Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Fall 2018 Vol

Fall 2018 Vol

International News

Tri-Annual Newsletter of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) and the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group Fall 2018 Vol. 27 no. 3

Sloth bear feeding on a honeycomb in Melghat Reserve, Maharashtra, . Read about it on page 59.

IBA website: www.bearbiology.org Table of Contents

International Bear News 3 International Bear News, ISSN #1064-1564

IBA President/IUCN BSG Co-Chairs 4 President’s Column 6 Ancestry of the Bear Specialist Group: the People and Ideas at the Inception

Conference Reports Biological Research 9 26th International Conference on Bear 49 What is it About the of that Research & Management Favors Sloth over Asiatic Bears? 52 Characterizing using Vegetation Structure in , Canada IBA Member News 54 Identifying Seasonal Corridors for 25 Start of the 30+ Club in Service to Bears Bears: an Integrated Modeling Approach 57 Does Rebecca, a Seasoned Andean Bear IBA Grants Program News Mother, Show Seasonal Birthing Patterns? 26 Crowdfunding Bear Stories – the Art of 59 Observations of a Feeding on Asking Strangers for Help a Honeycomb in a in Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, India Conservation 27 Investigating a Population of Manager’s Corner ( arctos) in K2 Valley Karakoram Range 61 SEAFWA BearWise Program Launches of Northern Website: Biologists and Managers 30 Rehabilitation of the Andean Bear in Collaborate on Landmark Regional Bear and the Strategic Alliances with Education Program Rural Communities in the Release Process 33 Conservation Action Plan Workshop Announcement Implementation Update 62 24th Eastern Black Bear Workshop, April 22 35 If You Build It They Will Come: Black Bear – 25, 2019. Potosi, Missouri Dens on Vancouver Island

Student Forum Illegal Trade 62 Truman Listserv and Facebook Page 36 Towards Establishing Efficient Protection Against for Sun Bears Publications 63 Recent Bear Literature -bear conflicts 39 Brown Bear Behavior in the Human- Modified Landscapes of Cantabrian IBA Officers & Council Mountains (NW ) 70 Executive Council Members and Ex-Officio 42 Communication is Key for Human–bear Members Coexistence: the Experience of Trentino (Italian ) BSG Expert Team Chairs 44 Use of Geospatial Techniques to Target 71 Bear Specialist Group Team Chairs Water Sources for Sloth Bears, Aimed at Alleviating Conflicts with People 47 New Project: The Ecology of Brown Bear Damage at Large Scales

2 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Table of Contents International Bear News, ISSN #1064-1564 Tri-Annual newsletter of the International Association for Bear Research and Management Editors: Mark Edwards (Managing Editor) Amy Macleod (Layout & Design) Jim Tomlin (Proofing) Jennapher L Teunissen van Manen (Distribution) 907 Jessie Way Bozeman MT 59715 Email: [email protected]

Website: www.bearbiology.org Back issues are available at www.bearbiology.org Editorial Policy International Bear News welcomes articles about biology, conservation, and management of the world’s eight bear . Submissions of about 750 words are preferred, and photos, drawings, and charts are appreciated. Submissions to regional correspondents by email are preferred; otherwise, mail or fax to the address above. IBA reserves the right to accept, reject, and edit submissions.

Correspondents: Western US and Canada: Carrie Lowe, Email: [email protected] Eastern US and Canada: Jared Laufenberg, Email: [email protected] Central and : Marco Enciso, Email:[email protected] : Stefanie Franke, Email: [email protected] Central : Tatjana Rosen, Email:trosen@.org and Captive Bear Organizations: Jordan Schaul, Email:[email protected] Bear Specialist Group: Dave Garshelis, Email:[email protected] Manager’s Corner: Rich Beausoleil, Email: [email protected] All other submission and/or inquiries: Mark Edwards, Email: [email protected] Consult website for submission guidelines. Deadline for the Spring 2019 issue is 26 February 2019.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this issue. Artwork is copyrighted – Do not reproduce without permission.

For Membership Information and Publication Ordering Go to www.bearbiology.com to or renew memberships, make donations, and/or update member information.

The use of the IBA logo at the end of The use of the BSG logo at the end of The use of the IBA-BCF logo at the an article indicates articles submit- an article indicates articles submitted beginning of an article signifies ted via the IBA regional correspon- via the Bear Specialist Group. work that was supported, at least in dents and the IBN editorial staff. part, by the Fund through an IBA grant.

International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 3 IBA President President’s Column

Andreas Zedrosser Institute for Natural Sciences and Environmental Health University College of Southeast Pb. 235, N-3603 Kongsberg, Norway Email: [email protected]

IBA 2.0 – prepping for the future IBA has embarked on a process to play a bigger role in the conservation and management of bears on the global scale. As part of this process, a major goal is to be able to provide more training and funding opportunities for our members to en- hance science-based bear management and conservation. But how can IBA become more efficient and effective in reaching our goal, the science-based management and conservation of all bear species across the world, as well as provide improved services to our membership? IBA Council has worked with the management consultant company Oliver Wyman to prepare a road map to IBA on how to become a bigger player and to provide more training and funding.

IBA Council, as well as additionally invited IBA members, held in conjunction with the Ljubljana conference a one-day workshop on the future development of IBA based on the suggestions by Oliver Wyman. Special attention was paid to represent as many aspects of IBA membership as possible in this work shop, ranging from highly experienced to younger (and maybe more modern thinking?) members, from wildlife managers to university scientist and conservationists, from web designers to fund raisers. This working group is currently working on several aspects of IBA’s future: 1. Organizational structure: The workload of IBA officers has increased over time, and is now at a point where it becomes difficult to manage on a voluntary basis. To alleviate the workload and to better prepare the organization for the future, IBA Council will hire a Director of Transition with the main responsibilities of 1) coordinating activities among IBA committees working on different aspects of the future development of IBA, 2) taking over electronic membership management from the IBA secretary (which has proved to be a very time consuming activity), and 3) coordinating fundraising activities for IBA’s future. Legal advice as well as an accountant will be hired on a contract basis to manage payroll, taxes, etc. The funding for these positions was obtained from a generous donor. Down the road, IBA plans to hire an Executive Director, reporting to Council, who will run the day to day business of IBA as well as be the central figure responsible for fund raising. At our workshop it became very clear how important it is for everyone to maintain the democratic structure of IBA and at the same time modernize the organization. IBA as an organization will maintain its membership as a profes- sional society of diverse bear biologists with an elected Council. The essence of IBA, the close contact and commu- nication between its members, the conferences, IBN and Ursus, will remain the same. 2. Strategic plan: An important part of the future organizational structure will be a strategic plan on how IBA plans to distribute funding for management and conservation activities and projects. Different parts of the world have dif- ferent needs for bear conservation and management. A North American manager dealing with bears in a suburban area has different needs and concerns compared to an Asian manager trying to conserve a highly fragmented and endangered population. Common to both, is the need to exchange ideas and experiences with colleagues, to receive additional training, as well as opportunities to apply for funding to better understand or solve their specific management and conservation challenge. It is the goal of IBA to better address needs and concerns for science- based bear management and conservation in all parts of the world. Therefore we are working on plans that ad- dress needs and concerns on a geographic basis. In the long run, this will ensure relatively equal access to funding opportunities for all IBA members. 3. Finances and fund raising: A financial and business plan until the end of 2020 was prepared, detailing the expected income (for example from donations, Ursus page charges, etc.) as well as the expected costs for slowly building IBA into a larger organization with a larger budget for membership activities and funding opportunities. Based on this cashflow timeline, a fund raising team is working on a diverse strategy to obtain the necessary funds. IBA is also in contact with professional fundraisers to obtain advice on the best strategies. 4. Communications: Modern times come with modern challenges; the new website has greatly increased the visibility of IBA, and we now receive more feedback, requests and questions than ever before from the general public. Many

4 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 IBA President of them are very relevant (“What kind of bear is this?” asked especially by many media outlets), some are rather unique (a group of engineering grad students asked the question: “Who would win a fight between a silverback go- rilla and a grizzly bear?” In case you know the answer, check in on Facebook and tell me your opinion!), but common to all is greater interest in bears. But a good website is not enough any longer to attract the interest of potential donors. Therefore we are working on a detailed communication plan, messages and materials that can be used to address different target audiences and potential donors.

Working on these plans is very inspiring and very exciting, as it brings the future to life. But, it is also time consuming and, frankly, hard work carried out by many volunteer brains. Feedback and advice from additional members is essential. We will therefore make an overview of the future plans available on the IBA website, with the possibility for feedback and comments. As an organization we want to better address your needs and concerns for bear management and conservation in your part of the world. We would like to make IBA more efficient and effective to our members, which entails some changes to our organizational structure to be able to meet these new challenges. The core values of the democratic structure of IBA will not change. Expressed in computer terms: our goal is not to build a new software, but our goal is to upgrade the existing software to create a win-win situation that benefits all members by increased access to services and resources provided by IBA as well as improves science-based bear management and conservation across the world – IBA 2.0!

IBA Distinguished Service Award for Stephen Herrero At the Ljubljana conference, IBA’s Distinguished Service Award was handed out to our colleague and friend Prof. Stephen Herrero. Rarely has there been an individual more deserv- ing of this award! Throughout his career, Stephen has been a strong supporter of IBA, by serving many on Council as well as President. His book on bear attacks is THE classic in bear literature, and is famous even among the general public. Unfortunately, Stephen was not able to attend the conference personally. Lana Ciarniello accepted the award on his behalf and presented a very humorous and touching overview of Stephen’s career and how he has influenced the life and careers of many bear students and biologists through his kind and supportive personality. The Slovenian conference organizers generously recorded and prepared a video of the award ceremony. This video will be presented to Stephen together with the award. Congratulations! University of CalgaryUniversity

Stephen Herrero with one of his many publications.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 5 IUCN BSG Co-Chairs Ancestry of the Bear Specialist Group: the People and Ideas at the Inception

Dave Garshelis Co-Chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA Email: [email protected]

Consider the old adage about the chicken and the : how can a chicken appear in the absence of an egg, and how can a chicken egg be laid with no chicken to lay it? The enigma is basically that a species cannot arise instantaneously from nothingness. The same could be said of organizations. For example, the IBA and BSG did not simply spring into existence from nothing. The “egg” of the IBA was an ad hoc “gathering” (later dubbed a workshop) of 49 North American biologists, organized by Art Pearson in the Canadian in 1968. That egg matured and eventually hatched the idea of a professional society of bear biologists. What was the “egg” of the BSG? That question was discussed at the recent BSG business meeting at the conference in Lju- bljana, where BSG and IBA members described the 2 organizations as “close”, “broadly overlapping”, “sister organizations”, “Siamese twins”, or “parent–offspring”. Given some confusion as to the present relationship between these 2 organizations, it seems useful to look back in the history and try to uncover how and why the BSG got started. Unfortunately, several details of that history have become hazy with time. The following is reconstructed from some written accounts (especially LeCount 1999, and some old newsletters), and discussions with several key people with (faded) memories of what transpired. 1968: This was a breakthrough for bears. Not only was this the year of the first gathering/workshop on brown/grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and American black bears (U. americanus), but it also marked the establishment of the Specialist Group (which celebrated its 50 year anniversary this year). The PBSG was formed under the IUCN/ Species Survival Commission (SSC) –– it stemmed from an initial meeting of polar bear (U. maritimus) biologists in 1965, whereupon it was decided that the IUCN would act as the “coordinating agency for international exchange of information”, and that the IUCN would organize future polar bear meetings every 2 years. 1970: The “Second International Conference on Bear Research and Management” was organized by Steve Herrero, and held at the University of Calgary. Steve edited the papers and made connections with the IUCN to publish the proceedings in 1972 (it can still be downloaded in full as an IUCN publication: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/ library/files/documents/NS-023.pdf). The proceedings were mainly focused on North American brown bears and black bears, but also included papers on polar bears, 2 papers on brown bears in Europe, and an abstract on brown bears in . It also included a seminal paper on “The status and conservation of bears (Ursidae) of the world –– 1970”, the first review of the of the world’s 8 bear species, which was presented at the banquet by Ian McTaggart Cowan. Ian was a professor at the University of , and PhD advisor (during the 1960s) of Chuck Jonkel (a vital player in this story, see below); Ian’s synopsis, which lamented the threats to and also lack of information about the bear species outside likely impacted Chuck’s thinking. 1973: An historic “Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears” (still in effect today) was signed by representatives of the 5 polar bear range states (Canada, the , Denmark [], Norway, and ), mainly as an effort to reduce over-hunting, which was the major threat at the time, and also to enhance coordinated research, monitoring, and management. This agreement was facilitated by the IUCN (in politically neutral Switzerland) in con- sultation with these governments, and expedited by information on population status and threats provided by the PBSG; both of these organizations helped draft terms of the eventual agreement (Larson and Stirling 2009). Chuck Jonkel, working for the Canadian Wildlife Service on polar bears, was deeply involved in the IUCN/PBSG efforts, witnessing the effectiveness of these still fledgling organizations in leveraging significant governmental actions to aid bear conservation. 1974: The proceedings of the Third International Bear Conference was actually a collection of papers given at 2 separate meetings, 1 in New York and 1 in Moscow, increasing the geographical breadth of papers, yet it still only covered the same 3 species (brown, American black, polar). It was again published (in 1976) as part of an IUCN series (https:// portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/NS-040.pdf). At the close of the meeting in New York, Mike Pelton, one of the co-conveners, called for a vote on forming an official organization; the vote was unanimous in favor. A small group was formed to write bylaws for this new organization of professional bear biologists, and began

