DOCSLIB.ORG

Interactions Between Wolves and Female Grizzly Bears with Cubs in Yellowstone National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interactions Between Wolves and Female Grizzly Bears with Cubs in Yellowstone National Park SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS Interactions between wolves and female grizzly bears with cubs in Yellowstone National Park A. 3 Kerry Gunther1 and Douglas W. Smith2'4 adult males, solitary adult females, and female grizzly bears accompaniedby yearling or 2-year-old offspring Bear ManagementOffice, PO Box 168, Yellowstone would occasionally usurp wolf-killed ungulates and National WY Park, 82190, USA scavenge the remains. We hypothesized that these 2Wolf PO Box YellowstoneNational Project, 168, Park, cohorts of grizzly bears would be more successful than WY,82190, USA subadultsat usurpingwolf-kills. We furtherhypothesized Key words: Canis lupus, cub bear, mortality, grizzly that due to potential danger to cubs, females with cubs interferencecompetition, interspecific killing, klepto- would not attemptto displacewolf packs from theirkills. Ursus Yellowstone National parasitism, arctos, wolf, Our of interactions between Park monitoring interspecific wolves and bears is From wolf Ursus15(2):232-238 (2004) grizzly ongoing. reintroductionin 1995 until Januaryof 2003, 96 wolf- grizzly bear interactionshave been recorded(Ballard et al. 2003; D. Smith, National Park Service, Yellowstone NationalPark, Wyoming, USA, unpublisheddata). Here we observationsof interactionsbetween wolves Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were extirpated from report and female bears with cubs and evidence of wolf Yellowstone NationalPark (YNP) by the 1920s through grizzly bear cubs near carcasses. Due to predatorcontrol actions (Murie 1940,Young and Gold- packs killing grizzly man 1944, Weaver 1978), then reintroducedinto the grizzly bears' low reproductiverate (Schwartz et al. and statusas a threatened park from 1995 to 1996 to restore ecological integrity 2003) species (USFWS 1993), the effects of wolves on carcass and cub and adhere to legal mandates (Bangs and Fritts 1996, availability survival is an Phillips and Smith 1996, Smith et al. 2000). Prior to importantconsideration for wolf reintro- reintroduction,the potential effects of wolves on the duction and grizzly bear conservationefforts. YNP ha in the states of region's threatenedgrizzly bear (Ursus arctos) popula- encompasses 891,000 tion were evaluated (Servheen and Knight 1993). In Wyoming, Montana,and Idaho,USA. The parkcontains areas where wolves and grizzly bears are sympatric, a variety of habitatsfrom high elevation alpine to low interspecifickilling by both species occasionally occurs elevation sagebrush grasslands (Despain 1990). YNP (Ballard 1980, 1982; Hayes and Baer 1992). Most and the surroundingarea (GreaterYellowstone Ecosys- agonistic interactionsbetween wolves and grizzly bears tem, GYE) support an estimated 56,100 elk (Cervus involve defense of young or competition for carcasses elaphus), 29,500 mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), (Murie 1944, 1981; Ballard 1982; Horbeck and Horejsi 5,800 moose (Alces alces), 3,900 bighorn sheep (Ovis 1986; Hayes and Mossop 1987; Kehoe 1995; McNulty canadensis), 3,600 bison (Bison bison), and smaller et al. 2001). Servheen and Knight (1993) predictedthat numbers of whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), reintroduced wolves could reduce the frequency of mountaingoat (Oreamnosamericanus), and pronghom winter-killed and disease-killed ungulates available antelope (Antilocapra americana) (U.S. Fish and for bears to scavenge, and that grizzly bears would Wildlife Service 1994). Large carnivores in the GYE occasionally usurp wolf-killed ungulate carcasses. include grizzly bears, American black bears Servheen and Knight (1993) hypothesized that in- (U. americanus), wolves, and mountain lions (Felis terspecific killing and competition for carcasses would concolor). In 2002, the reintroducedwolf populationin have little or no populationlevel effect on either species. the GYE was estimated at 273 wolves in 31 packs As a component of post-reintroductionwolf and (Smith et al. 2003a). More than 90% of the prey killed grizzly bear monitoringprograms, interspecific interac- by wolves in the GYE is elk (Smith et al. 2003b). Other tions between the species were recorded.We expected prey species killed by wolves include deer, bison, and reintroducedwolves to occasionally kill grizzly bears, moose, but individually none of these prey comprise especiallycubs-of-the-year (cubs). We also predictedthat >2% of GYE wolves' diet. The GYE grizzly bear populationis estimatedat 280-610 bears (Eberhardtand Knight 1996). The GYE is unique among areas [email protected] [email protected] inhabited by grizzly bears in North America because 232 SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS 233 Fig. 1. An interaction between gray wolves and a female grizzly bear with 2 cubs-of-the-year in Pelican Valley, Yellowstone National Park,Wyoming, USA, 2000. The wolves are on the bank of the creek, which is 2-3 meters higher than the bears in the creek bottom. This makes the wolves appear larger in proportion to the bears than they were (photo by D. Smith). of the substantial consumption of ungulate meat by observed interactingwith wolves. Only 7 (7%) inter- bears (Mattsonet al. 1991, Mattson 1997). Priorto wolf actions between wolves and females with yearlings or reintroduction,GYE grizzly bears obtained ungulate two-year olds were recorded. meat primarily by scavenging winter-killed elk and Of the 8 interactions between wolves and female bison carcassesin spring (Greenet al. 1997), by preying grizzly bears with cubs, 5 were at carcasses, 2 were at on elk calves in late spring and early summer (Gunther wolf rendezvoussites, and 1 occurredat a neutralsite. In and Renkin 1990), and by preying on and scavenging 3 of the 5 interactionsat carcasses(Observations 1, 5, 8; rut-weakened and rut-killed elk and bison in late Table 1), the bear family groups were displaced by summer and fall (Mattson 1997). wolves regardlessof the numberof wolves present(1-5 wolves). In 1 of these interactions(Observation 1; Table 1), a larger bear, probably a male, was feeding on the Interactionsbetween wolves and carcass before the female with cubs approached.After female grizzlies with cubs the lone bear left the carcass, a wolf fed on the carcass From 1995 through 2002, 96 wolf-grizzly interac- and the female with cubs left the area.The outcome of 1 tions were recorded (Ballard et al. 2003, D. Smith, interactionnear a carcass was neutral (Observation2; unpublished data). Only 8 (8%) of these interactions Table 1; Fig. 1). A female grizzly with 2 cubs were between wolves and female grizzly bearswith cubs encountered 4 adult wolves that were walking away (Fig. 1). Females with older offspring were also rarely from the carcass of a bull elk that was being controlled Ursus 15(2):232-238 (2004) 234 SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS Table 1. Interactions between wolves and female grizzly bears with cubs in Yellowstone National Park, 1995-2002. Dominant Observation Date Bears Wolves Location species 1 6 Aug 1998 Adultfemale, 1 cub 1 adult Carcass Wolf 2 12 Jul 2000 Adultfemale, 2 cubs 4 adult Carcass Neutrala 3 17 Jun 2001 Adultfemale, 2 cubs 4 adult,2 yearlings Carcass Bear 4 11 May2002 Adultfemale, 2 cubs 1 adult, 1 yearling n/a Bear 5 22 May2002 Adultfemale, 1 cub 1 adult,2 yearlings Carcass Wolf 6 31 Jul 2002 Adultfemale, 3 cubs 5 adult,3 pups Rendezvous Wolf 7 8 Aug 2002 Adultfemale, 3 cubs 3 pups Rendezvous Neutral 8 21 Sep 2002 Adultfemale, 1 cub 2 adult, 1 yearling, Carcass Wolf 2 unknown alone adultbear had possession of bullelk carcass, female with2 cubs walkingtoward the carcass interactedwith 4 wolves leaving the carcass. by a single grizzly bear. After a brief standoff, the harassed them. At 0734 hours, after feeding on the wolves continued walking away from the carcass and carcass for about 48 minutes, the bears left the kill and the female with cubs continued walking toward the walked away to the southwest. The wolves did not carcass. Although the interactionwith the wolves was harassthe bears as they left. None of the bears was hurt. neutral,the female with cubs did not attemptto usurpthe Two encountersbetween wolves and female grizzly carcass from the single adult bear. bears with cubs were observed at wolf rendezvoussites. In the other interactionat a carcass (Observation3, In late July 2002 (Observation 6, Table 1), 5 adult Table 1), a female with 2 cubs successfully usurped wolves and 3 wolf pups were at their rendezvous site a carcass from 6 wolves. On 17 June 2001 at 0606 when a female grizzly with 3 cubs walked throughthe hours,6 membersof the DruidPeak pack were observed site. One wolf approachedthe bears and followed them in LamarValley feeding on the carcassof a cow elk they out of the area and no furtherinteractions ensued. One had probably killed the previous night. The 6 pack week (Observation7, Table 1) later, the same 4 bears members present included radiomarkedwolves 21 (the walked through the same wolf rendezvous site when alpha male) and adults 106F, 217F, and 224M, as well only the 3 wolf pups were present. The pups fled the as two unmarkedyearlings. The remaining20 adult and area upon sighting the bears;the bears left the area with yearling wolves of the pack were not at the carcass, nor no visible response to the pups. were the 11 pups from two litters. At 0614 hours, an One other interactionbetween wolves and a female adult female grizzly bear with 2 cubs was observed grizzly bear with cubs did not involve a carcass or approachingthe carcass from the west. When the bears rendezvoussite (Observation4, Table 1). A female with neared the carcass, the wolves circled and confronted 2 cubs was walking within 1 km of a wolf den site when them. As the bears faced wolves that were directly in 2 wolves approachedher. The adult bear charged at the frontof them, other wolves rushedin and bit at the bears wolves. The wolves stoppedtheir approach and retreated from behind. The cubs stayed directlybeside or beneath but did not leave the area. The female and cubs left the theirmother as she slowly continuedtoward the carcass. area, and no other interactionwas recorded. Periodically, the female stopped to protect herself and lunged and swatted at the wolves. At times all 3 bears lunged togetherat an approachingwolf; other times the adult or cubs lunged independently at approaching Interspecific killing of grizzly wolves.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wolf Hybrids
