Maintaining Viability of Brown Bears Along the Southern Fringe of Their Distribution

MAINTAININGVIABILITY OF BROWNBEARS ALONGTHE SOUTHERNFRINGE OF THEIRDISTRIBUTION

BRUCEN. McLELLAN,British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Branch,RPO #3, Box 9158, Revelstoke,BC VOE3KO, Canada, email: [email protected]

Abstract: In North America, threatenedbrown bears (Ursusarctos) and brown bear recovery are usually viewed as United States' issues. Most of the southern fringe of brown bear distribution,however, is in Canada;approximately 3,050 km of occupied-unoccupied fringe are in British Columbiaand 1,570 km are in Albertacompared to 1,700 km in the lower 48 states. The distributionof brown bears in southernCanada has been poorly documentedand publicized but, in additionto their inherentvalue, these bears are critical to the viability of brown bears in the U.S. In this paperI presenta British Columbianview of brown bears along their southernfringe and humaninfluences relatedto industry,settlement, hunting, and fragmentation. I also describe scales of land-use planningin British Columbiaand the consensus process on which they are developed. Even with well intendedplans, maintainingbrown bear numbersand distributionis an increasinglydifficult challenge because human populationsare rapidly growing in and adjacentto brown bear range. Given the increase in people, humanbehavior will have to change to accommodatebears, and changing human behavior will involve reducing individualrights and privileges that are enjoyed in western North America.

Ursus 10:607-611

Key words: Alberta, British Columbia, brown bear, fragmentation,hunting, industry,land-use planning, settlement, Ursus arctos.

Although details were poorly recordedand what was tied States. Their distributionin 4 separate areas of once known has died with memories, the general de- the lower 48 states has been well documented by the mise of the brown bear (Ursusarctos) in North America U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1993) and well pub- is well documented (Storer and Tevis 1955, Brown licized in the literatureand media. Comparedto their 1985). When pioneers of Europeandescent settled the distribution in the U.S., brown bear occurrence in West, brown bears were viewed as a threatto be sought southern Canada has been poorly documented and out and destroyed. Within a century,brown bears were publicized. The lack of documentation and publicity either eliminated or their populations greatly reduced is unfortunatebecause southernbrown bears in Canada wherever people and their livestock had settled. In are as important as those in the U.S. and because rugged mountains with dense underbrushand in most without viable Canadian populations, brown bears in northernareas, permanenthuman settlementand ranch- the U.S., would be even more vulnerable. ing were rare. Although the early loggers, miners, and I discuss current conditions of brown bear popu- railroadersthat struggledinto inhospitableareas treated lations, their habitat, and human influences along the bears in much the same way as did the ranchers,their southern fringe of their distribution from a British effects on bear populations were often more localized Columbian perspective. I also discuss critical issues in space and time. Fortunatelyfor brown bears, many facing southern brown bears and various scales of areas that were inhospitableduring the last centuryhave land-use planning in British Columbia that will have remained largely unsettled today; in some of these ar- important ramifications for the species' persistence eas, brown bears have persisted. in southern Canada and the lower 48 states. Today, human values are gradually changing. Al- I thank T. Hamilton, S. Herrero, F. Hovey, and J. though pioneer values remain common, particularlyin Schoen for their careful review of this manuscript. people who reside in ruralareas of the North and West, T. Hamilton, F. Hovey, and numerous other biolo- increasing numbers of people view naturallyfunction- gists assisted with delineating and mapping brown ing ecosystems as treasuresto be maintainedfor their bear distribution. own intrinsic value and for future generations. Even with changing values toward wildlife, the low density and often fragmentedbrown bear populationsalong the DISTRIBUTIONOF BROWN BEARS southern and southeastern fringe of their distribution ALONGTHE SOUTHERN FRINGE are at a crossroads. The decisions we make in the Excluding Alaska, the largest populations of brown next few decades will determinethe differencebetween bears in the U.S. are found in the 23,300-km2 Yel- the inevitable extirpationof some southernbrown bear lowstone Ecosystem and the 