6 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 IUCN BSG Co-Chairs publication of a once-a- year newsletter. 1977: The Fourth Internation- al Conference was held in Kalispell , and for the first time, the proceedings was published (in 1980) under the banner of the “Bear Biology Associa- tion Conference Series” (instead of the IUCN). At this conference the BBA (former name of the IBA) officially came into existence: membership fees were established, Chuck Jonkel (who chaired the bylaws committee) was elected IUCN as the first president, and the first Council Chuck Jonkel was the first Chair of the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group (1977–1989), and simultane- ously, first President (1977–1979) of IBA (then called Bear Biology Association). His motivation to meeting was held. start the BSG likely stemmed from being a part of the original Polar Bear Specialist Group (photo: During this first Council Jonkel, front row, far right), and the success of that group, with the IUCN, in striking an international meeting it was decided governmental agreement to conserve polar bears (Larsen and Stirling 2009). At the time, Chuck to approach IUCN about was also well known for his work on American black bears, gaining a PhD (1967) that was published the establishment of as the first monograph of a scientific study of that species (Jonkel and Cowan 1971). a Specialist Group for the terrestrial bears. A number of taxa-specific Specialist Groups were being formed at the time. Jonkel had been part of the PBSG’s success with the conservation agreement, and saw merit in forming such a group to aid in the conservation of other bears. Notably, the Fourth Conference, while somewhat broader in scope than the previous ones, still lacked papers on half the bear species (sloth, Melursus ursinus; sun, Helarctos malayanus; Andean, Tremarctos ornatus; and , melanoleuca). Sir Peter Scott, first Chair of the SSC, accepted the proposal to establish a Bear Specialist Group (for the 7 non-polar bear species), and for Jonkel to chair it. In his role as BSG Chair, Jonkel (1985) The Second and Third International Bear Conference proceedings were official posed the novel idea that agen- publications of the IUCN. Coincident with the Fourth conference in 1977, the cies managing American black IBA (originally BBA) and BSG were born as official organizations. bears should consider “aiding research and management efforts for other bear species within their black bear programs.” It does not appear that he actually formed a “group” per se, but interacted with the SSC, which only had a few functioning specialist groups

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 7 IUCN BSG Co-Chairs at the time. (Interestingly, an ad hoc Group, formed in 1982, later petitioned the SSC to become an independent Specialist Group, but this was denied. There remain, though a few single species specialist groups, the PBSG being one.) 1989: New SSC Chair George Rabb appointed new BSG co-chairs, Chris Servheen and Steve Herrero, with the aim of creat- ing a more active group of specialists, focusing particular attention on conservation of bears outside North America. Chris and Steve, both IBA Council members at the time, had credentials that suited them well for this responsibility. Chris was chosen because of his unique knowledge of the status of bears of the world (he published an IBA mono- graph on the subject in 1990), threats to Asian bears (he was involved in a comprehensive study of the Asian trade in bear parts, published in 1991), as well as work on small populations of bears in Europe. Steve, who had just finished his term as fourth IBA president and also had experience with bears in Europe, was especially well known for his recently-published book on bear attacks (1985). Chris and Steve searched for people with some knowledge of bears worldwide, and eventually put together a group of 350 “specialists” (in quotes because many did not actually specialize in bears). The group included IBA members as well as many others from outside the IBA. A core group included 2 noted experts on Andean bears, Bernie Peyton and Jorge Orejuela. 1990: The BSG began publishing its own newsletter. (In 1995 the IBA and BSG newsletters merged). 1999: As tasked by the IUCN, the BSG and PBSG together created “Bears: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan”. This publication, which took nearly a decade to produce, was a milestone for the BSG, involving authors worldwide, reports on the global and country-specific status of all 8 species, and global range maps. This document (https:// portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/1999-004.pdf) was one of more than 60 such taxa-specific ac- tion plans developed by Specialist Groups under the auspices of IUCN through 2008 (when the process for develop- ing such plans was significantly revised).

The next 20 years will be reviewed at another time, as the purpose here was only to investigate the origins of the BSG. The IBA and BSG arose at the same time, with common ancestors (same key people) as drivers, and many points of interaction. The “ultimate chicken” in this story might be the desire for improved science-based bear management and conservation that lived in the minds of those early pioneers who we are now so indebted to: notably Chuck Jonkel (who died in 2016), Steve Herrero, and Chris Servheen on the terrestrial bear side, plus those who had the forethought in organizing the PBSG, and of course those who conceptualized, hatched, and grew the IUCN (originally International Union for the Protection of Nature, 1948) and SSC (originally Survival Service, 1949) in an attempt to help governments save vanishing species. The BSG was designed to bring together biologists across the globe to focus more effort on bears outside North America (where IBA had most of its members), to engage and train more people in other countries, and to focus on alleviating threats in areas where conservation actions were lacking (often nonexistent). It is useful to trace back and credit those who had the bold ideas that led to the organizations we rely on today for our professional communication (the original concept behind the 1968 workshop) and for fostering science and conserva- tion of bears. Documenting these events from the past may help in thinking about how the 2 organizations should partner to move forward and tackle the issues of the present and future.

Acknowledgments I thank the following people (listed alphabetically) who provided information, comments, or useful edits on an earlier draft: Steve Herrero, Djuro Huber, Al LeCount, Bruce McLellan, Mike Pelton, Michael Proctor, Harry Reynolds, Chris Servheen, Rob Steinmetz, and Frank van Manen. Nevertheless, I take responsibility for all errors or misinterpretations. I joined IBA (BBA) when it was first born at the Kalispell meeting in 1977, but didn’t know then about the coincident birth of the BSG.

Literature Cited Jonkel, C. 1985. Black bear research and management relative to “other bears”. Page 4 in Abstracts of the 3rd Western Black Bear Workshop, Missoula, MT, USA. Jonkel, C., and I. McT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir . Wildlife Monographs 27:1–57. Larsen, T.S., and I. Stirling. 2009. The agreement on the conservation of polar bears – its history and future. Rapportserie nr. 127, Norsk Polarinstitutt, Tromsø, Norway. https:// polarbearsinternational.org/media/3215/2009-larsen-and-stirling_pb-agreement-history. pdf LeCount, A. 1999. History of the IBA 1968–1998. Ursus 11:11–20.

8 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports 26th International Conference on Bear Research & Management September 16-21 2018 in Ljubljana,

The 26th International Conference on Bear Research & Manage- ment was held September 16-21, 2018 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The main theme “Life with Bears” is a human-bear coexistence in human dominated and politically fragmented landscapes. Specific confer- ence topics were designed in a way to welcome recent research results, technical advances, and case studies on a wide spectrum of issues relevant to ensuring a long-term coexistence of bears and .

The following are reports from the session moderators, workshop leaders, and people that presided over notable events (e.g. awards).

Dr. Stephen Herrero Wins the 2018 IBA Distinguished Service Award* Lana M. Ciarniello, Ph.D., RPBio. IUCN BSG Co-Chair Human-Bear Conflicts Expert Team Aklak Wildlife Consulting Email: [email protected]

The 2018 IBA Distinguished Service Award (DSA) was presented during the gala dinner at the 26th IBA Conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia to Dr. Stephen Herrero. Dr. Herrero has been professionally involved in human- bear conflict reduction since 1967. A significant part of his career was spent as a professor at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where he mentored 63 Master and PhD students, led the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, and produced many refereed journal publica- tions. He is a grandfather of the IBA and held the second IBA “meeting” in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in 1970. That meeting was a “major step toward the emergence of IBA as we know it today” (M. Pelton). He is a past president of the IBA (1986-88), and past Co-Chair of the International Macleod Amy Lana Ciarniello giving presentation on Steve Herrero, Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN) Bear Specialist recipient of the IBA Distinguished Service Award. Group (BSG, 1989-2001). He is a current member of the IUCN BSG Human-Bear Conflicts Expert Team (HBCET). Dr. Herrero dedicated his career towards teaching people how to avoid bear attacks on humans and to reduce injury to people and bears by applying a behavioural approach to human-bear conflicts. His book, Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance, was first published in 1985 and has been in print continuously since then, selling over 115, 000 copies and on its 3rd edition. It was nominated as the best wildlife book by the Wildlife Society, and has been translated into German and Japanese. In 1990, Bear Attacks was chosen as “the most important scientific work on bears in past 25 years” by research peers. As a founding member of the Safety in Bear Country Society, and in association with IBA, Dr. Herrero has helped pro- duce 4 state of the art videos related to bear safety, conservation and management. Dr. S. Herrero could not be in attendance but asked Dr. Lana Ciarniello, me, to accept the award on his behalf. A well-deserved award recognizing a career dedicated to the conservation of the world’s 8 bear species - Congratulations Dr. Herrero!

* The DSA was created in 2011 to acknowledge individuals who have made outstanding and lasting contributions to IBA’s mission to promote science-based conservation of the world’s 8 bear species. Nominations for the award must be made by an IBA member and should be presented to IBA Council for consideration. No more than one Distinguished Service Award will be given per year.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 9 Conference Reports Session: Human-Bear Interactions and Management I Co-Chairs: Andrea Morehouse and Rok Černe

This session covered a diversity of topics related to the challenges that are faced when bears and people share the landscape. The session began with 2 talks from . Jon Swenson spoke about some of the challenges faced in regarding brown bear (Ursus arctos) population management. He talked about management objectives for the brown bear population and the whether management decisions resulted in the brown bear population meeting the defined management objec- tives. They found that in only one time period from 1943 - 2013 had the management objective been met. He recommended stronger working relationships between researchers and management agencies. The session continued with Anne Hertel’s talk on the relationship be- tween soft mast production, life history traits, and human-bear conflicts in Scandinavian brown bears. Anne’s research showed a positive relationship between the fall weights of female bears and bilberry (Vaccinium myrtil- lus) production (the main food for bears in south central Sweden). Unlike research from North America, however, they did not see any changes in bear movement, activity or home range in relation to production. Additionally, bear use of human settlements did not increase with natural food shortages suggesting that the drivers of conflict might not be natural food production. From Scandinavia, we moved to Cambodia and a presentation by Brian Crudge about . Sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (U. thibetanus) in are sought after for their parts, which are used in traditional medicine. Brian conducted interviews to determine the primary reason for hunting bears (note that hunting is not legal, but Brian chose to use the word ‘hunting’ as opposed to ‘poach- ing’ to avoid alienating the people he was interviewing). The 2 primary (top) Jon Swenson speaking about management of Swedish brown bears. (bottom) Anne Hertel speaking reasons people hunted bears were to sell them or use them for food. about Scandinavian brown bears. Respondents specified as the primary body part to be sold. The session then moved to Europe for the next 3 talks. Patricia Graf spoke about the food preferences of brown bears at feeding sites in Slovenia. Both and are used at feeding sites and attract different wildlife, also brown bear. Feeding is carried out mainly for population management purposes. It is often assumed that carrion is more attractive than other food types. Results suggest a slight preference for carrion feeding sites among all age classes/social groups except for females with cubs. Moving from Slovenia to , Maria Petridou spoke about some of the challenges associated with using guardian (LGD). LGDs are a widely used form of livestock protection, but the use of illegal baits is causing high mortal- ity of these dogs. Consequently the breeders are discouraged to use LGDs. Intentional poisoning related to rivalries with hunters was the most common reason for the use of baits expressed by shepherds during interviews. To address the issue, the research team has distributed first-aid leaflets and anti-poison first-aid kits. They are also using poison detection dogs to help find and remove baits. The next speaker, Robin Rigg, talked about bear attacks on humans in . Through his work, Robin investigated the circumstances around 56 brown bear attacks from 1999 - 2017. Hunters, / pickers, and forestry workers were the groups most frequently involved in bear attacks. They also returned to the attack sites to attempt to quantify habitat characteristics associated with the attacks. The session ended with a talk from a study area in by Wesley Larson. Wesley spoke about the effects of den distur- bance on polar bears (U. maritimus). The use of aircrafts resulted in the highest potential for den abandonment. All talks in this session focussed on the challenges associated with bears sharing the landscape with people. This session highlighted the need for stronger collaboration among researchers and managers. We thank the presenters for an engaging and dynamic session.

