At the same time, when folks in the responsible for educating the public in this arena is USA are asked about factual material relating to challenging at best. Over the past few years we science, the responses are abysmal and have witnessed an explosion of excellent materials disheartening. For example, few are able to tell produced by public and private organizations how long it takes for the earth to circle the sun! A trying to educate people about wildlife in general disturbing percentage think the world was created and bears specifically. Materials presented at this less than 6,000 years ago and a recent international workshop are good examples. That is the good survey revealed that the USA ranks 32 of 33 news. The bad news has to do with who is developed countries regarding belief in evolution. listening and learning. To this day two of the Concomitant with the above is the “Fear statements I hear most often when giving Factor” about the out-of doors. For a variety of presentations to groups about black bears are: 1) “I reasons our children (and adults) are being didn’t know we had bears around here?” (subset: inundated with warnings about the purported risks “Are they just black bears or do we also have of stepping outside our houses. A few years ago grizzlies here too?”);and, after the Arizona my local newspaper in Tennessee ran a nationally incident and the two human fatalities in Tennessee, syndicated article about the danger of ticks in the 2) “Aren’t you supposed to lie down and play dead woods and recommended that children should be when a black bear approaches/charges?” kept out of the woods in summer. That same fall, Let me change gears slightly. My wife and I the local TV channel had a special segment about do not watch TV and have not done so for 8 years. the dangers of winter and recommended to keep So, when we recently (February 2007) visited a kids indoors when temperatures dropped below friend who has a TV, I turned it on and 32F. If a person follows the current national immediately got Discovery Channel. The program guidelines regarding lightning risks, there are was about black bears and a well-known bear apparently few places to be safe in the out of expert illustrating how compatible and friendly doors. I assume most of us have had an black bears can be around humans. The program opportunity to view the weather channel and often was misleading and calls into question the kind of had the feeling we should seek out a storm shelter messages some of us are sending the public. Then to escape the approach of impending doom. With a I punched the remote to Animal Planet and list this long and disturbing, the learning curve watched some serious adult humans slogging presents a huge mountain to climb. It will not be through the swamps of south Florida looking for easy and the fruits of any labor expended will not Skunk Apes, alias Bigfoot, Yeti, etc.!! After I likely be apparent for a very long time. If an Rm recovered my composure, I turned the TV off, exists on this curve, we are not there yet, at least ranted and raved a bit about MIST (Mindless, according to the statistics with which I am Inane, Stupefying, Trivia), and then discussed with familiar. So, what can we do? As a retired my wife how we really had not missed anything by professor, I cannot resist giving our group an not having a TV. However, one does not have to assignment before our next meeting in two years. watch the tube to be exposed to the incredible MIST and the sensationalized, exaggerated, 1) Get a copy of the book titled: “Last Child emotional, misleading, inaccurate, biased, and in the Woods: Saving our Children from preposterous information that pervades our culture. the Nature Deficit Disorder” by Richard A recent newspaper article (March 2007) detailed Louv (and read it!). the discovery of a mysterious foot at a landfill in 2) Take time to work with a grammar school Spotsylvania County, Virginia with speculation in your area to initiate inquiry-based that it might be from Bigfoot. This article strongly learning in an outdoor setting. Show and infers that Jane Goodall (renowned primatologist) tell, field trips, guest speakers, and supports the claim that such beasts exist. Project Wild are useful tools. However, According to other recent and regular articles in these activities are not adequate to magazines and newspapers there have been overcome the hurdles mentioned above. numerous sightings of this creature in Virginia, Students must be immersed in long- term other states in the East, and elsewhere in North outdoor activities that require regular trips America. The problem is that much of the public is outside that stimulate interest and inquiry. actually buying into this type of media mania. Try to interject natural resource projects Accompanying this blitz of material is the growing

126

that give students experiences related to and enhanced communication, coop- conservation and management. eration and learning. I recommend other geographic areas consider similar I suggest a few other assignments: professional working groups. 5) Be more aggressive at identifying and 3) Land use decisions are made primarily at counteracting both amateur and the county/parish level by local boards of professional charlatans who, for a variety supervisors and planning commissions. It of reasons, mislead the public regarding is at this level that actions are taken that wildlife and specifically black bear directly affect bears and other wildlife. information and issues. Zoning regulations dictate whether, where 6) Set an example for others- shoot your and how human developments are TV!!! Or, at least get off the grid and constructed. Active participation in such select your own viewing. Most libraries issues would help educate and perhaps have a good inventory of free videos or positively impact the future of the area in DVDs. question. 7) To paraphrase the Director from 4) More localized professional bear groups Maryland in his opening remarks: meet such as the Southern Appalachian Bear the challenge, stand your ground, and be Study Group, Mid Appalachian Bear persistent! Study Group, Black Bear Conservation Committee, and Alabama Black Bear Thanks for the opportunity to climb on my Alliance have been successful in creating soapbox. an atmosphere that results in synergism

127

EXIT SURVEY RESULTS

At the close of the meeting, attendees were given an opportunity to complete an exit survey that contained 10 questions about the Workshop. Forty-seven surveys were returned. Results were compiled by Georgia Guyton and Harry Spiker of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Question: How many Eastern Black Bear Workshops have you attended, including this one?

Mean = 2.9, standard deviation = 2.47, range = 1 to 10

Question: List what you liked most about this workshop.

n % n % Facilities/location 19 42 Status Reports 5 11 Info. exchange/networking 17 38 Value/price 3 7 Workshop format 10 22 Break-out sessions 2 4 Presentations 9 20 Quality of food 2 4 Organization/planning 7 16 Socials 2 4 Workshop content 6 13 General atmosphere 1 2

Question: List what you liked least about this workshop.

n % n % Breakout sessions in general 17 43 Breakout session rooms 1 3 Breakout sessions, content 8 20 No jurisdiction on nametags 1 3 Breakout session, facilitators 4 10 No roster of attendees 1 3 Breakout sessions, group size 2 5 Content of oral presentations 1 3 No hospitality room 2 5 Wanted to stay longer 1 3 No field trips/time to see area 2 5 No Mountain Dew 1 3 Breakout sessions, sum. report 1 3 Brand of toilet paper 1 3

Question: Did you enjoy the format of this workshop? (half-day for technical committee meetings, half-day for status reports and paper presentations, full-day of facilitated interactive sessions in a workshop format, evening poster session, half-day with wrap-up synopsis and business meeting)

n % yes 43 91 no 4 9

Question: What would you like to see covered by the workshop registration fee? (check yes next to each in the list provided)

checked yes % checked yes % Registration packet 46 98 Banquet dinner 33 70 Proceedings 39 83 facilitated panel sessions 31 66 Evening guest speaker 37 79 workshop surveys/lit. review 25 53 Evening socials 36 77 Field trip 23 49 Tee shirt and/or hat 35 74 Tote bag, cooler, etc. 20 43 Morning/afternoon breaks 33 70 Entertainment, band, DJ, etc. 14 30

128

Question: Were the meeting announcements, web page, and online/mail-in registration materials helpful and easy to use?

n % yes 45 96 no 1 2

Question: Did you like how status reports were handled in this workshop? (10-minute summary of general trends across the region followed by 3-minute oral reports from each jurisdiction, not to exceed 1.5 hrs during the first afternoon; summary table of common facts from all jurisdictions in registration packet; status reports on a CD in registration packet but not in hard-copy form; printed length of status report limited to 3 pages or less)

n % yes 46 98 no 1 2

Question: Using the provided scale, rate the following aspects of this workshop.