24,800-km2 Northern populations or their continued persistence. Continental Divide Ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildl. In North America, threatenedbrown bears and brown Serv. 1993). There are fewer bears in the 2,800- bear recovery are usually viewed as issues for the Un- km2 Selkirk Ecosystem and very few in the Cabi- 608 Ursus 10:1998 net-Yaak Ecosystem that covers 5,100 km2. If any Brown bears are present at low densities over an area brown bears remain in the North Cascade Ecosys- of approximately25,000 km2in the CoastMountains from tem and the Bitteroot Ecosystem, they are extremely Chilco Lake south to the Nahatlatchdrainage. Thereis a rare. Brown bears are listed as threatened in the small, likely isolated populationof brownbears in and to U.S. south of Canada under the U.S. Endangered the north of Manning Provincial Park. Some of these Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). bearscould use the NorthCascades Ecosystem in the U.S. Most of the southernfringe of brownbear range, how- There are no brown bears east of Manning Park for al- ever, is not in the lower 48 states but in Canada(Fig. 1). most 200 km, forcing the southernfringe of brown bear If occupied brown bear habitatis defined as areas where range northwardabout 400 km beyond Prince George, at least 1 female with offspringhas been observed in the BritishColumbia, until it moves south again on the east- past 5 years, there is approximately3,050 km of occu- ern edge of the interiorplateau. pied-unoccupied fringe in British Columbia. The east- Relatively healthybrown bear populations occur in the ern fringe in Alberta is approximately1,570 km long, mountainranges of easternBritish Columbia. The breadth runningthe length of the province, while in the lower 48 of theirdistribution, however, narrows towards the south, states there is approximately1,700 km of fringe. and at the U.S. borderonly the populationin the Rocky There is no evidence that brown bears ever occupied Mountainscan be classified as healthy. Bears live at low the Queen CharlotteIslands or VancouverIsland of Brit- density in the Yahk and SouthernSelkirk Mountainsof ish Columbia. On the mainlandcoast, they are relatively BritishColumbia and a small and perhapsisolated popu- abundantfrom Alaska south to Bute Inlet, althoughthey lation remainsin the Kettle and Granbydrainages. arealso foundin lower numbersat the headwatersof Toba The easternfringe of brownbears is found in Montana and Jervis inlets and the upperportions of the Squamish and in Albertaclose to where the foothills of the Rockies River. meet the GreatPlains. A low-densitypopulation of bears extends to the Swan Hills of centralAlberta (Nagy and Gunson 1990).

0|1I Medium to High Densities Low Densities PEOPLEAND BROWNBEARS ALONG THE SOUTHERNFRINGE It is clear thathumans have been and remainthe domi- nant factor limiting brown bear distributionand population densities over most of their range, and in particular along the southernand eastern fringe. It is along this AB fringe, however, that human numbers are increasing quickly. In 1971, British Columbia had 2.25 million people and Alberta 1.63 million, but by the end of 1995, their populationswere estimatedto be 3.82 million and 2.78 million, respectively (Alberta Bureau of Statistics 1992, BC Stats 1994, StatisticsCanada Telecommunica- tion Serv., Ottawa,Ont. April, 1996). Although the rate of increaseis expectedto decrease,the populationof Brit- ish Columbia is predicted to reach 5 million by 2014; Albertashould reach 3 million early in the next millennia 2) (AlbertaBureau of Statistics1992, BC Stats 1994). MT (Fig. Most of this growth will likely be in urbancenters and valleys along the edge of brown bear range. A similar ID - WY patternis happeningin Montana;Flathead County is situ- WY ated next to the NorthernContinental Divide Ecosystem and has the second fastest growth rate of any county in the U.S. (R. Mace, Mont. Dep. Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Fig. 1. Current distribution of brown bears including Kalispell, Montana,pers. commun., 1995). The recov- portions with very low density. ery of brown bear populationsas the humanpopulation INVITEDPAPER * SOUTHERNBROWN BEARS * McLellan 609

