Making Grown Men Cry Since 1975!
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2015
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2015 Annual Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team The research described in this report complied with current laws of the United States of America, was conducted in accordance with animal care and use guidelines, and was approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of the respective member agencies. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S., State, or Tribal Governments. Data contained in this report are preliminary and subject to change. Please obtain permission prior to citation. To give credit to authors, please cite the section within this report as a chapter in a book. Below is an example: Bjornlie, D. D., and M. A. Haroldson. 2016. Grizzly bear use of insect aggregation sites. Pages 51–55 in F. T. van Manen, M. A. Haroldson, and B. E. Karabensh, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA Cover photo courtesy of Jake Davis (RevealedInNature.com) YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEAR INVESTIGATIONS Annual Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2015 U.S. Geological Survey Wyoming Game and Fish Department National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks U.S. Forest Service Idaho Department of Fish and Game Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department Edited by Frank T. van Manen, Mark A. Haroldson, and Bryn E. Karabensh U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 2016 IGBST Partner Websites Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (USGS): http://www.usgs.gov/norock/igbst Grizzly Bear Recovery (U.S. -
Defining, Preventing, and Reacting to Problem Bear Behaviour in Europe
Defining, preventing, and reacting to problem bear behaviour in Europe 2015 FINAL REPORT FOR THE PILOT ACTION: DEFINING, PREVENTING , AND REACTING TO PROBLEM BEAR BEHA VIOUR IN EUROPE DECEMBER 2014 Prepared by: Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek and Miha Krofel from University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Jamnikarjeva 111, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Contributors (either via completing a questionnaire or by participating in a workshops, in alphabetic order): Agnieszka Sergiel, Bernhaard Gutleb, Claudio Groff, Diana Zlatanova, Djuro Huber, Elena Tironi, Elisabetta Rossi, Felix Knauer, Georg Rauer, Giuliana Nadalin, Ivan Kos, Jean-Jacques Camarra, Jochen Grab, Juan Carlos Blanco, Klemen Jerina, Marcus Elfström, Manfred Wölfl, Marko Jonozovič, Mateja Blažič, Michal Haring, Nuria Selva, Paolo Molinari, Peep Männil, Piero Genovesi, Reinhard Schnidrig, Robin Rigg, Silviu Chiriac, Slaven Reljić, Tomasz Zwijacz-Kozica, Umberto Fattori, Urs Breitenmoser and Yorgos Mertzanis. Prepared for DG Environment, European Commission, by Istituto Ecologia Applicata, Rome under contract no. 07.0307/2013/654446/SER/B3 "Support to the European Commission's policy on large carnivores under the Habitat Directive - Phase Two”, with contributions from the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (SSC/IUCN) 1 SUMMARY Throughout the history people have been coming into conflicts with bears. Good understanding of causes for human-bear conflicts is the first step for their effective resolution. In this report we review existing knowledge of human-bear conflicts and experiences with different conflict mitigation measures, provide an overview of official frameworks for dealing with problem bears in 15 European countries, and develop a set of recommendations for effective management of problematic bear behaviour. The recommendations have been developed by 34 European brown bear experts that have met twice, once in Ljubljana (Slovenia) and once in Venzone (Italy) during 2014. -
Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska
The Journal of Wildlife Management; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.342 Human Dimensions Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska TOM S. SMITH,1 Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 451 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA STEPHEN HERRERO, Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4 CALI STRONG LAYTON, Wildlife Sciences Program, Plant and Wildlife Sciences Program, Brigham Young University, 448 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA RANDY T. LARSEN, Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences and Monte L. Bean Life Sciences Museum, Brigham Young University, 407 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA KATHRYN R. JOHNSON,2 Alaska Science Center, USGS, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99502, USA ABSTRACT We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Encounters involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 218 incidents, 81%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 30 incidents, 11%), polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 6 incidents, 2%), and 15 (6%) unidentified species provided insight into firearms success and failure. A total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents. We found no significant difference in success rates (i.e., success being when the bear was stopped in its aggressive behavior) associated with long guns (76%) and handguns (84%). Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n ¼ 162) of bear–firearms incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear.