MANAGEMENTOF MCNEILRIVER STATE GAMESANCTUARY FOR VIEWINGOF BROWNBEARS

LARRY D. AUMILLER, Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518 COLLEENA. MATT,Alaska Departmentof Fish and Game, 333 RaspberryRoad, Anchorage, AK 99518

Abstract: Since a managementplan was developed in 1973, the McNeil River State Game Sanctuaryhas become internationallyfamous as a spectacularwildlife viewing opportunity. A restrictednumber of human visitors interactin proximity with wild brown bears (Ursus arctos)that congregate at the McNeil River Falls to fish for chum salmon (Oncorhynchusketa). habituationis defined and described. In the 21 years since the managementplan has been in effect bear use has doubled, no bear has had to be destroyed or removed from the sanctuary, and no human has been injured. This program illustratesthat humans and brown bears can co-exist peacefully particularlywhen humans behave in appropriateways.

Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1):51-61

Wildlife watching as a recreational pastime was support for this project was provided by the Alaska formalized on this continent with the creation of the Departmentof Fish and Game (ADF&G). first national park at Yellowstone. Today people are watching wildlife in larger numbers than ever before (Vickerman 1991). Nationwide surveys in 1980 and Table 1. Visitor use of McNeil River State Game Sanctuary 1985 showed a 43 % increase in Americansparticipating (MRSGS). in wildlife viewing, feeding, or photography as a I primary or secondary recreationalactivity (Vickerman Visitora Totalb and Hudson 1991). North Americanwildlife watchers Numberof Numbera daysat permitdays Year of visitors for Season were most interestedin viewing large mammals, and of applicants campground Jul-Aug length the large mammals, watching bears was of highest 1973 48 183 152 7/1 - 8/15 interest (U.S. Dept. of the Interior 1989). This 1974 72 204 173 7/2 - 8/10 growing national interest in bear viewing is reflected in 1975 85 385 245 7/1 - 8/15 the increasing number of applicantsand the increasing number of visitor days at McNeil River State Game 1976 76 256 232 6/28 - 8/19 Sanctuary(MRSGS) (Table 1). 1977 122 365 311 6/29 - 8/14 The of humans and unique convergence large 1978 143 390 345 6/28 - 8/25 numbers of brown bears in a relatively safe, stress-free 1979 669 75 185 91 6/28 - 8/25 environment forms the basis of a 21-year-old bear- viewing program at McNeil River. The populationof 1980 532 116 520 356 6/13 - 8/25 bears has increased dramatically since 1982. This 1981 397 133 519 434 6/17 - 8/27 increase is due to bear closures in nearby areas 1982 485 132 556 420 6/24 - 8/23 outside the sanctuary(Sellers and Aumiller 1994), and a stable visitor managementprogram. 1983 625 178 738 454 6/11 - 8/25 Some authors suggest that humans and bears cannot 1984 992 159 574 377 6/5 - 8/27 co-exist when bears lose their wariness of peacefully 1985 832 216 816 449 6/10 - 8/25 humans (Moment 1968, McCullough 1982, Bromley 1986 806 255 1985). We describe what we learned at MRSGS about 967 430 6/9 - 8/25 the natureof bear-humaninteractions where most bears 1987 1,757 252 1,054 473 6/8 - 8/23 were very habituatedto humans. We also discuss how 1988 1,094 304 1,328 498 6/1 - 8/29 this knowledge may be applied in other areas where 1989 1,306 264 1,183 488 5/22 - 8/26 bears and humans come into proximity. Appreciation is extended to J.B. Faro, M.T. 1990 1,481 299 1,435 524 6/8 - 8/25 Ramsey, P. Hessing, D. Stonorov, M.E. McNay, 1991 1,818 249 1,415 526 6/1 - 8/27 R.A. Sellers, and J. Sisson for assistance in gathering 1992 1,672 245 1,210 478 6/1 - 8/25 data at the sanctuary. We are grateful to S.D. Miller, 1993 2,150 225 516 R.A. Sellers, K.B. Schneider, J.W. Schoen, J.N. 1,113 6/7 - 8/25 Trent, and D.G. for critical Kelleyhouse review and a Includes June visitation. to the suggestions improve manuscript. Funding and b 560 maximum possible (56 days x 10). 52 Int. Conf. BearRes. and Manage.9(1):1994

5 0 10 I

KILOMETERS / RIVER STATE GAME McNEIL SANCTUARY McNEIL RIVER STATE GAME SANCTUARY

McNEIL RIVER GAME REFUGE STATE

NATIONALPARK & PRESERVE ++ ++ ++ + F.7F~KATMAi

)** *,'i ',/? I 1 STATE LAND

7 ? + )**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

? i ...... ~ ~~~~~~~~~KAMISHA K BA Y i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

, ?I *~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ? + ? ~~~~~~. .,' . ., ...... +o i, . . . .: ...... ? ...... ? , + . n. + ? ? + ?li + . n. + . . ., . ? . . . + , + . . . . ~...... ? ,~ .i ~ .n ,. + ? + n.~~~~~~~)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[ + ...... n. . . . .~ . . . . + . n + ...... ?~~~~~~~ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ? + + + +*+ ++ + ? ~~ ~ ~+' ~ ~ +? + + + ., . ? . + + + + + + + ? ? + + ? + . I. ? ? ? + ? + ?\\ * ? ? + r ++? + + . + ?. I * ? + + ?* + ? + ? ? +? + + ? ? + ? ? ? ? +? +? ? + ? + + ? ? +\\\\~~*+ + + + + + + + + ~+ ? + + + ? + +++ + + ++ ? +++ +.? + + ++? ? + ++ + ? 4,+ + + l + + + + ? + + + + + + ?+ +I++ + ++ + + . + ? + + ? + + ? ? + + + ? + + ? ? + + + . ? + ? + + + ?+ + + ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ? + + +? +

Fig. 1. McNeil River State Game Sanctuary and surrounding area.