10 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports Session: Human-Bear Interactions and Management II Co-Chairs: Konstantin Tirronen and Klemen Jerina

During the second part of Human Bear Interactions and Management session, there were 10 presentations (1 invited, 3 regular and 6 speed talks) in total, all connected to diverse challenges rising from human-bear coexistence in different parts of the world. The session was opened with the invited talk by Tom Smith. Based on rich personal experience and good practice ex- ample (North America), he presented the importance of systematic long-term documentation of conflict situations between human and bear. Databases on conflicts enable an informative insight in the causes of conflicts and an effective bear safety messaging that in turn lessen the conflicts. The speaker also presented the cons of such databases and showed how we can avoid them during interpretation. Two talks tackled the most dramatic form of conflict, direct on humans ending with injury or death. Giulia Bombieri et al. have collected data on bear attacks on humans since 1970 in North America, Europe and Russia (in total 759 cases), and analysed the geographical distribution of the attacks, the age, sex and activity of attacked people and the social status of the attacking bears, and concluded the talk with management recommendations. Ole Gunnar Støen similarly presented a detailed overview of the topic from Scandinavian data, where 44 attacks occurred after 1977, with 2 human deaths and 42 injured people; in 42 cases a man was attacked, in 1 case a woman and in 1 case a child. Most of the attacks in Scandinavia happened during hunting (33 cases), when an injured bear attacked the hunter (26 cases). Importantly, results showed that attacks by female bears with cubs occurred on 8 occasions. Attack is an extreme bear reaction to a human. Luc le Grand et al. have studied the behavioral and physiological response of collared bears during simulated hunting, letting the bear escape after the simulation. They found that bears responded to hunting with faster running, higher heartbeat and sometimes higher body temperature. This may cause indirect effects of hunting on demographical parameters, due to higher energy consumption, but likely also increases bear weariness to people. Two talks focused on damages to livestock. Rok Černe presented the rich practical experience of damage prevention, mostly to sheep and goats, from Slovenian Dinaric Mts. He stressed that both effective prevention measures as well as controlling their correct use, is crucial to obtain good results. In Slovenia, the combination of education and regular control proved to be the most effective approach as damages from and bear have dropped by one third. Adriane Gastineau et al. have spatially analysed the hot spots of bear attacks on livestock in . They showed that at a certain combination of environmental factors, the possibility of attacks increases greatly. Besides understanding the causes of attacks, mapping the locations of attacks is also important for rationalizing alleviation measures – using the prevention methods in areas where conflicts are most plausible. A similar approach was presented by Eva Filipczykova et al., showing the results of conflict analysis with Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in Napo province, . Based on bear locations and environmental variables, they have presented a spatially explicit model for bear presence, followed by highlighting the areas where the conflicts are most likely to occur. Courtney Hughes and Scott Nielsen have analysed the social aspects of grizzly bear acceptance in Alberta, Canada. Using social process mapping they examined the perspectives, values and strategies most proximate to grizzly bears and their recovery. Their analyses revealed several unique sub- cultural groups, their values and attitudes toward grizzly bears and conservation. Michel Proctor presented the results and experience of diverse long-term activities, connected to conflict mitigation and grizzly bear conservation in the borderline area between Canada and the US. He showed that human-bear conflict (HBC) significantly contributed to grizzly bear Threatened status by Eva Filipczykova speaking about causing population declines, fragmentation, and decreased habitat effec- Andean bears in Ecuador. tiveness. Implemented measures to reduce HBCs have resulted in reduced mortality, increased connectivity, and improved habitat effectiveness resulting in increased reproduction and survival and improved conservation status. Several challenges remain including a plethora of offspring from females living adjacent to agricultural areas. They also discussed strategies to incorporate a vision for success into conflict reduction programs. Jennifer Fourtin-Noreus moved the session to the , which is an area with a long history of local people being fully dependent on natural resources. At the same time, the area has relatively recently been introduced to recreational activities. Using questionnaires, Jennifer evaluated the frequency of these activities and discussed their potential effects on the polar bear (Ursus maritimus).

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 11 Conference Reports The session finished with a presentation by John Hopkins, discussing the basis and methodology of a study in which they plan to build a prediction model for black bear (U. americanus) fitness in the state of Maine, in the US, using stable isotope analysis.

Session: Bears and Society Co-Chairs: Seth Wilson and Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek

This extensive session was co-chaired by Seth Wilson and Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek and had a total of 14 presentations that covered a diversity of topics in terms of human-bear interactions, current and historic conservation efforts, values, and general human acceptance of bears as understood at the individual and societal level and through the media. An invited presentation by John Linnell focused on the current challenges of human-bear coexistence. Linnell discussed case studies from , , Italy, and Brussels to illustrate that conflicts are not just a matter of material damages but also incorporate conflicts over power structures, policy directives, and human values. He emphasized how threats from human-to-human conflicts, contested paradigms, populist politics, and a “post-fact era” all contribute to more division among people who live with . A silver lining from Linnell’s talk was that carnivores like bears are doing remarkably well in human- dominated landscapes of Europe. Lucy Rogers presented her findings next and focused on wildlife val- ues among bear researchers and managers based on surveys conducted at the last IBA conference in Quito. Rogers suggested that the diversity in values and particularly non-dominant narratives that respondents hold, John Linnell speaking about the current can be a positive way to relate to the diverse values held among the challenges of human-bear coexistence. general public and could help IBA present a more cohesive and inclusive framework regarding the multiple ways people and different cultures value bears. Ole-Gunnar Støen explored people’s fear of bears using information meetings and guided bear viewing walks to test whether people’s fear of bears can be altered. Støen found that people’s fear of bears appears to decrease upon exposure to bears via guided walks and detailed information about bears from people who have extensive experience with bears. Seth Wilson described 4 bear reintroductions. Wilson found Trentino (Italy) reintroduction to be the most successful. Key positive attributes were: diverse stakeholder engagement, collaborative process and information exchange, appropriate political support, comprehensive management, financial commitments, and public outreach. While France’s effort is showing positive results from a biological response, social tension and local opposition continue to be a challenge. In Austria, the lack of local support and suspected poaching resulted in a failed reintroduction. And in Idaho (USA) the lack of political support led to the plan not being implemented. Stefanie Franke sought to understand visitor perceptions of brown bears at a wildlife viewing park in Sweden. During the course of Franke’s study, a park employee was mauled by a captive bear at the facility and subsequently died—this incident was incorporated into the study and did not appear to change perceptions of bears among visitors. What did appear to influ- ence visitor perception was the presence of interactive interpretational activities that included guided tours. Edgars Bojārs addressed brown bear recovery in . His main question, “Is the brown bear wanted in Latvia?” elicited somewhat ambivalent responses from his survey respondents of the general public and hunters. He found that Latvian society is generally tolerant of bears as 42.8% or respondents were neutral and 39.6% held positive attitudes towards bears. Bojārs suggested that Latvians may need to relearn skills for living with bears. Pierre-Yves Quenette presented an overview of brown bear man- agement in a fragmented administrative landscape of the Pyrenees. Quenette described the political complexity of the region that en- compasses portions of France, Spain, and and explained how collaboration at both the administrative and field levels has helped improve management of the bear recovery. Pierre-Yves Quenette speaking about brown bear Urša Marinko described the evolution of the LIFE DINALP BEAR com- management in the Pyrenees to conference attendees.

12 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports munication plan and explained that an important outcome in addition to a robust external communication plan was also an internal communication protocol among project partners. Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek presented how the media portrayed bears in Slovenia during 2002 - 2016. Additionally, she was interested in whether a robust population size estimate influenced media coverage in Slovenia. Upon the release of the population size estimate, this topic was covered less and media became focused on human-bear conflicts. Majić found that medians of favorable reporting about bears were lowest during local election years. This was a result of negative instrumen- talization of bears during political campaigns. Jasmin Pašić explained that there is little scientific information about bear population in BIH. His baseline survey found that hunters hold generally positive perceptions of bears. Both hunters and conservationists expressed similar concerns about threats facing the current bear population and the need for improved scientific data in the management. Pašić indicated that it will be vital for hunters and foresters to play an active role in future bear management. Hüseyin Ambarli presented his findings on teenager acceptance of brown bears. Ambarli contrasted findings from “no-bear” countries (Latvia and Lithuania) to countries with existing populations ( and ). Additionally, Ambarli explored if acceptance differed across urban and rural respondents. While teenagers were overall positive about bears, nega- tive opinions were stronger in “bear-countries” and among rural respondents. Clara Tattoni measured the monetary value of bear appearances on TV from 2011-2017. Tattoni reported 5 million EUROS in potential advertising value from bears over the time-frame, suggesting that a flagship species like bears may be a way to attract tourists to places like Trentino. Irena Kavčič described how the LIFE DINALP BEAR Project has helped an effort to create a value added bear-friendly label in Slovenia and Croatia. Kavčič described how they have involved different local community groups into bear the friendly labeling system to boost their sense of co-ownership and generate benefits for the broader community. Aleksander Trajce used participant observations in an ethnographic study to better understand how rural Albanians think about brown bears. Trajce found that rural Albanians regard bears as social actors—a “fellow homeowner”. He described that among farmers it was a matter of honor and integrity to take precautions to avoid losses to bears. This presentation was a reminder that different cultural perceptions have much to teach those who are responding to the recovery of carnivores or have forgotten how to live with carnivores.

Session: Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology I Chair: Miha Krofel Student Chair: Zoe Makridou

This part of the session consisted of 6 presentations with topics ranging from human effects on bears, bear movement patterns and daybed selection, interspecific interactions and the use of remote sensing to monitor bear food sources. Firstly, in his plenary lecture Andres Ordiz (Norwegian University of Life Sciences) provided a comprehensive overview of the effects that people have on bear behavior, especially in human-dominated landscapes. Andres stressed the general pattern that bears respond to humans similarly as prey responds to predators. However, bears have evolved as apex preda- tors and may thus not be that well adapted to evade human or handle side-effects of predator pressure. One of the most evident response of bears living in human-dominated landscapes is change of their circadian activity patterns towards more nocturnal behavior, which is more pronounced during the bear hunting season and in areas more accessible to people. Studies from Scandinavia also demonstrated how bears change their behavior after encounter with humans by running to a more concealed site and becoming more nocturnal in the days following an encounter. Andres also noted that while this flexibility in bear behavior increases individual survival, it also comes at cost. This includes lower efficiency in foraging and may in extreme cases result in an for bears, with potential further consequences at the ecosystem level due to bears’ impor- tant ecological role. Kamil Barton (Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences) in his talk on long- range dispersal and mental maps, amusingly reduced individual bears to mere pixels and used them to develop Bayesian models of movements of European brown bears (Ursus arctos). Kamil stressed the need to account for bear’s ability of long-range navigation when building connectiv- ity models and argued that bears use olfactory cues to build mental maps of their environment, which help them to make decisions where to go and which areas to avoid. Russ Van Horn (Institute for Conservation Research of Global, USA) moved from theoretical bears to the real ones in South America, where his team observed movements of Andean bears (Tremarctos ornatus) braving a mountainous terrain. This species in some regions UNKNOWN

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 13 Conference Reports appears to be under nutritional stress and their populations are often isolated, so their ability to navigate across rugged terrain of the Andean landscape could have important implications. Russ and his colleagues recorded bears’ paths from the start to end point and compared them with random, direct and least-coats paths. In contrast to their predictions, the bears were not optimizing for the most efficient routes, as their paths were not the shortest or most straight, neither did they observe that bears would take slope of the terrain into account during their travels. Dusit Ngoprasert (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, ) then took us to Asia, where sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (U. thibetanus) overlap extensively in their range, but their coexistence and habitat sharing is still poorly understood. His team used camera traps to study distribution and temporal activity pat- terns in 2 areas in Thailand, which differ in human disturbance. Both species occurred at higher densities in less disturbed area. Dusit also noted that despite potential interspecific competition, the 2 species occurred in syntopy and with high temporal overlap in their circadian activity, which peaked at twilight periods. Michaela Skuban (Carpathian Wildlife Society, Slovakia) brought us back to Europe, where she studied brown bears’ selection of daybed locations, which bears sometimes used repeatedly for up to several months. With her team Michaela noted that cover is the most important parameter bears take into account when looking for best place to spend the day. However, not all bear categories behave in the same way, which may be connected with the need of subadults and females with cubs to avoid encounters with mature males. This was supported with females’ tendency to move closer to human settlements during the mating season, likely to take advantage of the human shield from potentially infanticidal males. During the autumn hyperphagia period males also joined females in the use of areas close to people, most likely in search of anthropogenic food, which often brought them into the corn fields and up to 30 m from nearest houses, raising concern for public safety. We finished first part of this session in North America, where Cam McClelland (University of British Columbia, Canada) shared their novel remote-sensing methods to monitor changes in the vegetation with the help of lapse-time photography, LANDSAT and daily MODIS imagery. This data will be used in the future to better understand grizzly bear movements in Alberta in respect to phenology of the main plant food sources.