Number of surveys that checked Below Above Poor Standard Acceptable Standard Excellent Registration process 0 0 5 17 24 Value of registration cost 0 0 12 13 19 Registration packet 0 0 7 21 17 Tee shirt, tote bag, cooler 0 0 9 19 15 Meeting rooms 0 0 2 10 35 Meals 0 0 0 7 40 Breaks 1 0 5 12 29 Socials 0 0 7 10 30 Entertainment (band) 0 1 4 19 19 Guest speaker 0 0 3 18 21 Lodging 0 0 2 6 38 Shuttle/transportation 0 1 2 4 8 Workshop theme 0 0 5 21 20 Status reports 0 1 10 15 20 Paper presentations 0 1 14 19 13 Poster displays 0 1 11 21 12 Pre-workshop survey 0 2 14 19 11 Facilitated sessions 3 7 16 15 5 Wrap-up session 0 0 7 8 7 Business meeting 0 0 4 5 3

129

Question: List any suggestions you would like to see used as a theme or session topic during the next Eastern Black Bear Workshop.

n % Human-near conflict mgmt, human dimension/ communication work, waste mgmt agreements, liability issues 11 38

Aversive conditioning, research & techniques 5 17

Mgmt priorities, identifying mgmt thresholds 4 14

Population estimation, value DNA-based methods 3 10

Urban bear management, habitat suitability modeling, density estimation, occupancy modeling, landscape linkage research 3 10

Future of bear research, integrating research to management issues 2 7

Future of bear management, urban development, habitat fragmentation, reduction in hunters and land available to hunting, 25yr projections 2 7

Equipment/drugs, dart gun shoot/competition, review of knowledge of drugs including first aide, den work/capture methods and demonstrations 2 7

Threatened or endangered subspecies/populations, areas that need help and what they should do 2 7

Bear biologists 1 3

Money, how much and on what should agencies spend for bear mgmt./resch. 1 3

Central, accessible repository (EBBW website) 1 3

Physiology 1 3

Bear rehabilitation, orphan/injured policies 1 3

Methods of hunting (bait, hounds, still/stalk) 1 3

Regional presentations 1 3

Protocols for monitoring of natural foods 1 3

Basketball/volleyball game, NE vs. SE technical committees 1 3

Question: List any additional comments you have about this workshop.

Although the breakout sessions were informative, I would have preferred more time for "informal discussion" groups. For example, who has tried which AC techniques, and what were the results. Since our state hasn't used many of the techniques, any information from others regarding their experiences, even anecdotal, would have been useful.

Beautiful location, love the walking campus, much better than any hotel location could have been.

130

Everything was excellent. These facilities were perfect and the socials were great.

For the cost of registration this was an extremely impressive workshop. One of the best in years, actually.

Great Job.

I enjoyed it! Have jurisdictions listed on our name tags. It's nice to see that my coworkers and I aren't alone in dealing with nuisance bear problems. Thanks for the effort.

I expected to see more presentation about the use and effectiveness of various aversive conditioning practices. The breakout group discussions were useless.

Instead of the breakout theme we had, it would have been more productive for me if we had allowed smaller group discussions/presentations regarding specific human-bear problem resolutions (case studies).

Lots of effort on aversive conditioning. Will be interesting to learn if this changed how any particular state/province does its business.

Thank you for organizing.

Thanks for the efforts in pulling this off - Maybe Arkansas or Minnesota will be next.

Thanks to organizers. Excellent job.

Thanks. Great Job.

The breakout sessions were not the way to address aversive conditioning issues. We needed a format to find out the following: what are other agencies using/tried, what has worked/hasn’t worked from practical perspective, what methods would you like to see investigated, and are there new approaches/ideas/tools. These issues were not addressed. Management agencies needed to interact on practical application and have training on aversive conditioning techniques. The facilitated sessions were not what we needed for an aversive conditioning workshop.

The facilitated sessions were quite disappointing. They simply repeated what we already know. We were expecting more of an evaluation of specific techniques and more hands-on experience.

This was by far the best conference I have attended, including TWS, IBA, and Defenders Carnivore conferences that I've been to. I really think this is the way we should do our workshops from now on. I really liked the way the status reports were standardized, it made it much easier to compare states. Maybe a little more guidance to biologists so blanks or misleading answers could be handled differently.

Very organized and on task.

Very well run, great workshop.

Well organized.

Workshop seemed to be like one long survey, from the pre-workshop survey through the breakout sessions. My state would have preferred discussions among states of what items in their management plans are and are not working. Instead the workshop appeared to just list what we all do, with little discussion of which techniques are most effective.