SITE DESCRIPTION jump the falls. These resting fish were vulnerable to The McNeil River State Game Sanctuary bears who positioned themselves on ledges and within encompasses both the McNeil River and Mikfik Creek pools of the falls. McNeil River bears preyed primarily drainages (Fig. 1). The sanctuaryis managed by the upon salmon before they spawned. Partially eaten, ADF&G and is located on the injured, and post-spawningsalmon were scavenged by approximately340 km southwest of Anchorageand has less dominant bears downstream of the falls and been described in detail (Faro and Eide 1974, Glenn et throughoutMcNeil cove, especially in areas where the al 1976, Egbert 1978, Bledsoe 1987, Walker 1993). current was slow and the stream depth was shallow. McNeil River supports primarily chum salmon Preferred fishing sites on Mikfik Creek included the (Oncorhynchusketa) with incidental numbers of king upper falls, the lower falls, and the "riffles," where salmon (0. tshawytscha), pink salmon (0. gorbuscha) tidal influence ends. and silver salmon (0. kisutch). Red salmon spawn (0. The original 1967 boundaries of MRSGS nerka) in Mikfik Creek. encompassed 340 km2. In spring 1991, the Alaska Virtuallyall human and most bear use occurredin or State Legislaturepassed a bill to expand the MRSGS by near McNeil Cove on the lower 1 km of McNeil River 123 km2. The same bill created McNeil River State and Mikfik Creek (Fig. 2). Bears were more numerous Game Refuge (536 km2) around the Paint River and in areas where salmon were most efficiently caught, Chenik drainages north of the current sanctuary especially the long low cascade that forms the well- (Fig. 1). The combined sanctuary and new refuge known McNeil River Falls. In most years, the falls protects 999 km2 of brown bear habitat (with the effectively stopped the upstream migration of chum exception of some existing mining claims in the new salmon (T.R. Schroeder, Alas. Dep. Fish and Game, refuge). Expansionof the sanctuaryand creation of the pers. commun.). Schools of salmon waited in pools refuge were stimulatedby constructionof a fish ladder below the cascades while resting between attemptsto on the adjacentPaint River. MCNEILRIVER MANAGEMENT * Aumiller and Matt 53

individuals. .5 0 1 Bears that were only seen briefly at a long distance, McNEIL COVE KM or were less than 5.5 years old were difficult to distinguish from other bears. These bears were not tallied as individuals. Recognition of bears enabled us to monitor specific scampground over In individual falls f, individuals many years. many bears, we noted an evolution from wariness to a high degree of habituation through countless interactions with flats humans. We also noted which of our own behaviors rriffles contributedto habituationand which behaviors deterred bears away from us.

Mlkfik HABITUATIONAND SAFETY The success of the McNeil River bear-viewing program was largely due to the habituationof bears to Fig. 2. McNeil River Cove and Lagoon. people. We concur with Rogers and Wilker (1990:322) that "as trust develops, threats all but disappear." Habituationis defined as the reduction in the frequency The MRSGS permit system limited the number of or strengthof response following repeated exposure to people that visited the area inland of the campground, an inconsequentialstimulus (Jope 1985, Gilbert 1989). including McNeil River Falls, to 10 per day. Each The stimulus in the context of MRSGS was proximity group of visitors to the permit area was accompaniedby to people in a nonthreatening interaction. Bears an ADF&G staff member to ensure that the group habituated to other bears as well as to humans behaved consistently during bear-human interactions. (Stonorov and Stokes 1972). We encouraged consistent and predictable human The distinctionbetween habituationand human food behavior and we interacted with bears in a conditioning is critical. Conditioning to human food nonthreateningmanner. occurs when 2 circumstancesexist: (1) bears have fed on human food or garbage, and (2) bears learn to associate humans and/or human development as METHODS potential sources of food (Gilbert 1989). Habituation, Most of the data and observations presented in this on the other hand, occurs with or without human food paper were compiled from experiences gained during conditioning (Jope 1983, Aumiller 1984, Jope and program development. Because of our noninvasive Shelby 1984, Warner 1987). approach to bear management, opportunities for At McNeil River we avoided food conditioning yet controlled experiments were very limited. Our strove for habituation. We found that, in the absence conclusions and recommendationshave evolved through of a food reward, habituatedbears were safer than wary adaptive management over the 21 years the site has bears. This follows logically from the premise that been managed. The senior authorhas spent 18 seasons habituation is the reduction in the frequency of at MRSGS. responses, and aggression is among those responses that More than 5,000 hours of direct observation at are reduced. Therefore, in some situations habituation McNeil River Falls and more than 2,000 hours can contributeto safer interactionsbetween bears and elsewhere in the sanctuary have allowed the staff to humans(Jope 1983, Jope and Shelby 1984, Herrero and recognize individual bears and differentiate between Fleck 1990, Olson and Gilbert 1990). subtle behaviors. Individual bears were identified by A bear's reactionto people, aggressive or otherwise, differences in size, sex, age, color, scars, and behavior. is related to the perception of threat (Bromley 1985). Less important or more temporary identifiers were Highly habituated bears at McNeil River perceived bears' association with siblings or offspring, or other humans as neutral and not threatening and, therefore, physical characteristics such as claw color, shed less dangerous. As in other areas, habituated bears patterns, limps, wounds, or stage of estrus. Consistent come closer to humans and exhibit fewer signs of stress and idiosyncraticpatterns of behaviorwere observed for than do nonhabituatedbears (Herrero 1989). Highly 54 Int. Conf.Bear Res. and Manage.9(1):1994

habituatedbears at McNeil River routinely approached several years in adult bears. Further, bears that were humans to within 5-8 m before showing avoidance neutrally habituated did not change their level of behavior. We think that encouraging habituation habituationwhether they were hungry, accompaniedby encourages use by bears and may, in part, account for cubs, in estrus, or consortingprior to mating. This was the increase in bear numbers. In the last 18 years, true for both partially and highly habituated bears highly habituated bears never showed aggressive or though it was more easily observed in the highly threateningbehavior toward humans. habituatedgroup (Bledsoe 1987). Degrees of Habituation Processes of Habituation Not all MRSGS bears habituatedto the same degree The most common process of habituationoccurred or at the same rate. We categorized bears into 3 when bears had to be near humans in order to gain groups based on their responses to humans and human access to a food source. This habituationmethod has development. These groups follow Haroldson and been observed in black bears at garbage dumps Mattson (1985, cited in LaFranc et al. 1987), but are (Herrero 1983). At McNeil River the food source was renamedto accuratelyreflect our situation. salmon, and bears were attractedto specific sites where Wary.-This group included bears that were not salmon were more easily caught. If humans were near habituatedto people. They characteristicallyfled from these sites, bears tended to overcome their wariness in human encounters and avoided human developments. order to gain access to the fish. We speculate that the Neutrally Habituated.--This group included bears earliest form of habituationat McNeil River occurred that were indifferent to the presence of humans or when bears toleratedhumans in order to gain access to human development and did not actively seek human fish at McNeil River Falls. By the first year of the food. permit system in 1973, some bears were already 1. Partially habituated: This group include bears habituatedto people (Stonorov and Stokes 1972). whose level of wariness increased when they Another habituation process occurred when cubs encounteredhumans in unfamiliarsettings, or when were brought close to people by their habituated humansexhibited unfamiliar behavior. For example, mothers. Cubs tended to display stressed behavior in some bears at McNeil River Falls fished on the proportionto theirmother's behavior. Cubs-of-the-year their first of opposite bank from our viewing site. These bears that exhibited wariness and fear at sight often avoided humans in settings other than at humans learned to accept nearby humans within a few McNeil River Falls. Unfamiliarhuman behavior at days if their mother was calm and unstressed. On one the falls such as a direct approachcaused these bears occasion, a litter of 3 curious cubs-of-the-year to retreat. approacheda group of visitors to within 3 m while their 10 m It was the 2. Highly habituated: At McNeil River there was a highly habituatedmother grazed away. humans. fairly defined cadre of bears that toleratedhumans at cubs' third known exposure to habituationoccurred when very close distances in a variety of settings and A third process of highly bears near situationsincluding areas outside the sanctuary. For habituated bears drew less habituated 2 circumstancesfor this of example, this group included females that nursed humans. There were type females in estrus cubs-of-the-year within 5 m, adult males that slept habituation: (1) highly habituated and within 5 m, and mating pairs that consorted within were accompanied by less habituated males, (2) 10 m of humans. highly habituatedadolescents were accompaniedby less Habituated and Human Food Conditioned.--This habituatedadolescents. In both of these situations, the drew the less tolerantbear closer to group included bears that did not normally fear human habituatedpartner than the latter bear tolerated. proximity and sought human food and garbage. There humans normally less habituatedbear's desire to be with have been only a few bears that received humans' food Presumably,the or fish at MRSGS and exhibited food-conditioned its partnerovercame its wariness of humans. Repeated reinforced behavior. There are currentlyno bears conditionedto instances of benign contact with humans human food at MRSGS. habituation. what habituation was Younger bears tended to habituatequicker than older No matter process operant, bears. The cohort of older males (> 12 yr) seemed appropriatehuman behaviors acceleratedand reinforced slowest to habituate. Even within the group that we the process. We viewed each interaction with for the bear call "neutrally habituated," the transition between individual bears as a learning experience our behavior There were partially habituated to highly habituated often took and adjusted accordingly. MCNEILRIVER MANAGEMENT * Aumiller and Matt 55 several specific behaviors that seemed to work well: humans; wary bears avoided areas frequented by (1) we strove to be predictableby being consistent in humans and their avoidance was proportional to their our behavior, and (2) we were benign in our level of wariness. As a result, people were most likely interactionswith bears (with 2 exceptions, defense of to interactwith bears that were most comfortable with camp and personal boundaries). humans. The staff managed each group of visitors so that bears perceived little variation in human behavior. BEAR MANAGEMENT During interactionswith bears, humans had 3 general The Alaska State Legislature's objective in creating behavior patterns to choose from: aggression, retreat, MRSGS was "to provide for the permanentprotection and no response. If we quickly and directly approached of brown bear and other wildlife populationsand their a bear it often perceived our actions as aggressive and vital habitat in the area of McNeil River so that these would, in future encounters, avoid us. Retreat from resources may be preserved for scientific, esthetic, and nearby bears could, depending on the age and curiosity educationalpurposes." (Alaska State LegislativeHouse of the bear, induce mild pursuit. No response from Bill #156-1967). The ADF&G interpretedthis mandate humans toward bears usually resulted in neither to mean that a minimum number of observable bears approach nor retreat by nearby bears. For example, should be maintainedat the sanctuary. This objective when a curious adolescentbear approachedthe group of is the cornerstone of our currentmanagement plan. A humans, we held our position (i.e., gave no response) secondary management objective is to "provide a until the young bear swerved to avoid us. If we quality wilderness setting for viewing brown bears." arbitrarilyretreated from a curious bear one day and (Ala. Dep. Fish and Game 1981). Clearly, it is also approachedit on anotherday, we missed an opportunity the department'sintent to make this viewing experience to reinforce the appropriatebehavior in that bear. We as safe as possible. found that inconsistentbehavior in interactionscaused At McNeil River we found that the objectives of bear bears to avoid humans, whereas as consistently neutral protection, qualityviewing, and safety were compatible. behavior reinforced habituation. As with any other Managing for the maximum number of bears required behavior modification scenario, it is importantto give limiting the number of visitors and their activitiesin the consistentresponses in order to facilitatelearning of the sanctuary. Limitedvisitation required less development desired behavior (Kimmel 1973, Thompson et al. and crowding and thus enhancedthe visitors' wilderness 1973). experience. Most of the actions we took to encourage Nonapproach.