Session: Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology II Chair: Mei-Hsiu Hwang Student chair: Anthony Seveque

Bears are omnivorous, but are bears crucial for ? This question, asked by Sam Steyaert (Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway), inaugurated the second part of the session. He introduced the audience to the ecological role of brown bears (Ursus arctos) as seed dispersers of bilberries (Vaccinium myrtillus) in the of Scandinavia. Particularly, he showed that bears can facilitate the of bilberries through the combination of bedding behaviors (e.g., scraping the ground) and defecations located in close proximity to beds (on average, 1 bear scat comprised 54000 viable bilberry ). However, because human encroachments into natural are continuously increasing, this ecological function could be altered. This was addressed in the next presentation by Shane Frank (University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway), who investigat- ed whether human features (e.g., settlements, roads) affected the distance and direction of bilberry seed dispersion by the very same population of Scandinavian brown bears. Using GPS collar data, he observed that bears were eating and dispers- ing berries farther away from human features. Additionally, dispersal distances increased with higher human densities. These combined effects could potentially alter the genetic diversity and spatial abundance of berry species, perfectly illustrating indirect cascading effects of human perturbations. But while brown bears seem to be avoiding humans in Scandinavia, could they, on the contrary, be attracted to them during hunting season? Frank van Manen (U.S. Geological Survey, USA) investigated the spatial and temporal habitat use of grizzly bears in relation to hunting season in Grand Teton National Park. Implementing a robust genetic sampling survey, he found that bears outside of the hunting zones were in fact not attracted to the zone after the start of the hunting season. More immigration events happened prior to the hunting season, which could be the demonstration of a learning process, or simply reflect an increase in bear activity during hyperphagia. Additionally, only a small number of individual bears, usually residents all year round, were found to specialize their diet around elk remains. Scavenging on elk carrion by grizzly bears may remain an important driver of hunter-bear conflicts. Similarly, scavenging by bears can also affect other carnivorous species, and has the potential to modify interspecific interactions. In , Maximillian Allen (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA) and his colleagues compared the relative effects of black bears (U. americanus) and mountain ( concolor) on resource acquisition by smaller scavengers. Pumas limited carrion acquisition by birds and , which in turns facilitated scavenging opportunities for smaller carnivores through cascading effects. Black bears, on the other hand, were dominant over the entire guild, and

14 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports limited scavenging activity of all species, including mountain lions. Interspecific competition has the potential to shape entire communities, and can strongly influence the foraging strategy of subordinate species. Similar responses can be triggered by intraspecific competition, as subordinate bears need to adjust their behavior to reduce encounters with dominant individuals. In the highly anthropogenic alpine landscapes, Marta de Barba (Université Grenoble Alpes, France) investigated the feeding behavior and relative importance of anthropogenic food source in the diets of a brown bear population. Extracting information from DNA metabarcoding of scats, she was able to compare diets between individual bears of different age and sex, as well as considering seasonal and anthropogenic effects. Human features (e.g., roads) influenced the accessibility to certain food resources, but differences in diet were mainly explained by season and bear category. In spring, the diet parti- tioning between males, females with cubs and younger bears was the highest, with different proportions of human-related food sources in their scats. This trophic partitioning likely reflects the avoidance of dominant males by young bears and females with cubs. In most bear species, aggressive encounters and sexually selected are common, and evading dominant conspecifics can make the difference between life and death. One strategy to reduce encounters with competitors is to communicate remotely, from a safe distance, using for example tree rubbing and scent marking. But could tree rubbing serve other functions? Andrea Morehouse (Winisk Research and Consulting, Canada) took a different approach, and investigated whether tree rubbing could also be sexually selected for mating success. By collecting hairs from rubbing objects and conducting paternity analysis in a Canadian population of grizzly bears, she showed that, both for males and females, the number of rubbed was positively correlated with the number of mates and offspring. Tree rubbing may improve the reproductive success of females by increasing chances of finding a mate, and by allowing them to operate a mate selection through scent. Similarly, acquiring the smell of several males could confuse the paternity, and reduce risks of sexually selected infanticide. Unfortunately, it is not possible to recognize individual bears by smell in-situ, yet. And while genetic techniques are on the rise, Melanie Clapham (University of Victoria, Canada) took the opportunity to introduce the audience to a promising tool, currently being developed: BearID. Using deep learning technology, coupled with the “Facenet” methodology, this software is able to recognize individual bears with a high degree of accuracy from camera trap images. Such technology likely will enhance many methodological opportunities for bear research and camera trapping. However, in order to improve its accuracy, the recognition system needs more training, and more data to train with. We strongly encourage anyone in possession of bear pictures or videos to visit the BearID website (www.bearresearch.org), to see how your data could contribute to this project. By helping to develop this tool today, you could very well be helping yourself tomorrow.

Session (Speed Talks): Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology III Chair: Anja Molinari-Jobin

On the second day of the IBA conference the speed talk session covered 5 continents and 4 bear species. The diversity was given not only geographically and species-wise, but also by the variety of topics that included captive and free ranging bears, ecological, behavioral and physiological issues. Speakers were graduate students, researchers with several years of experience, and professors: Nicholas Coops, professor at the University of British Columbia, Canada, focused on the potential of combining freely available satellite derived input variables into EcoAnthromes (e.g., ecoregions which integrate human disturbance into their delineation). The derived classification was applied to a very large grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) dataset from Alberta, Canada, to evaluate how grizzly bears respond to natural and human disturbance. He found that EcoAnthromes were a powerful tool in helping explain the influences of different levels of anthropogenic activity at different spatial scales. The EcoAnthrome clas- sification is a valuable tool for understanding the relationships between anthropogenic activities and ecological conditions experienced by grizzly bears, but also by many other wildlife species! Two graduate students of Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Japan, studied Asian black bears (U. thibetanus). Kahoko Tochigi analyzed the influence of mast years on reproductive success by measuring the cementum annulus width. She hypothesized that (1) annulus width becomes narrower after mast years because female bears successfully raise cubs in mast years or (2) annulus width becomes higher as certain number of bears may not reproduce. Both annulus width and variation in annulus width were not influenced by masting. Akino Inagaki described scavenging of carcasses in Japan. Japan is unique in that there is no predator of ungu- lates. Fifty-five sika (Cervus nippon) carcasses were monitored with camera traps. and the ( procyonoides) were the most common scavenger species, the black bear being dominant over all other mam- mal species. The same pattern was found in Slovenia: Miha Krofel, assistant professor at the University of Ljubljana, studied interspecific competition of brown bear, wolf ( lupus) and (Lynx lynx). Scavenging bears frequently displaced wolf

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 15 Conference Reports and lynx from their kills. Bear presence was detected at 20% of wolf kills and 32% of lynx kills, resulting in increased kill rates. Eva Filipczykova, a PhD student at Central Queensland University, assessed scent marking in Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in Ecuador. Camera traps monitored bear behavior at 7 marking sites. Eva pointed out that activity of Andean bears in cloud forests is variable throughout the year, which may be related to the timing of their breeding season. Andean bears perform a number of activities associated with scent marking, for example, marking, rubbing, biting and licking the marked tree, scent-rubbing, males have erections and urinate, or are pede-marking. Their activity at marking sites suggests that Andean bears communicate dominance through scent marking and advertise them- selves for mate attraction. Akino Inagaki describing scavenging of Yaduraj Khadpekar, a veterinarian of Wildlife SOS, India, analyzed ungulate carcasses in Japan. pseudopregnancy of captive sloth bears (Melursus ursinus). Five females exhibited elevated progesterone levels for periods ranging from 85 – 191 days following estrus. One female dug an earthen den in both study years following the period of high urinary progesterone. Both hormone levels and behavior indicate the possibility of pseudopregnancy in sloth bears. The last presentation of the session was given by Jacopo Morelli who graduated from the Veterinary Faculty at the University of Pisa, Italy. He compared 2 methods to monitor blood pressure in chemically immobilized free ranging brown bears. Standard oscillometry and Korotkoff’s technique were tested in 25 anesthesized brown bears in Sweden and Croatia. Oscillometry failed to measure blood pressure in many attempts and several inconsistent values occurred, while Korotkoff’s technique provided more reliable trends of variations in all bear captures. All bears presented the common findings of decreasing trend of blood pressure during handling, but some increments occurred during abdominal surgery in Sweden. Korotkoff’s method resulted in an effective tool for blood pressure monitoring of brown bears.

Session: Bears and Chair: Nuria Selva Student chair: Stefanie Franke

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become the iconic symbol of climate change and a melting Arctic, and this session started with them. Andrew Derocher highlighted that although the effects of climate change on polar bear life history are well documented, management authorities have not reacted yet to the evident and unavoidable loss of ice cover. With population declines between 17 and 50% in different areas of the Canadian Arctic, authorities do not consider these to be significant declines and had no management response (e.g., kept or increased the harvest quota). Andrew questioned then whether polar bear monitoring, based on mark-recapture (invasive and non-invasive) and aerial surveys, should be continued. These are highly costly methods in terms of money and time. He suggested that monitoring habitat (sea ice) and body condition of bears could be a more practical solution. Martyn Obbard showed how carbon dioxide levels have in- creased since the industrial age and particularly in the last century (from 300 ppm in 1910 to 408 ppm in 2017), which means that the Arctic sea ice is never going to recover. Martyn reviewed the effects of climate warming on different polar bear subpopulations in the Canadian Arctic, including abundance, per- centage of cubs and yearlings, time spent on land, survival rates, body size and body mass. Individual-level effects (declines in body condition) were first to be documented, followed by population- level effects (declines in abundance and survival rates). The next 2 presentations focused on the effects of climate change on brown bears. Pablo Lucas modeled the current and fu- ture distribution of the brown bear in Europe in relation to different land use and climate change scenarios, together with the distribu- tion of about 100 bear food items. He presented the preliminary results of the model, based on the energy provided by the species in the diet, and called for sharing data on bear presence and diet in Conference attendees listening to the session Europe. This study is part of BearConnect, a large collaborative proj- on bears and climate change. ect with the participation of all European brown bear teams. Next,

16 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports Ethan Berman presented cover dynamics and how it affects bear movement. Snow affects bear behavior by mediating human access and food availability. Ethan created a map of the snow cover temporal and spatial variation in Alberta in 2000 - 2017 based on remote sensing data. This product was compared to GPS telemetry data from 66 bear-years to investigate bear movement during the 2 weeks after den emergence. Bears avoided locations with more than 50% snow cover and selected for lower elevations, which would increased the probability to encounter humans during this period. He recommended managers to consider snow dynamics for better planning of recreation and extractive activities and to minimize climate change impacts on bear population recovery. David Garshelis closed the session with a presentation on the adapta- tions to climate warming by denning American black bears in northern Minnesota. By combining camera trapping at den sites and telemetry Ethan Berman presenting on snow cover dynamics of more than 40 black bears, he evaluated the time between first going and how it affects beear movement. out of the den and completely leaving the den site. This period varied from 8 days for solitary males and females to 15 and 20 days for females with yearlings and cubs, respectively. Cameras have shown what the bears do in this period: they assess their surroundings, lay in the sun to warm up, exercise their muscles, eat snow and drink water to rehydrate and cubs develop walking and climbing skills, play and learn, while they are still within the protection of the den site. Black bears also collect bedding material during this time, something they cannot do in winter, probably to keep dry during rain and snowmelt. Above-ground dens have become more common than excavated ones and bears emerge earlier from the den since the 1980’s, as spring in the study area comes 2 weeks earlier.