    Wolf Hybrids By Claudine Wilkins and Jessica Rock, Founders of Animal Law Source™ DEFINITION By definition, the wolf-dog hybrid is a cross between a domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and a wild Wolf (Canis Lupus). Wolves are the evolutionary ancestor of dogs. Dogs evolved from wolves through thousands of years of adaptation, living and being selectively bred and domesticated by humans. Because dogs and wolves are evolutionarily connected, dogs and wolves can breed together. Although this cross breeding can occur naturally, it is a rare occurrence in the wild due to the territorial and aggressive nature of wolves. Recently, the breeding of a dog with a wolf has become an accepted new phenomenon because wolf-hybrids are considered to be exotic and prestigious to own. To circumvent the prohibition against keeping wolves as pets, enterprising people have gone underground and are breeding and selling wolf-dog hybrids in their backyards. Consequently, an increase in the number of hybrids are being possessed without the minimum public safeguards required for the common domestic dog. TRAITS OF DOGS AND WOLVES Since wolf hybrids are a genetic mixture of wolves and dogs, they can seem to be similar on the surface. However, even though both may appear to be physically similar, there are many behavioral differences between wolves and dogs. Wolves raised in the wild appear to fear humans and will avoid contact whenever possible. Wolves raised in captivity are not as fearful of humans. This suggests that such fear may be learned rather than inherited. Dogs, on the other hand, socialize quite readily with humans, often preferring human company to that of other dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • After Long-Term Decline, Are Aspen Recovering in Northern Yellowstone? ⇑ Luke E
    Forest Ecology and Management 329 (2014) 108–117 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco After long-term decline, are aspen recovering in northern Yellowstone? ⇑ Luke E. Painter a, , Robert L. Beschta a, Eric J. Larsen b, William J. Ripple a a Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA b Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI 54481-3897, USA article info abstract Article history: In northern Yellowstone National Park, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands were dying out in the Received 18 December 2013 late 20th century following decades of intensive browsing by Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus). In Received in revised form 28 May 2014 1995–1996 gray wolves (Canis lupus) were reintroduced, joining bears (Ursus spp.) and cougars (Puma Accepted 30 May 2014 concolor) to complete the guild of large carnivores that prey on elk. This was followed by a marked decline in elk density and change in elk distribution during the years 1997–2012, due in part to increased pre- dation. We hypothesized that these changes would result in less browsing and an increase in height of Keywords: young aspen. In 2012, we sampled 87 randomly selected stands in northern Yellowstone, and compared Wolves our data to baseline measurements from 1997 and 1998. Browsing rates (the percentage of leaders Elk Browsing effects browsed annually) in 1997–1998 were consistently high, averaging 88%, and only 1% of young aspen Trophic cascade in sample plots were taller than 100 cm; none were taller than 200 cm.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolf Interactions with Non-Prey
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center US Geological Survey 2003 Wolf Interactions with Non-prey Warren B. Ballard Texas Tech University Ludwig N. Carbyn Canadian Wildlife Service Douglas W. Smith US Park Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Ballard, Warren B.; Carbyn, Ludwig N.; and Smith, Douglas W., "Wolf Interactions with Non-prey" (2003). USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 325. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/325 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 10 Wolf Interactions with Non-prey Warren B. Ballard, Ludwig N. Carbyn, and Douglas W. Smith WOLVES SHARE THEIR ENVIRONMENT with many an­ wolves and non-prey species. The inherent genetic, be­ imals besides those that they prey on, and the nature of havioral, and morphological flexibility of wolves has the interactions between wolves and these other crea­ allowed them to adapt to a wide range of habitats and tures varies considerably. Some of these sympatric ani­ environmental conditions in Europe, Asia, and North mals are fellow canids such as foxes, coyotes, and jackals. America. Therefore, the role of wolves varies consider­ Others are large carnivores such as bears and cougars.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Wolf Reintroduction on Coyote Temporal Activity