-In all areasof the sanctuary,with the more bear use also encouraged habituation. The exception of camp and personal boundaries, we tried following section outlines human behaviors that not to violate bears' comfort zones. More specifically, promoted the above objectives. we allowed bears to choose their proximity to humans. When bears made the choice to come near to humans Actions That Encouraged they generally showed little or no signs of stress. Habituation and Safety However, when humans made that choice for bears, Methods which contribute to habituation in other (i.e., we approachedthem), we could induce high stress animals include the following: (1) consistent context levels. (repeated stimulus in similar circumstances), (2) Proximity to Food Source.-The process of frequent, irregularly spaced encounters, (3) easily habituationwas hastened when bears had to be near recognized stimulus, and (4) innocuoushuman behavior humans in order to gain access to food. However, for (Kimmel 1973, Thompson et al. 1973). At MRSGS safety's sake it was equally importantthat humans did our methods were similar: not block access to or put themselves directly in the Predictableand ConsistentInteractions. -Our actions midst of the desired food source. The viewing pad at were as predictable and consistent as possible. The MRSGS was an example of this principle. The viewing main camp location remained stable over 21 years and site was near the river yet it did not impede bears' camping was not allowed elsewhere in the sanctuary. approachto or use of the falls since there were alternate Each day we followed the same trails, used the same routes. viewing sites, and generally limited viewing hours to Calm Demeanor.-We avoided loud noises and fast between 1000 and 2000 hours. Our camp, trails, and or exaggeratedbody movements when bears were close viewing areas were detectableby both scent and sight. to people. Bears reactedto human gestures at distances Hence, bears made the choice about their proximity to that varied from 7 to 70 m, depending on the wariness 56 Int. Conf.Bear Res. and Manage.9(1).1994 of the particularbear and other distractions (such as Bears attempting to escape other bears also other nearby bears). We found that slow movement approachedhumans inadvertently. Due to the high and low-level talking caused less stress in nearby bears concentration of bears at McNeil River, there were than loud noises and quick, jerky movements. A highly many aggressive interactions between bears. habituatedbear might pass a group of visitors within 8 Occasionally, bears chased other bears toward a group m if that group was relatively calm and quiet. of humans. Fleeing bears were so intent on escape However, that same bear might be alarmed by a from pursuers that they often seemed unaware of the visitor's loud cry and wild gesticulationand swerve to humans in their path. In these situations, sanctuary avoid the group. staff intervenedto warn away the approachingbear. Adaptationto Bears' StressLevel. -In all interactions Highly habituatedbears often walked by humans at with bears, we tailored our responses to the level of very close distances and gave no apparentresponse to stress that we observed. For example, during our daily humanpresence. We did not consider such behavior an trek through the sanctuarywe occasionally approached "approach";sometimes the presence of humans simply bears in order to pass them to get to our viewing sites. had no observable impact on the behavior of highly In making our approachwe watched each bear closely habituatedbears. for signs of stress or an escalating pattern of stressed If a bear approached for any reason other than behavior. Brown bear stress signals tended to follow a aggression, we responded with the lowest level of loose pattern starting with yawning, staring, moving appropriate aversive reaction. Responding at the away (or rarely, toward us), woofing, lip-popping, or, mildest level was important because we were in extreme and rare cases, a charge. If any stress was simultaneouslyreinforcing habituation in the bear. Our apparentwe stopped or changed our course to avoid the goal was to protect our personal space and yet bear. encourage the bear to be comfortable outside of that space. Neutralhuman behavior (e.g., not moving) was ActionsThat EncouragedSafe Interactions the appropriateresponse in the previously mentioned At McNeil River, we were comfortablewith bears at curious approachingbear scenario, based on our goals close distances, but we enforced a limit to that for making bears comfortable with the nearness of closeness. These limits were established both for humans and still maintainour own comfort zone. If a for "personal space" and the campground. We defined bear purposefully approachedhumans any reason, from personal space as the area around us (as individualsor we did not retreat. We have learned observing that retreat as a group) in which we would not toleratethe presence bears interacting with other bears of a bear. This area varied depending upon our encouragespursuit. that we used in familiaritywith a bear and/or its demeanor. Generally, The following are aversive actions if a bear exhibited stress we discouraged close nonaggressivesituations. The list begins with the most and ends with the most extreme approach. Conversely, if a bear was calm and paying innocuous actions attentionto something other than us (e.g., grazing or responses. * do not move from the fishing), we might allow it to approachas close as 3 m. Hold your ground; away Bears also exhibited defense of personal space when bear. * orientationto face the bear. approached by other bears or humans. Responses Change body * wave varied along a continuumfrom avoidanceto aggression Raise your arms, slowly. * (Stonorov and Stokes 1972, Luque and Stokes 1976, Speak firmly without yelling. * the bear. Bledsoe 1987). Our own response to violation of Take one or two steps toward * hands and personal space ranged from avoidance to aggression. Clap your softly slowly. * hands harderand Curiosity was by far the most common motivation Clap your rapidly. * Yell or make noise metal). for approachinghumans at MRSGS. This behaviorwas (e.g., bang * on a if available log or most prevalent among cubs and adolescents. A second Stand higher object (e.g., motivation, also common among young bears, was a rock) * Wave arms or coat "testing"challenge. Testing includedfollowing people, vigorously. * Throw such as rocks or sticks at the bear. persistent crowding of humans, or "hop charges," objects * a round for the mechanical (Egbert and Stokes 1976). A third motivation was Chamber shotgun stress leading to aggressive behavior directed at noise effect. * no humans. The latterbehavior was rare and occasionally Fire a shot into the air (sometimes this elicits included an intense charge. response). MCNEILRIVER MANAGEMENT * Aumiller and Matt 57