BSG Session: What Would Have Been Without Us? Dave Garshelis Co-chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA Email: [email protected]

At the IBA Quito conference a year ago, the Bear Specialist Group presented a series of papers under the topic: “Is Bear Conservation Advancing?” Of 15 presentations, only 3 gave an optimistic answer. Maybe our expectations in conservation are too high. Or maybe it’s because we have a hard time visualizing our progress in the midst of so much negativity. In Ljubljana, we looked at things another way. The theme “What would have been without us?” is what’s called the counterfactual ap- proach. It means “counter to the facts” – or what didn’t happen. Imagine if we hadn’t been here working to help bears, what would have occurred? Rachel Hoffmann, Director of Conservation Outcomes at the IUCN Species Survival Commission, led off the session with an engaging invited talk. She gave some examples of conservation actions dealing with other taxa, demonstrating how the counterfactual approach helps to visualize success, even for species that are still declining (but at a slower rate than they would have been without the conservation intervention). She also discussed the emerging field of “conservation optimism”, which recognizes that the motivation to devote oneself to conservation, to recruit new people, and to enthuse donors, are reinforced by highlighting successes rather than harping on gloom and doom. Rachel stressed the importance of celebrat- ing, not diminishing successes, so these successes can inspire further actions, and also prompt replication of the successful model. She also reviewed some of the specific successes of the Bear Specialist Group. Emre Can, Research Scientist at Oxford University, gave examples of what might now be if not for the IUCN. He stressed the importance of individual people in conservation success, contrasting talkers versus doers, Eastern versus Western concepts, and disputed the notion that conservation successes will be reliant on technological breakthroughs. He used the captivating story of the cave rescue of the youth soccer team in Thailand as an example of how complex issues can be solved successfully by people working together, focused on a common urgent mission, and providing innovative perspectives from multiple fields. The session then moved to more specific case studies, first involving sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) in India. Nishith Dharaiya, Co-chair of the Sloth Bear Expert Team (ET), discussed the accomplishments of this team, and mused about the lack of collaboration and idea-sharing among sloth bear studies that would have occurred in the absence of this team structure. He showed a series of range maps for sloth bears, ever changing yet still very divergent, and how the team is aiming to create an accurate map that can be used as a baseline for gauging changes in sloth bear distribution. The ET had a meeting this

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 17 Conference Reports year, and is looking forward to a Conservation Action Planning workshop in the near future. Kartick Satyanarayan, CEO and co-founder of Wildlife SOS, India, showed how an organization focused on rehabilitating wildlife and stemming the removal of bears from the wild has expanded into many conservation arenas. Kartick’s talk was presented by Yaduraj Khadpekar, Senior Veterinary Officer, Wildlife SOS. Yaduraj discussed how dancing sloth bears were eliminated from India (by 2009), and projected how many bears would now be taken from the wild had Wildlife SOS not intervened. There are approx. 300 confiscated sloth bears in sanctuaries, which are providing opportunities for educational outreach as well as research on captive bears that is aiding research programs in the wild. The next 3 talks featured European brown bears (Ursus arctos), in captivity and in the wild. Lydia Kolter, Co-chair of the Captive Bears Expert Team, presented a talk for José Kok, who is Zoology Director for Ouwehand Zoo and co-chair of the EAZA Bear TAG. This presentation focused on the conservation role of captive brown bears across Europe (340 bears in 95 institutions): namely as ambassadors for wild bears (i.e., the importance of generating positive opinions by the public), producing educational materials that promote positive coexistence, assisting with D. Garshelis D. fundraising, and answering research questions that would be unattainable in the Rachel Hoffmann, from the office of wild. Annemarie Weegenaar, director of Bears in Mind, based in the Netherlands, the IUCN Species Survival Commission, came to the IBA conference to present an continued on this same theme, using the example of bear sanctuaries, such as the invited paper in the BSG session: “What Bear Forest, a large semi-natural enclosure. She stressed the importance of provid- would have been without us?” She also ing visitors a positive view of bears: good welfare inspires a connection to the made presentations at the BSG business , and wild-looking captive settings inspire a connection with healthy wild meeting, and participated in meetings habitats. Imagine the tarnished image of the species had the 552 bears rescued over with IBA Council. During the fieldtrip day the past 33 years remained in cramped cages or on leashes. Djuro Huber, Co-chair she joined a group of BSG members (here of the European Brown Bear Expert Team, reviewed the status of the 10 wild bear Mike Proctor) to hike up Mt. Snežnik, the populations in Europe, 6 of which are presently increasing, and only 1 of which may highest mountain in the Dinaric range be declining. He reviewed the many reasons for this conservation success, including of southern Slovenia, and core of brown bear range. reintroductions, multiple international agreements, an explosion of research, and specific conservation players, including IUCN’s Large Carnivore Initiative of Europe. What would it look like without this effort? Djuro estimated that 2 populations would have gone extinct, and 3 would be in serious decline. The final talk was the only conference presentation on giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Dajun Wang, Co-chair of the Giant Panda Expert Team, reviewed the epic success story of giant panda conservation, which was initially triggered by a dramatic decline in pandas during the 1970 - 1980s. Included in these conservation efforts were: confiscation of all guns, a logging ban, massive reforestation, and establishment of an extensive panda reserve system. Success was manifested by the downlisting of giant pandas from Endangered to Vulnerable in 2016 on the IUCN Red List. This attracted much media attention — far more than the downlisting of other iconic species. Dajun emphasized that whereas this success would not have occurred without the multifaceted conservation program, giant pandas would not have disappeared, even without this conservation, as they live in remote areas, are not involved in conflicts with people, and had no economic value (food or ). An often neglected benefit of giant panda conservation, though, are the many other species that benefited under the umbrella of the panda, including many and the Asiatic black bear (U. thibetanus). This collection of talks emphasized the important point that a world without bear conservation efforts would be a con- siderably worse place. It is clearly discouraging to compare the present to a pre-human dominated world; instead, consider a more modern baseline of say 20 years ago, and look at the progress we’ve made.

Session: Spatial Requirement and Demographic Characteristics of Bear Populations I Chair: Lana Ciarniello Student co-chair: Andrea Corradini

This session focused on current research on spatial requirement and demographic characteristics of bear populations in the world. The session opened with Djuro Huber’s Keynote Speech presenting the history of International Bear Association (IBA) Conferences, from the very first to today’s 26th conference, precisely 50 years later. Through an illustrated presentation, Djuro showed both the evolution of the conferences and the organization itself. The first ever bear workshop was held in

18 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports 1968 in Whitehorse, Yukon, where 49 researchers met to discuss cur- rent research on black (Ursus americanus), brown (U. arctos), and polar bears (U. maritimus). However, it is not before 1974 that the conferences become truly international, with double conferences held both in Mos- cow and in New York. Over the decades, the IBA has undergone several changes (name, logo, and species considered to name a few), to become the organization we know today. The IBA has grown in members and global coverage, and this is also thanks to the link established between the IBA and the IUCN Bear Specialist Group (BSG). To date, a total of 31 official conferences have been held between America and . After the Keynote Speech, the session started with Alexandros Karamanlidis from Greece, presenting the “Large carnivore population recoveries: understanding the remarkable comeback of brown bears in Greece”. Through an overview of the different methodologies applied to study the bear population in Greece, Alexandros has shown the remark- able effort carried out in the last 20 years and the current challenges to preserve the species. Through an extensive systematic genetic sampling, over 450 bears roam the entire country, and that is more than twice those estimated 15 years ago. However, the inadequacy of the current Natura 2000 network, the increasing damages caused by the species, as well as the limited connectivity between the south and north portions of the population, show that there are still ongoing challenges with bears in Greece. The next speaker was Santiago Palazón from Spain, who presented “The encouraging but still uncertain fate of one of the most endangered brown bear population in Europe: conservation status of the Pyrenean brown bear population”. Santiago explained how the Pyrenean bear (top) Trishna Duta presenting on how well brown bears act as umbrella species for large population has recovered from the verge of thanks to different connectivity conservation. (bottom) John Boulanger reintroductions and the joint effort of several researchers and institutions. presenting on using spatial mark-recapture for Despite past struggles with population persistence, today there are over conservation monitoring of grizzly bears. 40 bears in an area of approx. 5000 km2. Santiago told us of the many challenges that still threaten the future of the Pyrenean brown bear, such as inbreeding, the presence of 2 distinct sub- populations, and high sub-adult mortality rates. Claudio Groff from Italy asked if the home range of females has increased, but Santiago mentioned the strong for this population. Remaining in Europe, Trishna Duta presented “Identifying umbrella species for large mammal connectivity conservation in Europe: how well do brown bears do the job?” Her work focused on functional connectivity and the identification of move- ment corridors that have the potential of being used by multiple species. Using simulated multiple-paths for 24 species in Europe, Trishna combined a Europe-wide resistance surface with the current distribution of IUCN-ranked protected areas, thus identifying the potential corridors used by multiple species. Despite the research being in the experimental phase (only simulated trajectories were used), it seems very promising to use the bear as an umbrella species. Given the bears’ large home ranges and generalist nature, it may be used as an umbrella species to help address and identify connectivity for multiple species. Moving to Canada, the last speaker of this first part of the session was John Boulanger, presenting “Using spatial mark- recapture for conservation monitoring of grizzly bear populations in Alberta”. Genetic mark-recapture, despite having been widely used to estimate population size, has important limitations related to the heterogeneity of detection probability and the assumption of a closed population. To overcome these constraints, John and colleagues have tested the performance of Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture (SECR) methods, combined with density surface modelling from 5 Bear Management Areas (BMAs) in Alberta. After applying the methodology over 3000 sites of 7 km2 each, estimates from SECR methodology showed a higher level of precision compared to closed population models. Moreover, they found that gender, habitat and topography effects detections and movements of bears, while BMA-specific factors influenced density. Home-range centres seemed to be also affected by habitat and risk, following an interesting north-south gradient. It was then asked from the audience how the centre of activity was defined (for the spatial explication), and John replied that the centre of the home range was used.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 19 Conference Reports Session: Spatial Requirement and Demographic Characteristics of Bear Populations II Chair: Djuro Huber Student Chair: Andrea Corradini