5,500 - sectorsand therefore are a commitment --BC amongmany great o - -- Alberta of time and resourcesand results are never ideal for o 5,000 any 0 T- single resource. Productsinclude maps at the 1:100,000or x 4,500- 1:250,000scale resource zones with - depicting management 0 4,0004,000 *_ censused a variety of guidelines dependingon negotiatedresource 3,500 emphasesfor each zone (Provinceof B.C. 1995a). Once 3,000 endorsedby government,LRMPs guide lower level plans, ro includingcoordinated access managementplans, protected 2,500 projected E areasystem plans, and the ForestPractices Code, whichhas 2,000 -v specific landscapeand stand-levelprescriptions for brown 1,500l. bearsin certainareas. : 19500 .- Og, F5 .,9o *- ., ,i,, ,z5,i, i, , , os , <:O lb b Z- 2\r ,i, lg HumanSettlement and Agriculture Year Because most people will not toleratebrown bears near theirhomes, camps,or farms,brown bear populations per- Fig. 2. Censused and projected human population of British sist only wherethere is a low densityof humansettlement. Columbia and 1975-2016. Alberta, The densityof settlementthat brown bears can toleratede- pends largelyon the attitudes,knowledge, and behaviorof grows rapidly demands a dramatic change in people's people andthe qualityof the bearhabitat. If people choose behavior. Which humanactivities and how much of each to minimize their impact on bears by properlymanaging activity can brown bears tolerate within core areas and garbageand otherpotential attractants (e.g., livestock,fruit along the fringe are critical questions and the focus of trees,aviaries, compost piles, harvested fish andgame), some much researchduring the past few decades. Due to the level of coexistenceis possible. In general,however, brown variety of ecosystems and diversity of human activities, bears only survivein the presenceof humansettlement if answering these questions is difficult; however, gener- thereis sufficientunsettled, high-quality habitat nearby that alizations follow. acts as a populationsource to offset the sink associatedwith the settlement(Doak 1995). Althoughfuture settlement is Industry part of the LRMPs, it is clear that local land-use zoning, Industriessuch as forestry,mining, grazing,hydroelec- adequategarbage management, educational programs, and tric, andtourism can all affect brownbears and their habi- laws governing acceptablebehavior will be necessary to tat. These industriescan affectbears by reducingthe short- maintainthe currentdistribution of brownbears. In addi- and long-term habitatquality, displacing bears from fa- tion,governments and conservation organizations may have vored habitats,and by killing bears (McLellan 1990). In to purchasecritical privately owned landin some areas. addition,industrial developments create and maintain road At seriouspopulation sinks, grass-rootscommittees in- access into brown bear habitat. Enhancedaccess results volving all stakeholdersmust be formed to identify the in more people in brownbear habitat, habituation of some sourcesof the problemand develop focused management bears to humanpresence, and food conditioningat indus- plans. For example,a minimumof 120 brown bears and trial and recreationcamps; all these factors contributeto 311 blackbears were destroyed or translocated between 1986 increased bear mortality (Schoen 1990, Titus and Beier and 1995 from the municipalityof Revelstoke,British Co- 1994, Mace et al. 1996). lumbia (Procterand Neumeier 1996). As outlinedin the Integratingindustry with brown bears requires land- draftLRMP for this area,a committeeincluding concerned use planning and implementationfrom a regional scale individuals,citizen groups,plus municipal,provincial, and throughthe planningcontinuum to the operationalor for- federalagencies was formed. This groupidentified prob- est stand level. In British Columbia, sub-regional,Land lem areas,secured funding from a varietyof sources,and and Resource ManagementPlans (LRMP)cover areasof hired people to educateand work with communitymem- 15,000-25,000 km2. LRMPs requireparticipation from bersto eliminateattractants and handle bears within the mu- the public, industry, aboriginalgroups, and government nicipality. agencies so that all resources are represented(Province of B.C. 1993). Brown bears are often lumped with other Hunting wide rangingcarnivores but are usually the focal species Sporthunting of brownbears is viewed as an acceptable of this group. LRMPs are based on negotiatedconsensus form of recreation over most of their range, including 610 Ursus 10:1998 some of the southern and eastern fringe that occurs in series of islands isolated from each other. A Canada. Where it is permittedalong the fringe, brown metapopulationconsisting of scattered islands can no bear huntingis regulatedby a quota for guides and their longer ebb and flow, but may simply become extirpated non-residentclients and a limited entry draw or lottery 1 islandat a time with no chanceof naturalrecolonization. for residenthunters. However, there is growing opposi- It is likely that small populationsthat are isolated due to tion to brown bear huntingbased on both biological and human presence around the