Table 2. Intense brown * Fire a shell cracker onto the between you charges by bears at MRSGS, ground 1976-93. and the bear. * Fire a rubber or rubber shot at the bear's slug Status Level of rump.1 Date of bear Area habituation * Fire #9 birdshot at the bear's rump.1 7/8/77 Adult male McNeil River Falls Wary Many of these responses elicited a strongerresponse 7/15/79 Female with 2 McNeil River Falls if several people responded. These actions were also Wary 2-1/2 year oldsa combined or repeated until the desired response was achieved. 7/16/79 Female with 2 McNeil River Falls Wary 2-1/2 oldsa Both the number of incidents and the difficulty in year moving bears out of camp were reduced in the last few 7/16/81 Adult male McNeil River Falls Partially years. Usually these bears were highly habituated habituated juveniles or curious 2-year-old cubs followed by their 7/29/82 Adult female McNeil River Falls Wary mothers. When bears were seen in the camp area they with 2 yearlings were immediatelyexpelled by sanctuarystaff. We used 7/7/87 Adult female McNeil Cove Partially low impact aversive actions such as walking toward the with 1 spring cub habituated bear and our hands or a for the clapping beating pan 7/10/87 Adult male McNeil River Falls Partially noise effect. A bear rarely came back a second or third habituated time, and our escalatedon each occasion. In responses 6/30/93 Adult female McNeil Cove Partially our cases where food conditioning occurred, response with 3 yearlings habituated was quick and forceful. We considered the use of rubber shot an extreme response and have used them a = same bear. only once in the last 5 years. In aggressive interactions stronger and simpler actions worked best because it was difficult to get the involved highly habituated bears. In all cases the attention of a stressed bear and situations unfolded person held their ground and prepared to discharge a quickly. Again, these actions are listed here in order of firearm. However, firearms were not used and each forcefulness: bear veered away or stopped, turned, and fled. * Hold your ground. * Raise your arms, gun in hand. * Yell loudly. VISITORMANAGEMENT * Chambera round. Habituationof bears without food conditioning was * Fire shell into the air if time permits. the crux of the success of MRSGS. A crucial * Shoot to kill the bear.2 componentof habituationwas visitor management. The By holding our ground, we communicated to lottery system at MRSGS contributedto habituationby approaching bears that their continued approach may limiting the number and activities of visitors. Visitors result in combat. When adult bears were charged by entered a lottery and drew permits in order to watch other bears, they typically held their ground. Charging bears at MRSGS between 7 June and 25 August. bears in these situations commonly broke off their Permits were limited to 10 per day at bear-viewing charges before making contact with other bears. areas. The campgroundhad a maximum occupancy of In the last 21 years sanctuarystaff have experienced 15. People typically arrivedby commercial float plane 8 intense charges (Table 2). Four were by wary bears service from Homer, Alaska. and 4 were by partially habituated bears. None Each day 1-2 sanctuary staff took a group of 10 visitors to watch bears. Daily trips generally lasted 5-9 hours and the groups usually spent the viewing period at a single site. In June, viewing sites included several For the bear's these methods should be no safety employed points Mikfik Creek and the intertidalarea where closer than 36 and then when the bear is faced along m, only away bears fished for (Bromley 1985). sockeye salmon or grazed on sedges. 2 The McNeil River chum Use shotgun slugs at distances less than 30 m (Thelanius and salmon run began in early July Meehan 1983). We recommend waiting until the bear is 10 m away and both the bears and the visitors shifted their attention before shooting to give the bear the opportunityto stop its charge. to McNeil River. By late August, the chum salmon run was depleted and the bear population dispersed. 58 Int. Conf.Bear Res. and Manage.9(1):1994