This second part of the session on spatial requirements and demographic characteristics of bear populations opened with Brandon Prehn from Alberta, Canada presenting “Characterizing grizzly bear habitat selection using 3D remote sens- ing”. Brandon and colleagues are currently studying fine-scale patterns in forest structure on bear movement, using high- resolution data derived from Light Detecting and Ranging (LiDAR). With this information available, they have characterized the forest in 3 dimensions and tested which forest parameters (forest height and cover) bears prefer. Using bear trajectories from 2007-2014, and a matched case-control design based on the step selection function, their result suggests a strong edge selection and their best model include forest height. The study is still preliminary but opens the field for many future applications. Next presentation was held by Sandeep Sharma, from India, presenting “Landscape connectivity of Sloth bears in Central India”. India is a hotspot of biodiversity, however, most of the protected areas are assigned for few, large species that act as umbrella species. This is the case for the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) that benefits from the establishment of protected areas for the tiger. In order to study at which extent the meta-population of sloth bear is genetically connected, they have studied the genotypes of 55 individuals from Central Indian, and used these results to parametrize resistance surfaces and then map their connectivity. Their results suggest that there are 2 distinct populations, but still occurs with the forest as main corridors that connect the 2 populations. We remained in the Asiatic continent, and this time Lorraine Scotson presented “A shopping list of research priorities for Southeast Asia’s bears”. The authors aimed at providing a ‘shopping list’ of site-specific research and management priorities for sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) in Southeast Asia. After an extensive multi- source bibliographic research, the authors have highlighted current methodologies and gaps in scientific and geographical knowledge. They found that most of the studies were carried out by either transects or camera traps, narrowing the possibili- ties of answering important ecological questions that cannot be measured in such a way. Moreover, many countries or areas have not yet been used as areas of study (such as , Cambodia, Thailand, and ) and issues like baseline informa- tion, conservations status over scales, population dynamics, abundance and monitoring gaps are still deficient. The same study area but a different working group, represented by Giacomo Cremonesi, presented “Estimating Sun bear occupancy in two different areas of ”. Following what was said in the previous presentation, the aims of Giacomo and colleagues was assessing the occupancy of Sun bear in Myanmar (Southeast Asia) using 2 different models. Combining camera trapping and remote sensed variables, they performed a model of single-seasons (45 days during the dry season) using 8 different survey sites. As a result, 65 Sun bear videos were recorded, with a great variability (and confidence interval) in both detection and occupancy across sites. Their results also showed that detectability was largely influenced by forest cover, which suggests that detectability should be considered in each area to avoid misleading results on species. Back in Europe with the presentation of Manuel Díaz on “Patterns of spatial recovery in the popu- lation”. The Cantabrian bear population is recovering after years of decline. However, despite an increase in the area covered by the species, the distribution map has not been updated yet. This lack of information does not make the evaluation of the Recovering Plan possible, with obvious implications for the conservation of the species. To overcome this lack of knowledge, they have studied the area occupied by bears in 3 periods: 1982 - 92, 1993 - 02, 2003 - 12, using occupancy information at 4 different scales: administrative (municipality level); atlas (5x5 km2); Local Convex Hull (LoCoH); and Kernel Density Estimation (KDE). Their results suggest that there is potential for an increase in the coming years, and they discussed the need to update the Recovery Plans, as it still does not include an area of about 8000 km2. Mihai Pop from Romania addressed some issues regarding the largest European brown bear population with the presen- tation “Mapping habitat conservation priorities for brown bears in the Romanian Carpathians”. A broad introduction to the recent hunting ban in Romania opened the presentation. Major political (and cultural) changes happened in the country in the last 3 decades, and the large carnivore population was affected in different ways. The trends have fluctuated heavily, partly due to a lack of science-based data. As a result of many concurrent reasons, from 2016 the Ministry of the Environment decided to stop hunting of large carnivores completely in Romania, de facto a social revolution for the Romanians. Mihai and colleagues tried thus to develop a framework for identifying habitat conservation priorities for the brown bears in the Romanian Carpathians. Using a comprehensive GPS telemetry dataset, they explored sex-specific seasonal home ranges and population-level habitat selection. To conclude, they proposed science-based actions, local scale involvement, and compre- hensive sharing of information for the public to promote the conservation of large carnivores in Romania. The last talk of the morning was by Slaven Reljić from Croatia, who presented “Measures for prevention brown bear vehicle collisions on Rickard-Zagreb motorway in Croatia as a part of the EU project LIFE DINALP BEAR”. Each year on the Rupa-Rijeka-Zagreb motorway in Croatia over 50 are involved in traffic accidents, of these, on average 3 are bears.

20 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports For this reason, within the LIFE project, several measures have been undertaken to reduce the risk of vehicle accidents while preserving the natural habitat and connectivity. Slaven explained the actions performed during the project to prevent the animals from entering the motorway, facilitate the animals that enter the motorway to leave it, and to decrease attractive- ness (i.e., trash) for bears and other animals to the highway. Several measurements have been taken in this regard and the results are more than encouraging, as not even a single bear has been killed since the implementation of described actions.

Session: Molecular in bear conservation and management Co-chairs: Marta De Barba and Tomaž Skrbinšek

Molecular genetic approaches have become an invaluable tool in bear conservation and management. The molecular toolbox available to researchers has expanded to include new techniques and statistical methods, and the 6 presentations in this session exemplify how this has enabled addressing a variety of research questions with increased efficiency and analyti- cal power. Bears are the most studied land carnivores of the world, yet their evolutionary history and how the environment influ- ences it are still unresolved matters. Carlos Luna Aranguré opened the session tackling this topic with a presentation titled “Exploring the role of past environmental change on the diversification patterns of Ursus bears”. Carlos and colleagues built a genetic and a geographic database from published literature and applied phylogeographic, ecological niche and models to explore the influence of the environment over the diversification patterns of the 4 extant species of the Ursus. Their results highlighted the relationship between the patterns of diversification and the climatic niche divergence for U. arctos and U. thibetanus. Andrea Borbon followed with her study on the impacts of captivity on the gut microbiota and the metabolic potential of Andean bears (Tremarctos ornatus), and the possible outcomes for bear’s health. Wild Andean bears’ gut microbiome is adapted and enriched with genes to degrade complex sugars present in their diet, but Andrea found that captivity reduced this ability and enriched pathogenic bacteria. Also, wild cubs raised in captivity developed a gut microbiome with a very low genetic diversity and lost most of the important bacteria for the metabolism of nutrients. Andrea explained how these results provide strong evidence for the need to improve diet schemes under captivity, in particular when re-introduc- tion to the wild environment is expected. Alexander Kopatz gave a clear example of the value for combining dif- ferent molecular marker types, presenting on a study for reconstructing the pedigree among identified brown bears in Northern Norway through the combined use of a validated genetic data set of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and microsatellite (STR) markers. Alex showed how, by combining data for these 2 marker types, the statistical power for assigning relationships increased substantially and likelihood ratios passed the desired threshold. In addition, his results supported the utiliza- tion of genetic information as a powerful tool to confirm and complement field observations, as it may extend family structures by inclusion of more individuals than known solely from observational data. Tomaž Skrbinšek presented on a large-scale transboundary DNA based mark-recapture study, illustrating the gain in efficiency by using new technologies. Laboratory robotics and high-throughput sequencing (HTS) were implemented to speed-up the analyses and decrease costs of large-scale noninvasive genotyping. Increased throughput and lower costs allowed for analysis in nine months, 4370 samples collected in collaboration with approx. 2500 volunteers over the entire bear range in Slovenia and Croatia, providing a population size estimate of 1392 bears in both countries. In addition to increased efficiency, Tomaž pointed out the benefit of an approach generating genotypes at the DNA sequence level (top) Co-chairs of the session Tomaž Skrbinšek (left) for ensuring data transferability between laboratories and continuously and Marta De Barba (right). Tomaž Skrbinšek also evolving DNA sequencing technologies. presented in this session. (bottom) Odbayar Tumen- Odbayar Tumendemberel then took us to southwestern Mongolia, demberel presenting on the population status of where she assessed the population status of the critically endangered Mongolian Gobi bears.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 21 Conference Reports Gobi bears (U. arctos) and evaluated the need and/or the effectiveness of conservation measures. To accomplish this, Odko and co-authors conducted 4 - 6 sampling sessions in 2009, 2013 and 2017 to obtain DNA-mark recapture population estimates. Total, approximately 2360 hair samples were collected and genotyped using 14 polymorphic microsatellite loci, providing population size estimates consistently as low as 31 (95% CI, 29-38) and estimates of sex ratio skewed toward males. Nonetheless, the reported population trend was encouraging, and results highlighted the importance to continue tracking individual bears, and monitor population size and reproduction over time using the non-invasive genetic method. Tabitha Graves and her colleagues evaluated how well estimates of trend in effective population size (Ne) track more intensive estimates of trend in northwestern Montana grizzly bears at 2 spatial scales, mountain brushtail possum, and brown antechinus. Results suggested that the value of Ne as an indicator of demographic population size (Nc) is limited in some cases, and that Fis (a measure of non-random mating in the population) may be a good indicator that the population was sampled at a spatial scale at which genetic structure is not biasing Ne estimates. Tabitha prompted an interesting and valuable initiative by inviting people to collaborate on a larger study to understand when Ne trend sufficiently tracks trends in bears. If we can learn when Ne can be used reliably to track trend, says Tabitha, this method would be a relatively inexpen- sive way to monitor the trend of bear populations. This session clearly highlighted the wide range of applications of molecular genetics approaches in bear conservation and management, including evolutionary studies, characterization of the microbiome, pedigree reconstruction, large-scale non- invasive mark recapture estimation and genetic monitoring. Overall this demonstrates that this is an active field in constant evolution, opening to new exciting research opportunities!

Monitoring Bears in Southeast Asia: Debrief of a Workshop in Ljubljana

Brian Crudge Dave Garshelis Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group Research Programme Manager, Free the Bears Minnesota Department of Natural Resources PO Box 723, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Southeast Asia contains some of the highest human population densities on the planet, which pose severe constraints on sun bears (Helartcos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) through habitat loss and hunting. Many bear populations exist in increasingly fragmented forest habitats surrounded by human-dominated landscapes. Conservation of bears in Southeast Asia will require action at every level – from site-specific interven- tions, to national action planning and range-wide strategies. Baseline population assessments and subsequent monitoring of bear populations is essential for assessing the impact of threats and to evaluate the success (or failure) of conservation interven- tions — both necessities for effective adaptive management. During the 26th International Conference on Bear Research and Management held in Ljubljana, Slovenia in September 2018, we convened a workshop to discuss the development of guidelines for monitoring bears in Southeast Asia. The workshop was attended by 30 participants, most of whom had some experience monitoring bears, using a variety of techniques; however, many were not aware of the issues specific to Southeast Asia. This provided a good basis for a lively intellectual exchange of ideas. The two-hour workshop opened with an overview of the methods typically applied to survey bears in Southeast Asia, specifically: bear sign transects; camera trapping; and villager interviews. Sign surveys are a simple and relatively rapid way of gauging presence of bears, their relative density and use of different habitats. Camera trapping, now extensively used in Southeast Asia to monitor other species or docu- ment changes in biodiversity, can yield estimates of bear occupancy and variables associated with occupancy; if baited camera sites are set specifically for bears, mark-resight estimates are obtainable by identifying individuals that stand and reveal Highlighted quote from Gibbs, Droege, distinctive chest markings. Village interviews are particularly useful in gaining infor- and (1998. Monitoring populations mation about population trends from the past to present, and what may be driving of plants and animals. BioScience 48: 935- those trends, as perceived by local people. Also considered were non-invasive hair 940) emphasizing the need for reliable sampling and radio-telemetry studies, which although standard practices in North population monitoring for conservation. America and Europe have not been used thus far to monitor bears in Southeast Asia.

22 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conference Reports The workshop then discussed each method in more detail, identifying the data outputs as well as the issues and constraints, such as expertise and effort required, sources of bias, and ability to distinguish between sympatric bear species (a particular issue to this region, where the 2 species overlap extensively). In order to conceptualize the application of the various methods, the second half of the workshop presented several hypothetical (but realistic) scenarios to the participants, opening a free-flowing dialogue about which method or suite of methods should be applied in a given situation. The scenarios varied from how to determine species distribu- tion and relative abundance for an entire country when there is little to no baseline data, to designing monitoring protocols for the future in an area where data already exist but seemingly better methods of monitoring are now available. The workshop outcomes will be used to create a decision tree to aid researchers in determining when they should use a particular method. One clear outcome of this workshop is that there are no obviously Global San Diego Zoo Davis, E. “best” monitoring procedures. Workshop on Monitoring Bears in Southeast Asia, The workshop session identified a number a key questions that will held at the 26th IBA conference in Ljubljana. Brian Crudge introduced the current and potential be important to address for future monitoring of bears in Southeast methods, working towards consistently- Asia. One was how to collect hair samples, which has proven difficult applied protocols across the region. for sun bears in particular. A suggested approach is to incite rubbing behavior with some kind of lure. Collection of hair from rub trees has been used successfully for genetic mark–recapture of temperate bear species (in places where they naturally rub); this would yield enormously more information about population size and structure than can be gained with the monitoring techniques currently employed in Southeast Asia. Hair snaring for sun bears has not been effective to date due to the difficulty in sampling their short sleek fur, and due to their apparent lack of rubbing on trees. A number of workshop participants questioned the utility of sign transects for monitoring bears going forward, due to uncertainty with regards to the precise relationship between bear sign density and population size, concerns regarding inter-observer variability in detection and classification of sign (to species and age), and advances in other techniques such as camera trapping and genetic sampling. Since bear sign surveys have been the most commonly applied method for surveying bear in Southeast Asia to date, it was concluded that research was required to elucidate the uncertainties before promoting or discontinuing use of this technique.