Would be nice to maintain an EBBW website, perhaps through IBA or independent, with info, contacts, announcements, meeting info, proceedings (perhaps sections that are password protected), links to bear agencies and groups, etc.

Would like to see field trips, more topics for breakout sessions, and more open discussion forum for topics. Concerns about the breakout sessions: Don't know the knowledge base of respondents, and Opinions of use vs. Agency Procedure.

131

HISTORY OF THE EASTERN BLACK BEAR WORKSHOP

The first official Eastern Black Bear Unfortunately, the track record for Workshop Workshop was held in Delmar, New York in July proceedings has not been so consistent; 2 1972. The New York State Department of Workshops did not produce a written record (1982 Environmental Conservation Wildlife Research and 1988). Proceedings were produced from the Lab hosted the meeting and 31 people from 10 rest of the meetings and provide an informative states and one federal agency attended. Since and interesting history of black bear management 1972, the Workshop has had a consistent and and research in eastern North America for the past successful track record of 19 biennial meetings 36 years. Considering the fact that there has never hosted by 17 states and one Canadian province. been an organizational body governing the Attendance has ranged from 31 at the first meeting Workshop, its track record is remarkable. Between to 146 at the 12th Workshop, with an average 1978 and 1983 attempts were made to bring some attendance of 90. State/provincial representation consistency and continuity to the Workshop by has ranged from 9 to 25 (mean = 18) out of a developing guidelines; these attempts were not potential 35 Eastern states or provinces. Three successful. Thus, all of the accomplishments to states have been represented at every Workshop date have been done informally among the various since 1972- North Carolina, New York, and states and provinces. As time has passed, it is Virginia. At the 2007 Workshop, in addition to the evident that some form of structure and guidance 23 states/provinces who attended, there were also is necessary to keep the Workshop viable and 3 federal agencies, 9 universities, and 4 private productive. Consequently, a Steering Committee conservation organizations/businesses with people was formed in 2005, which developed draft attending. Guidelines for conducting a workshop.

Number of Eastern Black Bear List of hosts and attendance at Eastern Black Bear Workshops, Workshops attended by 1972-2007 state/province from eastern North America, 1972-2007 (excludes 1982 No. of Workshop hosted by Michigan, no states/prov. No. of proceedings or records available). Year Host attending attendees Dates ______1972 NY 10 31 18-19July State/ No. % 1974 TN 9 39 16-18April Province attended attended 1976 PA/WV 10* --* 28-28April NC/NY/VA 18 100 1978 ME 17 10 13-6April FL/GA/SC/WV 16 89 1980 NC 12 68 17-20March AR 15 83 1982 MI** ** ** ** ME/NH 14 78 1984 FL 22 73 26-28March MI/VT 13 72 1986 VA 21 108 18-21Feb MA/PA/QE/TN 12 67 1988 ON** 17 81 4-7April ON 11 61 1990 AR 21 92 2-5April MD 10 56 1992 NH 18 106 1-3April KY 9 50 1994 TN 25 146 2-5April WI 8 44 1996 VT 22 79 28April-1May LA/MN 7 39 1997 MS 21 100 13-16April NB 6 33 1999 MA 22 80 28-30March MS/NS/OH 5 28 2001 SC/GA 21 119 25-28March NF 4 22 2003 NJ/NY 19 99 2-5March CT/OK 3 17 2005 FL 19 95 3-7April AL/MB/MO 2 11 2007 MD/PA/WV 23 110 9-12 April MT/RI/TX 1 6 *Based on reports published in Workshop proceedings; no attendance list provided. * * No proceedings published or records available.