The campgroundwas located away from high bear loses interestand walks away. use areas or major access trails to those areas. The 5. Never run from a bear. Running invites pursuit. camp was accessible to float planes and had nearby 6. In the unlikely event you are charged by a bear, fresh water, dry tent sites, and protection from the stand your ground and remain upright. prevailingwinds. Visitors were requiredto camp in the Visitors cooked and stored food in the cook shack campground. The camp had 3 wooden structures: 1 and disposed of their trash and garbage in a receptacle cabin for the permanentADF&G staff housing; 1 cabin in the same building. Visitors were encouragedto save for storage, emergency use, and temporary ADF&G food scraps and take them back to Homer for disposal staff housing; and a third cabin where visitors stored because of the difficulty of burning food adequately food, cooked, and escaped inclementweather. without a high heat incinerator. Prior to 1985, garbage Visitors to MRSGS were not always supervised in was burned once a day with kerosene in a bur barrel their movements and actions; however, they were located 35 m from camp. Burned remains were buried educated upon arrival at the sanctuary about proper nearby. Bears frequentlydug up the buried remains of behavior near bears and consequently, they tended to burnedcans and bottles. Beginning in 1985, all burned behave in ways that contributedto bear habituationeven garbagewas sacked in plastic bags, stored until the next when unaccompaniedby sanctuarystaff. There were 2 flight, and then flown to Homer by one of the air taxis. major topics of the orientation: (1) appropriate This new system reduced the number of bear visits at behavior around bears, and (2) rules concerning the burn barrelto fewer than 4 or 5 during the 3-month garbage and food. Visitors were allowed but not season. Typically these bears didn't stay long and encouraged to bring firearms. Less than 5% of seldom returneda second time. MRSGS visitors brought firearms and even fewer The importanceof keeping human food from bears carriedthem away from the campsite. cannotbe overemphasized. Early in 1977, a 3-year-old Visitors were not allowed inland of the campground bear discovered an underground cool storage area unless they were accompanied by sanctuary staff. adjacentto an ADF&G cabin where it consumed 4 kg However, visitors were free to walk seaward of camp of cheese and several packages of lunch meat. This along the sand spit and sea cliffs. If unguided visitors young bear returnedseveral times over the course of encountered bears during their hikes they were the next few days. Each time it was met with an instructedto do the following: escalated response and encouraged to leave. After 5 1. If you see a bear walking toward you, but it is such interactions, the "cheese thief" finally left camp event of still quite far away (> 150 m), slowly move out of and did not return. This bear had one known on the bear's path if possible. food conditioning that required much perseverance 2. If the bear continues to approach,make sure that our part to de-condition. it sees you. Stand still, wave your arms calmly and talk loudly. These actions give audio and visual cues to the bear about your identity and will reduce the GUIDELINESFOR ESTABLISHMENT chance that you will surprisethe bear. OF BEAR-VIEWING AREAS 3. The bear may stop to look at you and then change Severalelements must be consideredwhen evaluating its path to avoid you. However, many of the bears an area for a possible bear-viewing program. -Choice of an area with a you will encounterare so highly habituatedthat they Viewabilityof Bears. good will make no indication that they see you and will population of bears is critical. Bears that concentrate an continue toward you and pass by fairly closely around a naturallyoccurring food resource provide food source should be as (sometimes within 20 m). In this case remain ideal situation. The as standing still, continue to talk loudly in order to predictableand continuous possible. land make sure that the bear is aware of you. The bear Stable Land Status.-This could include private or federal will, in all likelihood, pass by you. but is more likely to include state/provincial The to 4. Occasionally, a curious adolescent bear will land with active management. ability regulate uses is approachyou. Under no circumstancesshould you other human important. is run or walk away because this will entice the bear to BufferZones. -As much as possible, bear-viewing of most of the follow. Remain standing and, if possible, elevate areas should encompassthe home ranges the site. The area should be by a your position by standing on a log or a rock. Wave bears using managed or Stan your arms and yell more vigorously. You may have single agency by cooperating agencies (e.g., to do this for a few minutes before the young bear Price StateWildlife SanctuaryCooperative Management MCNEILRIVER MANAGEMENT * Aumiller and Matt 59