Acknowledgements We would like to that all participants of the workshop for their insights and contributions. Thanks to Elizabeth Davis, San Diego Zoo Global, for documenting the workshop discussions. And thanks to Wildlife Conservation Action, and International Association for Bear Research & Management Research & Conservation Grant for supporting this initiative. Student Activities at the Quito Conference Student Representative: Amy Macleod

Many students attended the IBA Conference in Ljubljana. There were at least 44 students from all over the world that gave oral or poster presentations at this conference and many more that attended without giving a presentation. For some it was their first poster or oral presentation at a conference, and for others it was their first at an IBA conference. The conference organizers awarded all but two of the travel grants to student presenters. As the student representative, I organized the judging of all the student oral and poster presentations, the student lunch, and the silent auction. Judges (non-students) evaluated 20 oral and 33 poster presentations. Many of the students gave excellent presentations but only the highest scoring oral and poster presentation received an award. It was my pleasure to give the Best Student Oral Presentation award to Brandon Prehn and the Best Student Poster Presentation award to Daniele DeAngelis during the clos- ing ceremony, both received a certificate and $100 (USD). You can read about the winners below and more about Brandon Prehn’s research on page 52 of this issue of the IBN, and Daniele DeAngelis’s research on page 54.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 23 Conference Reports Brandon Prehn: Best Student Oral Presentation Winner Brandon Prehn was raised in Dallas, , and attended Texas A&M University. His undergraduate experience was somewhat rough and he took a brief 3 year hiatus to join the US Army. He served as a light infantryman with the 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, New York. Interestingly enough, Brandon’s first remote sensing job was doing I.E.D./weapons cache denial using a handheld magnetometer/ground penetrat- ing radar system in Kandahar, . A bit of a (bad) jokester, he notes that the job was not quite remote enough, so he went to school and began studying forestry. After an internship at the Biospheric Sciences Lab at Goddard Space Flight Center, he began searching for a MSc program involved in remote sensing and biodiversity. His work with the Grizzly- project involves using LiDAR/ALS to explore the relation- ship between forest structure and the movements of bears in the Yellowhead area of Alberta, Canada. His wife, Christina, grew up down the street from him and together they enjoy traveling and learning about other cultures, as well as summer hiking and winter snowsports.

Daniele DeAngelis: Best Student Poster Presentation Winner Daniele obtained a bachelor degree in Ecobiology at Sapienza University of Rome, where he is currently a PhD student mentored by Dr. Paolo Ciucci and Prof. Josip Kusak (University of Zagreb). His research interests are focussed on better un- derstanding the interactions between humans and wildlife in the Anthropocene, with a focus on large carnivores and their spatial ecology. During his PhD, he is investigating the ecology and space-use patterns of brown bears in South-, in relation to both ecological and human-related factors. After his PhD he plans to keep doing research and to get involved in communicating science to

increase the general public’s awareness on conservation issues. He believes the Reljić Slaven latter can be as important as obtaining significant p-values!

Thank you to the members for your support of students at the conference and to conference attendees that took time to talk and network with students at the conference. The student lunch was held at the restaurant at the conference venue. Each table of 8-10 people included students and one or two IBA Council members (current and former) and the students were encouraged to ask the council members questions about their careers and experience on council. The Silent Auction was held during the evening and raised $2,462 EURO for the student activities fund which supports student activities (e.g., conference student lunch). I am so very thankful to all those that donated items and to those that bid at the silent auction. The auction is always a treat with many unique items from all over the world to bid on, and this year a donation of a radio collar by Vectronic aerospace was a great addition.

A new option for the students this conference was the opportunity to shadow a session chair. Students worked with a session chair to learn what is required for communication with session presenters, sitting on stage during the session, and writing up a summary of the session for this newsletter. Students that took part are listed as Student Co-Chair in the summaries above. Thank you to Jennapher Teunissen van Manen (IBA Secretary) for organizing this capacity building opportunity for students. Feedback from some of the students that shadowed session chairs was very positive and we plan to provide this opportunity at the next IBA conference. I am grateful for all the help from various students during all these student activities, and I am very thankful to all the judges that evaluated Student Andrea Corradini (right) shadows Djuro Huber all the student oral and poster presentations. Overall, the students had a (left) as he chairs the ‘Spatial Requirement and Demo- good time, showcased their research, learned a lot of new information, graphic Characteristics of Bear Populations’ session of and met lots of ‘bear’ people from all over the world. oral presentations.

24 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 IBA Membership News Start of the 30+ Club in Service to Bears

Dave Garshelis Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA Email: [email protected]

There comes a time in one’s career when the realization hits: you’ve been at it a long time! Unlike many other day jobs, being a bear biologist is something that people don’t just do, but “live”. There are many facets to this: the work itself is often fun; the scientific intrigue is stimulating; the management or conservation value feels useful and thus rewarding; bears are wonderful animals; and, as a bonus, we enjoy the camaraderie of our colleagues. As several of the colleagues in my cohort are retiring (although many still remaining active in bear research), it struck me that one of the things I valued most over my long career is them. There is truly something to be said about people you’ve frequently seen at conferences, corresponded with, authored papers with, and read papers from, watching their ideas germinate, data sets broaden, and impact of their work heighten. Unlike many other competitive fields, we actually for each other. Let’s admit it: we are a “club” of sorts. Before the names and faces of the longtime bear biologists fade away, I thought it would be useful to document, for posterity, who they are. As a start, we gathered all the people at the Ljubljana conference who had been working on bears for at least 30 years, and took a photo. We’ll never be able to get a group photo of all the people still living with 30+ years of experience on bears, but this is a start. The next steps are to: (1) continue to take group photos at each conference or get-together of those people in the “30+ club”; (2) compile a list of names of all those who reached this milestone (at least 30 years of bear work, not necessarily continuous), even if not available for a group photo; and (3) continuously add people as they reach this threshold. Any further ideas are welcome. If you’ve made it into the club, please send me your name and contact details, note your years of service to bears, and which species you have worked with. We can publish a list periodically in this newsletter.

30+ Club: The inaugural members of the 30+ Club (those who were present in Ljubljana) front row: Dave Garshelis, Djuro Huber, Jon Swenson, Claudio Groff; back row: Harry Reyn- olds, John Hechtel, Andy Derocher, Marty Obbard, Frank van Manen, Karen Noyce, Gordon Stenhouse. (Photo credit: Judy Garshelis)

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 25 IBA Grants Program News Crowdfunding Bear Stories – the Art of Asking Strangers for Help

Angeliki Savvantoglou PhD student, The University of the West of England Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Coldharbour Ln, Stoke Gifford, Bristol BS16 1QY Email: [email protected]

I will never forget the day my first ever bear-related scientific poster was accepted at the 24th IBA conference in Alaska. I don’t think anyone on a 2km radius from my house will forget either… I was so happy. I was a few months away from finish- ing my undergraduate degree, working on my dissertation, and I would get to print and hang that work next to the work of accomplished bear scientists from all around the world. For those who are just starting to introduce themselves in their field, this feeling of utter joy and equal terror must be very familiar. For those who might have been in the core of it all for so long the memory has started to fade, it feels like you have just inhaled while also breathing out, like your lungs just don’t know what to do with such an incredible stroke of luck. I will meet my heroes. My work will be seen by other bear scientists. When the first wave to excitement started to settle, I ran to my computer and started working out the logistics. It took about 5 minutes to realise that this trip would use up all my savings and most of my salary leading up to it. I’d have to feed on raisins for the rest of the year. I needed help. I had a meeting with my supervisor and explored every possible means of support at my university. I looked for travel grants for days, phoned various organisations, but it all came back to this small but important detail: travel grants are awarded to applicants further along in their career. No one wants to fund an under- graduate who is not yet committed to a specific career path when there are PhD students and other dedicated scientists that apply for the same pockets of money. I found this highly logical and hurtful. I was stubborn and full of optimism with the belief that if something is this important to you, you can make it work. I sat myself down and thought of the real reasons why it was important to me to attend the IBA conference and how this could be important for other young people starting their careers in conservation. The main reason I wanted to go was not the pre- sentations, or the networking opportunities. It was not even the possibility of my work being recognised. I was interested in the bear biologists and their stories. How did they get where they are now? What were the moments that defined their lives as bear biologists? The possibility of seeing that passion that fuelled their career made me want to travel to the other side of the world and surrender myself to the raisin diet. Somehow, automatically, the idea of making a short, interview-based video telling the stories of bear scientists became the main aim of my trip. Wait a minute! That is not a scientific reason at all. On what basis can I apply for travel grants when the reason I want to go is purely passion-driven? It was then when I thought that perhaps I was not the only one interested in bear stories. Even if no single organisation offered a travel grant tailored to this, perhaps a large number of individuals felt a strong enough connection to young researchers, bears, conservation and nature, and were willing to help. Crowdfunding is as simple as that. You put yourself, your ideas and your cause out there and hope it reaches people who want to support you. Some donate money, others share in social media - everything helps. It is a simple process but it requires a large amount of planning, honesty in where the funds will end up, bundles of enthusiasm, and the nerves to keep you sane as you sit there, staring at the countdown bar. My campaign lasted for a month and generated £3041 – about £500 over the amount I was asking for. This meant that I had enough money to cover myself and my dear friend Bert who was going to be in charge of the filming while I was doing the interviews. The week of the conference was one of the shortest weeks of my life. The conference was a crazy combination of mak- ing manic plans of who I should interview, running after attendees and asking them to talk to the camera, filming during breaks, and at the same time, trying not to miss some outstanding presentations or networking opportunities. In the end, it all worked out. Conferences are a great opportunity to meet new people in your field, network, initiate collaborations and catch up with friends. What I did not know then but know now, is that the IBA is an incredibly diverse and loving family. And what is more special is that, in this often-cold world of science, bear scientists are never scared to show their love and passion. I enjoyed every second of the interviews. I had fun learning to use complex editing software and putting my clips together to create an eight-minute video. Admittedly, the latter took a fair amount of time, but it was worth all the effort. The film is now online and can be found here: https://youtu.be/vdsayl-Qv70. As a final note, I would like to thank everyone involved. I have always been amazed how much conserva- tion has to do with people as opposed to animals and ecosystems. This entire crowdfunding campaign and the resultant film is a great example of how much everyone can do to help. Everyone can play a role in making a difference, from donating a small amount of money to support a cause we are passionate about, to actually running a campaign of our own. So thank you, great bear supporters around the world, and thank you bear biologists who braved the camera and shared your stories and passion with me.

26 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conservation Investigating a Population of Brown bear (Ursus arctos) in K2 Valley Karakoram Range of Northern Pakistan Ejaz ur Rehman1, Muhammad Shakil1, Fath ul Bari1, Tahir Mehmood1, Zubair Shah1, Muhammad Younus2 and Muhammad Ali Nawaz1,2,3,4 1 Department of Animal Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, 45320, Pakistan 2 Snow Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan 3Member: Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team, Bear Specialist Group 4Co-chair: South Asian Brown Bear Expert Team, Bear Specialist Group

Globally, the brown bear (Ursus arctos) is listed as least concerned. While the found in Northern Pakistan, the Himalayan brown bear (U. a. isabellinus), which represents an ancient lineage of the brown bear and is distributed over the Himalaya region, are declared as critically endangered in a national assessment facilitated by the IUCN Pakistan (Sheikh and Molur, 2004), yet information on their distribution and status is patchy. Threats to brown bear populations include habitat loss and fragmentation, and human-induced mortality (i.e., bear baiting, commercial poaching for the sale of bear parts like pelts and fats, capturing of bear cubs for sale to gypsies ,and competition with livestock over rare alpine pastures; Nawaz et al 2014; Sheikh and Molur, 2004; Nawaz, 2007). Our study area includes Basha and Braldu valleys (36.452371ON, 36.024926OE and 35.545308ON, 75.944354OE) in the Karakorum range of Northern Pakistan. The whole area is the core zone of Central Krakoram National Park (CKNP) and this terrain is characterized by narrow valleys and steep slopes and is considered one of the most rugged areas on earth. The K2 is the second highest mountain in the world, after Mount Everest, at 8611 m above sea level. It is surrounded by extensive glacier system (Baltoro being the most prominent), and accessed through a long valley of Braldu, which is known as the gateway to K2. Our major objectives were to: • Assess the status and distribution of brown bears using multiple methods; • Identify major survival threats to the brown bear population in the study area.

Map of Basha and Braldu valleys of CKNP.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 27 Conservation Human-carnivore interaction surveys Standardized human-carnivore conflicts surveys have been conducted at the household level with the help of experi- enced field staff. These surveys were conducted in the Basha valley during May, while in Braldu valley they were conducted in July. All necessary information like household size, sightings of brown bear, number of livestock owned, livestock killed in 5 years were collected. Other information like community perception about bears, and attitude towards wildlife was also noted. In 23 villages, 220 respondents were surveyed.

Camera trapping Camera trapping was conducted with scent stations in Basha valley during the period of May–July 2017. Thirty ReconyxTM (HC500 HyperfireTM and PC900 HyperfireTM) cameras were installed in different watersheds of the valley. The cameras were active for 1347 trap nights. Lures consisted of castor and fish oil. The study area was divided into different blocks of unequal size demarcated by natural watershed.