132

19th EASTERN BLACK BEAR WORKSHOP REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT

Expenses Item Date Amount Pre-workshop survey 5/7/07 $ 1,607.84 Guest speaker Airfare ($500), room and board ($330), miscellaneous 3/16/07 $ 1,036.00 expenses ($100), token of appreciation gift card ($106) National Conservation Training Center facility expenses 5/21/07 $ 4,876.75 4 breaks, 3 socials with food, open bar/drink tickets Registration tokens 4/5/07 $ 2,367.50 Shirts ($937.50), bags ($330.00), and coolers ($1,100.00) Band for evening social 4/9/07 $ 750.00 Credit card processing fees for on-line registration payments 4/13/07 $ 261.57 Refund for one person that paid on-line 2/20/07 $ 121.75 Donation to WVTWS for handling account 5/23/07 $ 300.00 Total $ 11,321.41

Revenue Source Amount Registration: 109 people at $125 each minus 1 refund plus 3 registrations that were waived for guest speaker and $ 13,500.00 survey designers Sponsors for breaks/socials: Bear Trust International $ 1,000.00 Responsive Management $ 250.00 WV Bear Hunters Association $ 500.00 Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee for use of meeting room $ 656.00 Sales of left over shirts & Mike Vaughan $ 153.00 Money received from prior workshop host (Florida) $ 3,000.00 Total $ 19,059.00

Balance Entry Amount Total revenues $ 19,059.00 Total expenses $ 11,321.41 Balance $ 7,737.59 Amount forwarded to host of 20th EBBW $ 5,000.00 Amount reserved for Drs. Parkhurst and McMullin of Virginia Tech. to publish results from the pre-workshop and workshop panel session surveys (e.g., page charges), and to produce a bibliography from their workshop-related literature review for distribution to $ 2,737.59 workshop attendees. Any money not used by September 1, 2008 will be forward to hosts of the 20th EBBW.

Additional Expenses Covered by Hosting Agencies Agency Expense Est. Amount USFWS Room rental fee for NCTC $ 9,184.00 PA Game Commission Registration Packets/ Posters $ 500.00 Maryland DNR Transportation/ Design $ 900.00 West Virginia DNR Printing proceedings/ Design $ 1,440.00 Total $ 12,024.00

133

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Kim Annis Edward Arrow 475 Fish Hatchery Road 1984 Smithtown Rd Libby, MT, 59923 Morgantown, WV, 26508 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks West Virginia University Division of Forestry [email protected], 406-293-4161 [email protected], (412)974-2599

Dan Bertalan Steven Bittner 6260 Onwentsia Trail 14038 Blairs Valley Road Oregon, WI, 53575 Clear Spring, MD, 21722 Living with Black Bears Educational Partnership Maryland DNR Wildlife & Heritager Service [email protected], 608-835-0435 [email protected], 301-842-3355

Andrea Boliek Angela Brown 575 Caravelle Farms Road 430 Life Science West, Oklahoma State University Palatka, FL, 32177 Stillwater, OK, 74078 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Oklahoma State University [email protected], 386-206-6085 [email protected], 405-226-4930

Rande Brown Kelcey Burguess 3 Pershing St., Room 110 141 Vansyckels Rd Cumberland, MD, 21502 Hampton, NJ, 08827 MD DNR Wildlife & Heritage Service NJ Fish and Wildlife [email protected], 301-777-2136 [email protected], 908-735-8793

Katie Callahan Michael Campbell PO Box 587 17 Dafoe Road, Room 102 Frank Kennedy Centre Meredith, NH, 03253 Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2 Plymouth State Univ. University of Manitoba, Faculty of Rec Studies [email protected], 603-271-3014 [email protected], 204-474-9749

James E. Cardoza Colin Carpenter Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Rd 2006 Robert C. Byrd Drive Westboro, MA, 01581 Beckley, WV, 25801 Mass. Division of Fisheries & Wildlife West Virginia Division of Natural Resources [email protected], 508-389-6323 [email protected], 304-256-6947

Patrick Carr Michael Carraway 141 VanSyckels Road 659 Glade Mountain Drive Hampton, NJ, 08827 Canton, NC, 28716 NJ Fish and Wildlife NC WRC [email protected], 908-735-8793 [email protected], 828-646-9913

134

James Castle Joseph Clark 2140 East Bank Drive 274 Ellington Hall Peterborough, ON, K9J 7B8 Knoxville, TN, 37996 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources USGS [email protected], 705-745-3498 [email protected], 865-974-4790