perimeter are increasingly ethical grounds. Miller (1990) has shown that sporthar- susceptibleto being extirpatedbecause they have a rela- vest can rapidlyreduce brown bear densities, and because tively large fringe for the area of occupied habitatand it brown bears cannot yet be inexpensively censused, set- is along the fringe that bears often experience a higher ting acceptablequotas is problematic. In addition,it has rate of mortality(Aune and Kasworm 1989). been suggestedthat sport hunting small, peripheralpopu- Brownbear populations may be particularlyeasily frag- lations of brown bears may encourage immigrationof mented. Althoughtheir dispersal behavior remains poorly young male bears that are unrelatedto existing cubs and understood(Doak 1995), thereis evidence thatit is some- are thus aggressive, disruptive, and even cannibalistic times a gradualprocess for both sexes, often taking sev- towardfamily groups (Stringham1980, Weilgus 1993). eral yearsfor new rangesto bud-off from maternalranges It is apparentthat if brownbear hunting is to continuein (McLellanand F.W. Hovey unpubl.data). Unlike carni- fringe areas, it must be conservative and closely moni- vores such as wolves (Canis lupus), dispersing brown tored. bears may not only have to pass througha corridorbe- In some highly productive habitat along the fringe, tween subpopulations,but may have to live in a corridor human presence should be reduced, brown bears left for months or years. Because bears are attractedto such unhunted,and the bearpopulation encouraged to expand a varietyof humanproducts, it may be difficult for bears so that dispersingindividuals become a source for areas to disperseacross even a thin stripof settlementand sur- requiringnatural augmentation. The potential value of vive to breedingage. this strategywas demonstratedby the theoreticalinvesti- Maintainingconnectivity for all organismswas empha- gation by Doak (1995) and by the documentedrapid rate sized by some participantsdeveloping LRMPs in British of increase and movements of bears from the Flathead Columbia. Fractureareas for brown bears were identi- drainageof southeasternBritish Columbia, which even fied andthe need for detailedlinkage plans recommended. had limited hunting (McLellan 1989, Hovey and The first linkage plan is being developed along the High- McLellan 1996). way 3 corridor between Elko, British Columbia, and The brownbear conservation strategy (Province of B.C. Blairmore, Alberta. The plan will combine grass- 1995b) will link hunting regulationsto LRMPs by des- roots public input with GIS analyses using the link- ignatingbear management units that cover areasof 3,000- age zone prediction model developed by Servheen 20,000 km2. Within some bear managementunits, there and Sandstrom (1993). Because most of the fracture may be unhuntedrefugia, while other entire bear man- area is privately owned land, this process requires agement units may be classified as brown bear conser- strong local participation. vation areas with no hunting and restricted motorized access. THECONTINUING CHALLENGE Fragmentation It appearsthat 3 variablesare most significantin pre- Even without human intervention, the geographical dictingbear distribution and numbers along the southand den- distributionsof many large mammals in western North easternfringe: habitat quality, averagedaily human a America have shifted over the past few hundredyears sity, and the behavior of people. Implementationof thatconsiders the (Spalding1989, 1992). Brownbear distribution has natu- negotiatedplanning continuum require- bearshas rally fluctuatedas well (Guilday 1968, Spiess and Cox ments of people and otherorganisms including distributionof 1976) but the causal factors, rate, and degree is unclear, the potential of maintainingthe current increas- making models of extirpationrates in a stochastic envi- brownbears. With the humanpopulation rapidly or the hu- ronmentspeculative at best. Now that people have such ing, however, maintaining reducing average deterministicinfluence on beardistribution, natural shifts man density in and adjacentto brown bear range will be Even with settlement and may be relatively insignificant. Because people settle, increasingly difficult. plans will be farm,and build roads and railroadsin valleys, the south- other industries incorporatedin LRMPs, there to new devel- ern fringe of brown bear range is graduallybecoming a continuedpressure to modify plans permit INVITEDPAPER * SOUTHERNBROWN BEARS * McLellan 611 opments. Althoughplans may remaineffective for years, Natality and rate of change. Can. J. Zool. 67:1865-1868. a short-termsocio-political change can result in modi- 1990. Relationships between human industrial and brown bears. Int. Conf. Bear. Res. and fied plans and new developments. Humandevelopment activity 8:57-64. in bearhabitat operates like a ratchet;it tightensin stages Manage. MILLER,S.D. 1990. Detection of differences in brown bear but has little to slacken. ability density and populationcomposition caused by hunting.Int. the ratchetwhile the Stopping long-termdevelopment Conf. Bear. Res. and Manage. 