Area). Humans that interact with habituated bears unique. However, many of the MRSGS management should behave consistently. This is rarely possible tools are applicableat other bear-viewing sites. except in largely unsettled and unvisited areas. In lieu Single Priority Management. -The MRSGS of jurisdictionalcontrol, homogeneous managementof managementplan clearly states that maintenanceof the areas around the viewing site encourages consistent bear concentrationis the highest priority. This single human behavior. priority simplifies most other management decisions. Funding.--Stable funding to maintain programs For example, if overwhelming visitation displaces should be established in the early stages. The public bears, then visitation must be reduced. demand for viewing areas is increasing significantly. EliminateFood Conditioning.-It is well documented Bear-viewing sites will probably draw visitors even if that food conditioning in bears can increase negative managerscannot afford to supervise them. Inconsistent bear-humaninteractions. At MRSGS we have gone to funding could allow unsupervised visitation to extremes to decrease the likelihood of food overwhelm a viewing site. conditioning. This includes human food, garbage, or Establishment of a Management Plan.-Goals and sport caughtfish. Managementprograms at other bear- objectives should be clearly identified at the onset of a viewing areas that follow this example will have fewer viewing program. With these guidelines in place daily food conditioningdifficulties. management decisions become simpler. Guidelines Knowledge of Bear Behavior.-Recognition of should include the following elements: individual bears and their behavioral differences also 1. Set priority of objectives. There will be conflicts, can be important. This requires well-trained and for example, if the management plan calls for experienced staff. At MRSGS we learned that bear maximum number of bears, maximum visitation, behavior is predictable. However, in order to take and/or maximum habituation. advantage of this predictabilitythe management staff 2. Set the level of visitor management, education, must be able to interpretbehavioral signals and respond and supervision. Steps include: (a) determine appropriately. maximum number of visitors, (b) establish method Neutral Habituation.-The McNeil River experience of visitor limitation, (c) develop education program demonstratesthat neutral habituation is possible and that for bear-human interactions, (d) devise visitor bear behavior, in the absence of a food reward, is easy supervision plan, (e) develop food-garbage to modify. Some managersof other bear-viewing areas managementplan includingcamps, and backcountry, may view neutralhabituation as a undesirableelement. and (f) design locations of camps, trails, roads, and We believe that our experience at MRSGS will show visitor facilities for minimumdisplacement of bears. managersthat neutralhabituation in bears is not a safety 3. Establish a monitoring system to measure the problem in all circumstances. effects and results of the program. Visitor Management and Neutral 4. Develop a strategy for compatible and Habituation.--Neutral habituation and closely noncompatibleuses. supervised visitor managementare key components of the viewing program at McNeil River. Neutral habituationis possible without close visitor supervision, MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS as can be seen at other bear-viewing sites such as The future of threatened bear populations in North Katmai National Park and Denali National Park. America is influenced by the public image of bears. However, the high degree of habituation of bears at Bear-viewingareas like McNeil River, Brooks Camp in McNeil River is attributable to our close visitor Katmai National Park, and Stan Price State Wildlife supervision. Managersof other bear-viewing areas may Sanctuary on Admiralty Island allow people to view not want to achieve the same degree of habituation free-ranging bears, learn about bear biology and because their circumstances do not allow for close behavior, and co-exist with bears in settings that are visitor supervision, visitor education, and low levels of nonthreateningfor either species. The success of long- visitation. term bear-viewing areas like MRSGS confirm thatbears StrategicAversive Conditioning. -Aversive reactions and humans can interact safely. Both visitors and the must be designed for the level of habituationdesired at media to build a help support group for the a particularviewing area. In keeping with our goal of conservation of bears and their habitat in other areas. neutralhabituation, we respond to bears with the lowest McNeil River Falls with its prodigious population of necessary level of aversive reaction. Maximum habituated bears in a scenic wilderness setting is responses such as firing shotgun projectiles may have 60 Int. Conf.Bear Res. and Manage.9(1):1994 the unwantedresult of keeping bears away from humans EGBERT,A.L. 1978. The social behavior of brown bears at under all circumstances. McNeil River, Alaska. Ph.D. Diss., Utah State Univ., Ethical Considerations of Habituation.--McNeil Logan. 117pp. River management works well largely because , AND A. W. STOKES. 1976. The social behavior of sanctuary personnel are virtually the only humans brown bears on an Alaskan salmon stream. Int. Conf. interactingwith these bears over the entire breadth of Bear Res. and Manage. 3:41-56. their home ranges. Habituatedbears may maintaintheir FARO,J.B. ANDS.H. EIDE. 1974. Management of McNeil lack of concern about humanswhen they are away from River State Game Sanctuary for nonconsumptive use of MRSGS. There is the concomitantethical consideration Alaskan Brown bears. Proc. Annu. Conf. West. Assoc. that managersmust address. What are the ramifications Game and Fish Commissioners. 54:113-118. of habituatingbears that will later come in contact with GILBERT,B.K. 1989. Behavioral plasticity and bear-human bear hunters and other less benevolent humans? The conflicts. Pages 1-8 in M. Bromley, ed. Bear-people ethics of shooting habituatedbears are questionableto conflicts: proc. of a symposiumon managementstrategies. both consumptive and nonconsumptivewildlife users. Northwest Territ. Renewable Resour., Yellowknife, Consideration of Economic Uses.-Economic Northwest Territ. evaluation gives managers a tool for assessing and GLENN,L.P., J.W. LENTFER,J.B. FARO,AND L.H. MILLER. prioritizingthe highest use of potentialwildlife viewing 1976. Reproductive biology of female brown bears, sites. The value of wildlife watching can go far beyond McNeil River, Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. onsite direct use. In most existing and potentialbear- 3:381-390. viewing areas, includingMRSGS, multipleuses such as HAROLDSON,M., ANDD. MATTSON. 1985. Response of tourism and fisheries compete with high qualitywildlife grizzly bears to backcountry human use in Yellowstone watching. Economic evaluation of wildlife watching National Park. U.S.D.I. Interagency Study may be necessary in order to justify managementfor Team, Bozeman, Mont. 37pp. at a viewing as the highest and best use of an area. The HERRERO,S. 1983. Social behavior of black bears methods used by Swanson et al. (1992) should be garbage dump in Jasper National Park. Int. Conf. Bear applied to evaluate and mitigate various conflicting Res. and Manage. 5:54-70. uses. 1989. The role of learning in some fatal grizzly bear ed. Bear- Acceptance of Risk.-Given all of the management attackson people. Pages 9-14 in M. Bromley, tools at our disposal, we can shift the odds of safe people conflicts: proc. of a symposium on management interactions in our favor. However, we cannot strategies. Northwest Territ. Renewable Resour., eliminate risk of injury entirely. Humans must accept Yellowknife, Northwest Territ. some risk in trade for all of the positive aspects of bear , ANDS. FLECK. 1990. Injury to people inflicted by bears: recent trends and new viewing. black, grizzly or polar 8:25-32. It is to be hoped that many more diverse areas will insights. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. of bears to be developed in the coming years for all 3 North JOPE,K.L.M. 1983. Habituation grizzly people: Bear Res. and 3:322- Americanspecies. Supportfrom all user groups is one a hypothesis. Int. Conf. Manage. of the best ways to ensure that bears and their habitat 327. of bear habituationto will persist for both hunters and wildlife watchers. 1985. Implications grizzly hikers. Wild. Soc. Bull. 13:32-37. , ANDB. SHELBY. 1984. Hiker behavior and the LITERATURECITED outcome of interactionswith grizzly bears. Leisure Sci. ALASKADEPARTMENT FISH AND GAME. 1981. Management 6(3):257-270. and for McNeil River State Game Sanctuary. Anchorage, KIMMEL,H.D. 1973. Habituation, habituability, plan Peek and M.J. Ala. conditioning.Pages 219-238 in H.V.S. Habituation. Academic Press, N.Y. AUMILLER,L.D. 1984. Alaska's best bear show. Alas. Herz, eds. ANDA.W. STOKES.1976. Fishing behavior mag. May:18-21. LUQUE,M.H., brown Ursus arctos. Int. Conf. Bear BLEDSOE,W.T. 1987. Brown bear summer. Dutton, N.Y. of Alaskan bear, Res. and 3:71-78. 225pp. Manage. 1982. Behavior, bears and humans. BROMLEY,B. 1985. Safety in bear country: a reference MCCULLOUGH,D.R. manual. Northwest Territ. Dep. of Renewable Resour., Wild. Soc. Bull. 10(1):27-33. ANDJ.F. THILENIUS.1983. Safety in bear Yellowknife. 244pp. MEEHAN,W.R., MCNEILRIVER MANAGEMENT * Aumiller and Matt 61