John Collins Nancy Comeau 1284 Piedmont Rd 805 Faraway Road Morganton, NC, 28655 Dalton, NH, 03598 NCWRC New Hampshire Fish and Game NA, (828)437-7082 [email protected], 603-837-2078

James Craft Marc Criffield 14 Greenbrier Ave. Northwest Florida Region, 3911 Highway 2321 White Sulphur Springs, WV, 24986 Panama City, FL, 32409 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission NA, 304-536-2144 [email protected], 940-391-9568

Randal Cross Paul Davidson 650 State St P.O. Box 80442 Bangor, ME, 04401 Baton Rouge, LA, 70898 Maine Dept Fish and Wildlife Black Bear Conservation Committee [email protected], 207-422-8955 [email protected], 225-763-5425

Maria de Almeida Steven Dobey 300 Water St., Box 7000 #1 Sportsman's Lane Peterborough, ON, K9J 1S9 Frankfort, KY, 40601 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources [email protected], 705-755-1934 [email protected], 502-564-7109

Rick Eastridge John Edwards 2 Natural Resources Drive 322 Percival Hall/WVU Little Rock, AR, 72205 Morgantown, WV, 26506 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Division of Forestry and Natural Resources [email protected], 501-223-6311 [email protected], 304-293-2941

Kenneth Ennis Janet Ertel 1720 Peachtree Road, NW P.O. Box 205 Atlanta, GA, 30309 St. Charles, AR, 72140 USFS U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service - Refuges [email protected], 404-347-4081 [email protected], 870-282-8247

James Evans Mike Fazenbaker PO Box 67 1728 Kings Run Rd Elkins, WV, 26241 Oakland, MD, 21550 WVDNR MD DNR Wildlife & Heritage Service [email protected], (304)637-0245 [email protected], 301-777-2136

135

Jason Fisher Joe Folta 337 Combs Rd. #3 2521 Huntdale Trail Hazard, KY , 41701 Zebulon, NC, 27597 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources NC WRC [email protected], 606-233-8090 [email protected], 919-269-2767

Deborah Fuller Daniel Gammons 646 Cajundome Blvd., Ste 400 274 Ellington Hall Lafayette, LA, 70506 Knoxville, TN, 37996 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University of Tennessee [email protected], 337-291-3130 [email protected], 318-341-7279

Shauna Ginger Cale Godfrey 6578 Dogwood View Parkway 107 Foxwood Drive Jackson, MS, 39213 Farmville, VA, 23901 USFWS Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries [email protected], 601-321-1130 [email protected], 434-392-9645

Joseph Guthrie Georgia Guyton 203 T.P. Cooper Building 1728 King's Run Rd. Lexington, KY, 40546 Oakland, MD, 21550 University of Kentucky Maryland DNR [email protected], 502-609-6536 [email protected], 301-334-4255

Michael Hall Adam Hammond 3767 Hwy. 69 South, Suite #5 2592 Floyd Springs Road Sudbury, ON, P3G 1E7 Armuchee, GA, 30105 Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada Georgia Wildlife Resources Division [email protected], (705)691-1174 [email protected], 706-295-6041

Clarissa Harris John Hechtel 3 Pershing St., Room 110 1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 4 Cumberland, MD, 21502 Palmer, AK, 99645 MD DNR Wildlife & Heritage Service Alaksa Game and Fish [email protected], 301-777-2136 [email protected], 907-746-6331

Chris Holcomb Michael Hooker 112 Andrew Pickens Circle 7200 Wrape Road Mountain Rest, SC, 29664 Reydell, AR, 72133 USDA Forest Service University of Tennessee [email protected], 864-638-9568 [email protected], 870-830-2349

Hank Hristienko Jane Huffman Box 24 - 200 Saulteaux Cresent Moore Hall, Department of Biological Sciences Winnipeg, MB, R3J 3W3 East Stroudsburg, PA, 18301 Manitoba Conservation East Stroudsburg University [email protected], 204-945-7771 [email protected], 908-459-5982

136

Tommy Hughes Jeremy Hurst 951 Perrytown Rd. Bureau of Wildlife, 625 Broadway New Bern, NC, 28562 Albany, NY, 12233-4754 NC WRC New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation [email protected], 252-514-4738 [email protected], 518-402-8867

William Igo Rebekah Jensen PO Box 67 171 Walton Ave. Elkins, WV, 26241 Lexington, KY, 40508 WV DNR University of Kentucky NA, 304-637-0245 [email protected], 406-207-3469

Mark Jones Shamus Keeler 5275 NC 118 Highway Moore Hall, Department of Biological Sciences Grifton, NC, 28530 East Stroudsburg, PA, 18301 NC WRC East Stroudsburg University [email protected], 252-524-3443 [email protected], (908)459-5982

Robert Knight David Kocka Rt 2 Box 223-1 P.O. Box 996 Elkins, WV, 26241 Verona, VA, 24482 WV Division of Natural Resources VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries [email protected], 304-636-5896 [email protected], 540-248-9360

Jared Laufenberg Jennifer Leigh University of Tennessee, 274 Ellington PSB P.O. Box 867 Knoxville, TN, 37996 Pine Grove, LA , 70453 University of Tennessee Soterra LLC [email protected], 865-974-0204 [email protected], 225-777-4648

Carrie Lowe Matthew McCollister 105 N.168th Ave. 139 Country Club Dr. Holland, MI, 49424 Edenton, NC, 27932 University of Tennessee [email protected], 864-420-7747 [email protected], 616-610-9044

Patrick McCurdy John McDonald HC 82 Box 217B 300 Westgate Center Drive Marlinton, WV, 24954 Hadley, MA, 01035 WV Division of Natural Resources US Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected], 304-924-6211 [email protected], 413-253-8677

Steve McMullin Matthew Merchant 108 Cheatham Hall Bureau of Wildlife, 21 South Putt Corners Road Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0321 New Paltz, NY, 12561 Virginia Tech NYS Department of Environmental Conservation [email protected], (540)231-8847 [email protected], 845-256-3063

137

Greg Nelms Jeremy Nicholson 108 Darling Avenue Agriculture Campus, 2506 Jacob Drive Waycross, GA, 31501 Knoxville, TN, 37996 Georgia DNR University of Tennessee [email protected], 912-285-6485 [email protected], 919-538-5563

Robert Norville Martyn Obbard 2531 Pineridge Drive DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Dr. Kinston, NC, 28504 Peterborough, ON , K9J 7B8 NC WRC Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources [email protected], 252-523-8540 [email protected], 705-755-1549

Colleen Olfenbuttel Mike Orlando 1916 Battlewood Rd. 115 1/2 West Voorhis Ave. Apex, NC, 27523 DeLand, Fl, 32720 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Florida Fish and Wildlife [email protected], 919-629-2644 [email protected], 386-804-6563

Jim Parkhurst Mike Pelton 144 Cheatham Hall 545 Balser Lane Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0321 Middlebrook, VA, 24459 Virginia Tech Univ. Tennessee [email protected], 540-231-9283 [email protected], 540-885-3050

Michael Peters Jayson Plaxico P.O. Box 99 2744 Lake Road Farmington, WV, 26571 Prestonsburg, KY, 41653 WV DNR Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources [email protected], 304-291-2883 [email protected], 606-889-1814

Suzie Prange Paul Rego Waterloo Wildlife Research Station, 360 E. State Street P.O. Box 1550 Athens, OH, 45701 Burlington, CT, 06013 Ohio Division of Wildlife Connecticut Dept. of Env. Prot, Wildlife [email protected], 740-589-9924 [email protected], 860-675-8130

Eric Richmond Joan E. Rog 4300 1st Ave 2951 Plum Creek Pkwy Nitro, WV, 25143 Medina, OH, 44256 WV DNR IBA 304-759-0703 [email protected], 330-722-1105

Deanna Ruth Christopher Ryan 420 Dirleton Rd State Capitol Complex, Bldg 3, Rm 825 Georgetown, SC, 29440 Charleston, WV, 25305 SC DNR WV DNR [email protected], 843-546-3226 [email protected], 304-558-2271