8:393-404. human population increases will be difficult and will NAGY,J.A., ANDJ.R. GUNSON. 1990. Management plan for require a continued change in human values. In the grizzly bears in Alberta. Wildlife Manage. Planning Ser. past, brown bear managerspressured industries such as No. 2. AlbertaFor., Lands, and Wildl. Edmonton. 164pp. forestry and mining to modify their behavior; behav- PROCTER,M., ANDL. NEUMEIER. 1996. Bear handling as a result iors that were recently thought to be their rights. With of bear-human interaction in the Revelstoke, British Columbiaarea 1986-1995. B.C. Minist. of the increasing numberof people wanting to live, recre- during Environ., and Can. ate, and otherwise brown bear individu- Lands, Parks,Nelson, 28pp. develop range, PROVINCEOF BRITISH COLUMBIA. 1993. Land and resource als are also going to have to modify their behavior and managementplanning: a statementof principlesand process. lose more of their the of indi- rights. Changing rights Province of British Columbia,Victoria, Can. 21pp. viduals be more difficult than the may changing rights PROVINCEOF BRITISHCOLUMBIA. 1995a. Kamloops land and of industries. The pioneer value system that remains resourcemanagement plan. B.C. For. Serv., Kamloops,Can. common with people who reside near wild areas will PROVINCEOFBRITISH COLUMBIA. 1995b. A futurefor the grizzly: have to change, and with this change will go most of British Columbia grizzly bear conservationstrategy. B.C. what remains of our frontier culture. Minist. of Environ.,Lands, and Parks, Victoria,Can. 15pp. SCHOEN,J.W. 1990. Bear habitatmanagement: a review and futureperspective. Int. Conf. Bear Res. andManage. 8:143- LITERATURECITED 154. SERVHEEN,C., ANDP. SANDSTROM.1993. Ecosystem management ALBERTA BUREAU OF STATISTICS. 1992. Alberta statistical andlinkage zones for grizzlybears and other large carnivores review: third quarter, 1992. Alberta Bureau of Statistics, in the northernRocky Mountains in Montana and Idaho. Edmonton, Can. 68pp. EndangeredSpecies Tech. Bull. 18:10-13. AUNE,K., AND W. KASWORM.1989. Final East front report, SPALDING,D.J. 1989. The of moose (Alces studies. Montana Wildlife and Parks. early history alces) grizzly Dep. Fish, distributionand relative abundance in British Columbia. Helena. 332pp. Contrib.Nat. Sci. B.C. Mus. No. 11. Victoria, Can. 12pp. BC STATS.1994. BC Regional District populationprojection: . 1992. The history of elk (Cervus elaphus) in British P.E.O.P.L.E. 19. British Columbia Ministry of Columbia. Contrib.Nat. Sci. B.C. Mus. No. 18. Victoria, GovernmentServices, Victoria, Can. 158pp. Can. 27pp. BROWN,D.E. 1985. The grizzly in the southwest. Univ. SPIESSA., ANDS. Cox. 1976. Discovery of the skull of a Oklahoma Press, Norman. grizzly 274pp. bear in Labrador. Arctic 29:194-200. DOAK,D.F. 1995. Source-sink models and the problem of STORER,T.I., ANDL.P. TEVIS.1955. Californiagrizzly. Univ. habitatdegradation: general models and applicationsto the NebraskaPress, Lincoln. 335pp. Yellowstone grizzly. Conserv. Biol. 9:1370-1379. STRINGHAM,S.F. 1980. Possible impacts of hunting on the GUILDAY,J.E. 1968. Grizzly bears from eastern North bear, a threatened Int. Conf. Bear America. Am. Midl. Nat. 79:247-250. brown/grizzly species. Res. and Manage. 4:337-349. HOVEY, F.W., AND B.N. MCLELLAN.1996. Estimating Trrus, K., ANDL.R. BEIER.1994. Population and habitat populationgrowth of grizzly bears from the FlatheadRiver ecology of brownbears on Admiraltyand Chichagof Islands. Alaska drainage using computer simulations of and reproductive Fish and Game Grant Juneau. survival rates. Can. J. Zool. 74:1409-1416 Dep. Study 4.22, W-24-2, 35pp. MACE, R.D., J.S. WALLER, T.L. MANLEY, L.J. LYON, AND H. U.S. FISHAND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery ZUURJNG.1996. Relationshipsamong grizzly bears, roads, plan. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Missoula, Mont. and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. J. 181pp. Appl. R.B. 1993. Causesand of Ecol. 33:754-772. WEILGUS, consequences sexualhabitat segregation in grizzly bears. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. British MCLELLAN,B.N. 1989. Populationdynamics of grizzly bears Columbia,Vancouver, Can. 88pp. during a period of resource extraction development. III.