    Background Information and Study Design: Motivation: Effects of Wolf We will conduct an observational study in Montana, Wisconsin, and Maine, which are spread out over the U.S. - In each of these states we will have ● After wolves (Canis lupus) were driven to extinction in Reintroduction three control groups and three experimental groups where we study the the United States, coyotes (Canis latrans) expanded temporal activity of both wolves and coyotes. into niches previously occupied by wolves. on Coyote As a control group, we will study areas where coyotes live, but wolves have ● 1990’s - efforts were made to reintroduce wolves; led yet to be reintroduced. to successful re-establishment of several wolf packs Temporal Activity We plan on monitoring temporal activity through the use of radio collars to and a return to their status as the dominant predator By Tessa Garufi, Lily Grady, and track coyote movement. If movement is occurring primarily at night with no ● In areas where wolves and coyotes now coexist, Libby Boulanger motion during the day, it can be reasoned that the coyotes in the area are coyotes experience increased pressure - they have to primarily nocturnal and if movement is during the day with no motion at night, contend with the risk of wolf-caused mortalities and it can be reasoned that they are primarily diurnal. Wolf temporal activity will resource competition against a more dominant also be monitored to determine how different the activity timing of wolves and predator. coyotes are in areas where they coexist. ● We want to determine if coyotes living in the same area as wolves have experienced a temporal niche Intended Analysis shift as a response to the increased pressure - if a Because our independent variable is categorical with two groups shift has occurred, it could lead to an increase in (wolves present or wolves absent) and our response variable is potentially harmful coyote-human interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Wolf Brochure
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Red Wolves The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reintroducing red wolves to prevent extinction of the species and to restore the ecosystems in which red wolves once occurred, as mandated by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. According to the Act, endangered and threatened species are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people. On the Edge of Extinction The red wolf historically roamed as a top predator throughout the southeastern U.S. but today is one of the most endangered animals in the world. Aggressive predator control programs and clearing of forested habitat combined to cause impacts that brought the red wolf to the brink of extinction. By 1970, the entire population of red wolves was believed to be fewer than 100 animals confined to a small area of coastal Texas and Louisiana. In 1980, the red wolf was officially declared extinct in the wild, while only a small number of red wolves remained in captivity. During the 1970’s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established criteria which helped distinguish the red wolf species from other canids. From 1974 to 1980, the Service applied these criteria to find that only 17 red wolves were still living. Based on additional Greg Koch breeding studies, only 14 of these wolves were selected as founders to begin the red wolf captive breeding population. The captive breeding program is coordinated for the Service by the Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium in Tacoma, Washington, with goals of conserving red wolf genetic diversity and providing red wolves for restoration to the wild.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolf Family Values
    Wolf family values The exquisitely balanced social life of the wolf has implications far beyond the pack, says Sharon Levy ORDON HABER was tracking a wolf pack Wolf Project. Despite many thousands of he had known for over 40 years when his hours spent in the field, Haber published G plane crashed on a remote stretch of the little peer-reviewed documentation of his Toklat river in Denali national park, Alaska, work. Now, however, in the months following last October. The fatal accident silenced one his sudden death, Smith and other wolf of the most outspoken and controversial biologists have reported findings that support advocates for wolf protection. Haber, an some of Haber’s ideas. independent biologist, had spent a lifetime Once upon a time, folklore shaped our studying the behaviour and ecology of wolves thinking about wolves. It is only in the past and his passion for the animals was obvious. two decades that biologists have started to “I am still in awe of what I see out there,” he build a clearer picture of wolf ecology (see wrote on his website. “Wolves enliven the “Beyond myth and legend”, page 42). Instead northern mountains, forests, and tundra like of seeing rogue man-eaters and savage packs, no other creature, helping to enrich our stay we now understand that wolves have evolved on the planet simply by their presence as other to live in extended family groups that include Few places remain highly advanced societies in our midst.” a breeding pair – typically two strong, where wolves can live His opposition to hunting was equally experienced individuals – along with several as nature intended intense.