country: protective measures and bullet performance at The total value of the McNeil River State Game Sanctuary short range. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NW-152. in valuing wildlife resources in Alaska. Pages 337-357 in 16pp. G.L. Peterson, et. al., eds. Valuing wildlife resources in MOMENT,G.B. 1968. Bears: the need for a new sanity in Alaska. Westview Press, Boulder. wildlife conservation. Bioscience 18:1105-1108. THOMPSON,R.F., P.M. GROVES,T.J. TEYLER,AND R.A. OLSON,T.L., AND B.K. GILBERT. 1990. Brown bear ROEMER. 1973. A dual-process theory of habituation: behavior and human activity at salmon streams in Katmai theory and behavior. Pages 239-271 in H.U.S. Peeke and National Park, Alaska. Ut. State Univ. for Natl. Park M.J. Herz, eds. Habituation. Academic Press, N.Y. Serv., Ala., Reg. Off., Anchorage, Ala. 123pp. U.S. DEPARTMENTOF INTERIOR(U.S. FISHAND WILDLIFE ROGERS,L.L., ANDG.W. WILKER. 1990. How to obtain SERVICE). 1989. 1985 National Survey of Fishing, behavioral and ecological data from free-ranging, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Ala. 81pp. researcher habituatedblack bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. VICKERMAN,S. 1991. Watchable wildlife: a national and Manage. 8:321-327. initiative. Defenders of Wildlife, Portland, Oreg. 87pp. SELLERS,R.A., ANDL.D. AUMILLER.1994. Brown bear __ , AND W. HUDSON. 1991. Wildlife watching a population characteristics at McNeil River, Alaska. Int. growing national recreation. Alaska's Wildlife 23(2):2-3. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1):283-293. WALKER,T. 1993. River of bears. Voyageur Press, STONOROV,D., ANDA. STOKES.1972. Social behavior of Stillwater, Minn. 155pp. the Alaskan brown bear. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and WARNER,S. 1987. Visitor impact on brown bears, Manage. 2:232-242. Admiralty Island, Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and SWANSON,C.S., J.C. BERGSTROM,AND J.N. TRENT. 1992. Manage. 7:377-382.