138

Jaime Sajecki Brian Scheick VDGIF, 4010 W Broad Street 1526 Kelvin Ave. Richmond, VA, 23230 Deltona, FL, 32738 VDGIF FL Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission [email protected], 804-367-8001 [email protected], 386-789-7063

Donald Schwab Sara Sillars 3101 Desert Rd 1239 SW 10th Street Suffolk, VA, 23434 Ocala, FL, 34474 Gt. Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [email protected], 757-986-3480 [email protected], 352-732-1229

Stephanie Simek Richard Smith 620 South Meridian Street 814 Clark St Tallahassee, FL, 32399 Marquette, MI, 49855 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Outdoor Writer [email protected], 850-410-0656 [email protected], 906-225-1002

Benjamin Smith Robert Smith 14038 Blairs Valley Rd 646 Cajundome Blvd., Ste 400 Clear Spring, MD, 21722 Lafayette, LA, 70506 MD DNR Wildlife & Heritage Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected], 301-777-2136 [email protected], 337-291-3134

David Soileau, Jr. Harry Spiker 646 Cajundome Blvd., Ste 400 1728 King's Run Rd. Lafayette, LA, 70506 Oakland, MD, 21550 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maryland DNR [email protected], 337-291-3109 [email protected], 301-334-4255

David Steffen Skip Still 6701 Parkway Dr. 153 Hopewell Rd Roanoke, VA, 24018 Pendleton, SC, 29670 Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries SC DNR [email protected], 540-772-2332 [email protected], 864-654-1671

Sam Stokes Perry Sumner 135 Glassy Mt. St. 1722 Mail Service Center, 1751 Varsity Drive, Rm. 450 Pickens, SC, 29671 Raleigh, NC, 27699-1722 SC DNR NC WRC [email protected], 864-878-6101 [email protected], 919-707-0069

Tom Swayngham Curtis Taylor 153 Hopewell Rd 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East, Bldg. 3, Rm. 812 Pendleton, SC, 29670 Charleston, WV, 25305 SC DNR WV Division of Natural Resources [email protected], 864-654-1671 [email protected], 304-558-2771

139

David Telesco Mark Ternent P.O. Box 80442 2001 Elmerton Ave, Bureau of Wildlife Management Baton Rouge, LA, 70898 Harrisburg, PA, 17110 Black Bear Conservation Committee PA Game Commission [email protected], 225-763-5457 [email protected], 814-625-3597

Steve Thompson Laura Thompson 1390 S. Milliken Ave 274 Ellington Plant Sciences Building Ontario, CA, 91761 Knoxville, TN, 37996 BearSaver University of Tennessee [email protected], 714-225-4306 [email protected], 865-981-2883

Andrew Timmins Andrew Trent 629B Main Street 1405 2nd Street Lancaster, NH, 03584-3612 Radford, VA, 24141 NH Fish and Game Department Virginia Tech [email protected], 603-788-3164 [email protected], 540-633-1339

Randy Tucker James Turner PO Box 67 618 Center Hill Road Elkins, WV, 26241 Tyner, NC, 27980 WV DNR NC WRC [email protected], 304-637-0245 [email protected], 252-221-9961

Frank van Manen Jennifer Vashon 274 Ellington Hall 650 State St Knoxville, TN, 37996 Bangor, ME, 04401 The University of Tennessee Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife [email protected], 865-974-0200 [email protected], 207-941-4238

Gordon Warburton Keith Warnke 783 Deep Woods Drive PO Box 7921 Marion, NC, 28752 Madison, WI, 53704 NC WRC Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [email protected], 828-659-7537 [email protected], 608-264-6023

Jeffrey Warwick Michael Wegan Tate's Hell State Forest, 290 Airport Road Fernow Hall, Cornell University Carrabelle, FL, 32322 Ithaca, NY, 14853 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Cornell University [email protected], 850-819-1141 [email protected], 607-255-2839

Steven Wilson Brad Young PO Box 67, Ward Rd. 1505 Eastover Drive Elkins, WV, 26241 Jackson, MS, 39211-6374 WV Division of Natural Resources Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks [email protected], 304-637-0245 [email protected], 601-432-2242

140

141