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos) John Schoen and Scott Gende Images by John Schoen
    Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) John Schoen and Scott Gende images by John Schoen Two hundred years ago, brown (also known as grizzly) bears were abundant and widely distributed across western North America from the Mississippi River to the Pacific and from northern Mexico to the Arctic (Trevino and Jonkel 1986). Following settlement of the west, brown bear populations south of Canada declined significantly and now occupy only a fraction of their original range, where the brown bear has been listed as threatened since 1975 (Servheen 1989, 1990). Today, Alaska remains the last stronghold in North America for this adaptable, large omnivore (Miller and Schoen 1999) (Fig 1). Brown bears are indigenous to Southeastern Alaska (Southeast), and on the northern islands they occur in some of the highest-density FIG 1. Brown bears occur throughout much of southern populations on earth (Schoen and Beier 1990, Miller et coastal Alaska where they are closely associated with salmon spawning streams. Although brown bears and grizzly bears al. 1997). are the same species, northern and interior populations are The brown bear in Southeast is highly valued by commonly called grizzlies while southern coastal populations big game hunters, bear viewers, and general wildlife are referred to as brown bears. Because of the availability of abundant, high-quality food (e.g. salmon), brown bears enthusiasts. Hiking up a fish stream on the northern are generally much larger, occur at high densities, and have islands of Admiralty, Baranof, or Chichagof during late smaller home ranges than grizzly bears. summer reveals a network of deeply rutted bear trails winding through tunnels of devil’s club (Oplopanx (Klein 1965, MacDonald and Cook 1999) (Fig 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Grizzly Bear Fact Sheet
    Identify Grizzly from Black Bears Grizzly bears typically weigh 100-200 kg (females) to 200-300 kg (males) which is slightly more than black bears. Grizzly bears have a shoulder hump, range in colour from blonde to black and may have silver or light- tipped guard hairs on their head, hump and back. A grizzly bear’s ears are rounded and appear smaller than the black bear, while the black bear has more pointed, noticeable ears and no shoulder hump. Grizzly bear claws are longer than those of black bears and may have a light-coloured stripe. In grizzly bear ISBN: 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Printed Version) tracks, the tips of the front claws usu- 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Online Version) ally leave imprints in front of the paw Printed July 2009 pad, and the toes are set in a nearly straight line. In black bear tracks, the claw imprints are difficult to see, and the front toes form an obvious arc. Reproduction Range Grizzly bear numbers are limited by a slow reproductive rate. This is Grizzly bears can be found caused by a relatively high age of first reproduction, small litter siz- in Alberta from the Montana es, and long periods between litters. In Alberta, most female grizzlies border, along the mountains do not have their first litter until they are at least four years old and and foothills and continuing usually have only one or two cubs. The cubs are born in January or north through the western February and stay with their mother for two to five years.
    [Show full text]
  • Glimpse of an African… Wolf? Cécile Bloch
    $6.95 Glimpse of an African… Wolf ? PAGE 4 Saving the Red Wolf Through Partnerships PAGE 9 Are Gray Wolves Still Endangered? PAGE 14 Make Your Home Howl Members Save 10% Order today at shop.wolf.org or call 1-800-ELY-WOLF Your purchases help support the mission of the International Wolf Center. VOLUME 25, NO. 1 THE QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOLF CENTER SPRING 2015 4 Cécile Bloch 9 Jeremy Hooper 14 Don Gossett In the Long Shadow of The Red Wolf Species Survival Are Gray Wolves Still the Pyramids and Beyond: Plan: Saving the Red Wolf Endangered? Glimpse of an African…Wolf? Through Partnerships In December a federal judge ruled Geneticists have found that some In 1967 the number of red wolves that protections be reinstated for of Africa’s golden jackals are was rapidly declining, forcing those gray wolves in the Great Lakes members of the gray wolf lineage. remaining to breed with the more wolf population area, reversing Biologists are now asking: how abundant coyote or not to breed at all. the USFWS’s 2011 delisting many golden jackals across Africa The rate of hybridization between the decision that allowed states to are a subspecies known as the two species left little time to prevent manage wolves and implement African wolf? Are Africa’s golden red wolf genes from being completely harvest programs for recreational jackals, in fact, wolves? absorbed into the expanding coyote purposes. If biological security is population. The Red Wolf Recovery by Cheryl Lyn Dybas apparently not enough rationale for Program, working with many other conservation of the species, then the organizations, has created awareness challenge arises to properly express and laid a foundation for the future to the ecological value of the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2020 Annual Report
    Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2020 Annual Report This report to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission presents information on the status, distribution, and management of wolves in the State of Oregon from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Suggested Citation: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2020 Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE. Salem, OR, 97302 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 2 OREGON WOLF PROGRAM OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 3 Regulatory Status .................................................................................................................................. 3 Minimum Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution ........................................................................... 4 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Information and Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 7 Wolf Program Funding ......................................................................................................................... 8 LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • VIRGINIA BLACK BEAR What Kind of Bears Are in Virginia? 101
    VIRGINIA BLACK BEAR What Kind of Bears Are In Virginia? 101 Jaime Sajecki Bear Project Leader ………Black Bears! What Kind of Bears Are In What Kind of Bears Are In Virginia? Virginia? Brown and Blond Phase Black Bear Cubs Brown Bear What Kind of Bears Are In What Kind of Bears Are In Virginia? Virginia? Only 58% of Virginians correctly named black bears as the only species of bear living in Virginia. Brown Bear Brown Bear 1 Weight Males (boars) Females (sows) adult weight adult weight LIFE HISTORY 200-500 100-250 OF BLACK pounds pounds BEARS Large, Non-retractable Claws Senses Nearsighted Keen sense of smell/hearing Bears can see in color: This helps them find insects and small Climbing trees colorful berries while foraging. Digging up insects Bears stand on their hind legs to get a better view and to smell and “taste” the air Defense Behaviors Movements SPRING/SUMMER Solitary most of the time. • Bears leave dens in search of food - Food is limited Active at dawn and dusk • Female bears : Travel with cubs • Male bears: Mostly solitary Omnivorous and opportunistic • Yearlings may be with siblings • Yearlings left to fend for themselves when female ready to mate again 2 Movements What Bears Eat FALL • ~75% of the bear’s diet consists of vegetative FOOD! FOOD! FOOD! matter; berries, nuts, grasses, and fruits Bears can forage up to 20 hours a day in preparation for denning • ~25% consists of insects, larvae, carrion, small animals, and fish. Although they are not particularly good hunters, they have been known to prey on small to medium- sized mammals such as rodents and deer fawns.
    [Show full text]
  • How People Should Respond When Encountering a Large Carnivore: Opinions of Wildlife Professionals Dy L a N E
    Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2(2):194–199, Fall 2008 How people should respond when encountering a large carnivore: opinions of wildlife professionals DYLA N E. BRO wn , 507 Silo Loop, Kinsey, Montana 59338, USA [email protected] MI C HAEL R. CO N OVER , Jack H. Berryman Institute, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5230, USA Abstract: We conducted telephone surveys of wildlife professionals who work with large carnivores to ask their opinions about how people should respond to avoid being injured when confronted by a black bear (Ursus americana), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), mountain lion (Puma concolor), or gray wolf (Canis lupus). The respondents agreed that the most appropriate response was to try to increase the distance between a person and the carnivore. In the event of an attack by a black bear, mountain lion, or wolf, most respondents said to fight back. Opinion was divided over the best response for an individual who was being attacked by a grizzly bear, but a slight majority of professionals said to fight back if the attack was predatory and be passive if the attack was defensive; however, respondents also noted that many victims would be unable to identify the bear’s motive. If a black bear came into camp, most respondents said that a person should aggressively encourage the bear to leave and to fight back against a bear that enters a tent at night, regardless of species. Respondents unanimously agreed that bear pepper-spray is effective in defending against an attack. While any encounter with a large carnivore can be fatal to the person involved, we believe that selecting the right course of action increases the odds that the victim can escape without injury.
    [Show full text]