(left) Setting up camera traps in the field by Muhammad Shakil. (center) Group photo of team during camera installation: from left to right Tahir Mehmood, Zubair Shah, Fathul Bari, Ejaz ur Rehman, Muhammad Shakil, Sanaullah, Basharat). (right) Photo of Brown bear captured at camera station. (left & center photo credit Muhammad Younas) Sign survey Site occupancy surveys (MacKenzie and Nichols, 2004) were conducted in May-July 2017, to assess the occupancy of brown bear in Basha and Braldu valleys of the Shigher district. In both valleys, surveys revealed the presence of variety of carnivores including (Panthera uncia), brown bear, grey wolf (Canis lupus), stone (Martes foina), (Mustela spp.) and red ( vulpes), later confirmed by the results from camera trapping. Brown bear signs were limited to the Braldu valley (Biafo glacier watershed) while in the Basha valley, only few signs were found that were insuf- ficient for any statistical analysis.

Status of brown bears by sightings of local people Locals were interviewed about sightings of bears and other carnivores. Almost all species were sighted at diverse loca- tions with varying frequencies. Based on public opinion, annual sighting rate was highest for grey wolf (2.8), followed by snow leopard (0.50). The least sighted species recorded were lynx (Lynx lynx isabellinus) (0.14) and brown bear (0.07) respectively. Brown bear and lynx were declared absent by 82% and 50% respondents, respectively. Snow leopard and lynx were considered rare by 88% and 50% of the respondent, respectively. Grey wolf and brown bear were listed rare according to 21% and 17% of respondents, respectively.

Status of Brown bears by camera traps Thirty cameras were installed in different watersheds of the valley, and remained active for a total of 1347 trap nights. A total of 116793 photos were captured. Six carnivores’ species belonging to four families (i.e., , Ursidae, , and ) were photographed. A brown bear was photo-captured at a single camera station, with only two photographic records and the percentage for this species was recorded 0.07%, which was insufficient for further analysis.

28 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conservation Human attitudes and perception There were diverse views about perceived danger from carnivores for livestock. The intensity of danger was categorized into 5 ranks (1-5); rank 1 was assigned to least dangerous species while rank 5 was allotted for most dangerous species. About 80% of people had no idea about the perceived danger of brown bears, while the grey wolf was considered most dangerous by 80% respondents. Being the major predator of livestock, respondents had extremely negative views of ; 90% had negative perception about them. Albeit snow leopard livestock dep- redation was a problem, still more than half of the respon- dents were accepting for it. The majority of people shared no view about brown bear and Perception of respondents about carnivores in Basha and Braldu valleys of CKNP. lynx.

Conclusion and recommendations Camera trapping confirmed the presence of brown bears, which was further concluded from sighting reports and the negative perception towards the species. Further extensive study should be conducted in multiple seasons to determine the status of the brown bear and there should be an effective plan to control grazing and competition between livestock and brown bears.

Acknowledgements We are extremely thankful to the International Bear Association for providing funds, which made all this study possible. We owe a debt to Snow Leopard Foundation and Norwegian University of Life Sciences who provided trail cameras. We are grateful to the Parks and Wildlife Department, Gilgit and its staff for their support during this study.

Literature Cited MacKenzie, D. I. and J. D. Nichols. 2004. Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance estimation. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation. 27(1): 461-467. Nawaz, M. A. 2007. Status of the brown bear in Pakistan. Ursus, 89-100. Roberts, T.J. 1997. of Pakistan. Revised Edition. Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan. University of Ne- braska–Lincoln., pp.71-78. Sheikh, K., Molur, S. 2004. (Eds.) Status and red list of Pakistan’s mammals, Based on the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan. IUCN Pakistan.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 29 Conservation Rehabilitation of the Andean Bear in Venezuela and the Strategic Alliances with Rural Communities in the Release Process

Felipe Pereira Palacios Director of Biocontacto Mérida, Venezuela. Phone: +58 416 5029117 Email: [email protected]

The efforts of the Biocontacto foundation for the conservation of the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in Venezuela began in 2004 with the ex-situ work carried out in the Chorros de Milla Zoo in the city of Mérida. Casuistry of Appearance The casuistry of appearances of The casuistry of bear apperances in the Merida mountain range from 2004 -2016. bears between 2004 and 2015 in the Year of Sex Location Report Type Age of the Current Mérida mountain range, whether due to Appearance Specimen Location confiscations or conflict situations, was 2004 0.1.0 Barinas Confiscation Juvenile DECEASED almost 1 bear per year. Two of these were rehabilitated and released into the wild, 6 2006 1.1.0 Táchira Confiscation Juvenile ZOO were kept in , and 1 died hours after 2007 1.0.0 Mérida Conflict Adult RELEASED being confiscated. 2013 0.1.0 Mérida Confiscation Cub ZOO 2014 0.1.0 Mérida Confiscation Juvenile ZOO Release and Monitoring 2015 1.0.0 Lara Conflict Adult ZOO The sightings of bears and traces of activity were distributed across the 2016 0.1.0 Mérida Confiscation Juvenile RELEASED year, during 2 significant periods and in Source: Felipe Pereira 2018

Source: Image SENTINEL S2A_T19PBK_N02_01_01_2017. Radio data field monitoring 2017-2018. DATUM: SIRGAS_REGVEN. Proyeccion Universal Transversa de Mercator. UTM-WGS84. Authors: Felipe Pereira, Dulce Benavides y José Rivas Map of place of release and mobility monitoring.

30 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conservation

(left) Air transfer. (center & right) “Patty” at the release location. Photo credits: Gabriel Lacruz.

2 defined altitudinal levels of the Merida mountain range in the study area Páramo Los Conejos. They are defined by the months of March and August in the transition between the cloud forest and the páramo (2200 m - 3500 m) coinciding with the flowering of the “Piñuela” (Puya sp.). Also, during the months of September to November they show high activity, with the most recent sightings of juveniles, adult males and females with offspring, occurring in the forest (1500 m -1800 m) coinciding with the flowering of the “Cinaro” (Psidium caudatum). There are 2 release and monitoring experiences documented in the Páramo de los Conejos. The first one in 2008 was an adult male called “Cinaro”, which was translocated because of human-bear conflict and was monitored with no tracking technology but the use of a tagging technique and community support. Using these methods, it was possible to verify that this individual, who at the time was an old animal, perhaps more than 15 years old, stayed within an area of less than 10 km2 in a period of 6 months. The second release and monitoring experience used radio-collar to track a female named Patty over a one year period in the same study area beginning in March 2017. We determined that the displacement area of of the specimen was within the 16 km2 that Goldstein and Castellanos (2015) suggests, however, depending on the food disposition through the different seasons of the year this displacement can increase considerably.

Community Work Community work is fundamental to the success of conserva- tion projects for any species. The bear does not escape this reality and in the case of released bears, the support of the community for the work of monitoring and safeguarding them was crucial. Currently, the communities of the páramo go through difficulties that can vary from the theft of or their predation by feral dogs, and sometimes it is the bear to whom these losses are attributed. It is necessary to continue to advise communities, for the reproductive control of , the sanitary control of livestock that are in direct contact with bears, and the control of feral dogs using techniques that do not affect other wildlife such as the

poisoning of the carcasses. Gabriel Lacruz Felipe Pereira, Elvis Albornoz, Pedro Gavidia, César López and Discussion and Conclusions children from the community of “Las Gonzalez” • Livestock represents the main source of livelihood in the area, therefore strategic alliances with the community is an important point to be addressed. (Sanitary control, control of predation by introduced species and cattle rustling). • The mechanisms of reproductive control of pets, eradication of introduced species and feral dogs that attack live- stock in the area, is an important consideration for the survival of the species. • There is a misconception about the behavior of the bear as a potential predator, and a lack of real knowledge about the species, which requires modifying its conception as a dangerous animal. • The different sightings throughout the study area together with the seasonal sightings, according to the availability

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 31 Conservation of food, suggest that the movement of males and females may be increasing. • The contact of the bear within conflict areas (livestock grazing activities), increases the risk and predisposition to infectious diseases derived from poor sanitary control of the herd. • The training of members of the community and their active participation in conservation programs, provide an implicit gain in the conservation of the bear, where both parties will benefit in dispute litigation.

There are 84 communities between the Sierra and Sierra La Culata (Merida Mountain Range) in which it is estimated that there is greater pressure from anthropogenic activities on the ecosystem. This will increase progressively over time. The accu- mulated experience to date by the NGO Biocontacto in Venezuela, will allow us to create the basis to establish legal frameworks and protocols for the capture, management, rehabilitation and libera- tion of the Andean Bear, in order to diminish and effectively solve human-bear conflicts in the state of Merida, Venezuela. The scope of this project is to replicate the activities in the communities mentioned, in order to establish a conservation plan for the Andean Bear for the state of Merida, while considering the

influence of population centers in the ecosystems they occupy. Gabriel Lacruz This project can be extrapolated to all these communities. Felipe Pereira, Sergio Santiago and Dario Santiago; in post – release monitoring activities Literature Cited Beecham J, (2006). Orphan bear cubs. Rehabilitation and release guidelines. Funded by The World Society for the Protec- tion of Animals WSPA. Goldstein, I., S. Paisley, R. Wallace, J. Jorgenson, F. Cuesta and A. Castellano. 2006. Andean bear-livestock conflicts: a review. Ursus 17(1):8-15. Goldstein, I., X. Velez-Liendo, S. Paisley and D. Garshelis (IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group).2008. Tremarctos ornatus. The IUCN Red List of . Accessed 1 October 2017 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS. T22066A9355162.en) Grupo Ad Hoc de Especialistas en Oso Frontino Venezuela (GEOF-Venezuela). 1994. Plan de Acción para la Conservación del Oso Andino (Tremarctos ornatus) en Venezuela. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2008. Tremarctos ornatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Spe- cies. Version 2017-2. Accessed 27 September 2017 (http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=22066). IUCN/SSC (2013). Directrices para la reintroducción y otras translocaciones para fines de conservación. Versión 1.0. Gland, Suiza: UICN Species Survival Commission, viiii +57pp. Lamas M. and F. Pereira. 2008. Captura, cuarentena y liberacion del oso andino. (Tremarctos ornatus) II Simposio Internacional del Oso Andino, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia. Márquez, R. and I. Goldstein. 2014. Guía para el diagnóstico del paisaje de conflicto oso-gente. Conservation Society. Colombia. Rodríguez, J. P. and F. Rojas-Suárez. Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. 3rd edition. PROVITA.

32 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conservation Sun Bear Conservation Action Plan Implementation Update

Brian Crudge Matt Hunt Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair, Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Research Programme Manager, Free the Bears Group PO Box 723, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Chief Executive, Free the Bears Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Caroline Lees Dave Garshelis Program Officer, IUCN SSC CPSG Co-Chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-convenor, CPSG Australasia Branch, IUCN SSC Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Planning Specialist Group Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

In September 2017 a hundred stakeholders gathered in Kuala Lumpur, , for the 1st International Symposium on Sun Bear Conservation & Management. The symposium was immediately followed by a conservation planning workshop facilitated by the IUCN/SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group (CPSG) (Crudge 2017, Garshelis and Steinmetz 2017). Throughout 2018 a small team of editors combined the outputs of the symposium, planning workshop and reviewer com- ments to create the first rangewide conservation action plan for the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus), which includes both in-situ and ex-situ populations, and links between them (Crudge et al. 2018). The plan describes 20 objectives and 60 priority actions to be implemented over the next 10 years in order to work towards the 25-year vision and goals for sun bear conservation.

Vision Sun bears thrive as a functional component of all natural ecosystems in which they occur in each of the eleven range countries. Human societies coexist with wild sun bears throughout the range with political and cultural appreciation of their intrinsic value as living beings. Wild sun bear populations are no longer threatened. Captive sun bears are maintained under high welfare standards and contribute to conservation through advocacy, education, research, and where appropriate, release back to the wild. Conservation of sun bears aids in the conservation of other species and ecosystems in Southeast Asia.

Goals 1. Eliminate illegal exploitation of sun bears. 2. Protect and restore sun bear habitats and populations across the species’ natural range. 3. Devise and employ methods to reliably monitor trends in sun bear populations. 4. Maximise the contribution of ex-situ sun bear populations to conservation. 5. Raise the profile and awareness of sun bears and their conservation needs.

The implementation of actions in this plan will be monitored and coordinated by an Implementation Task Force comprised of Focal Point persons for each range state and each of the 5 goals. The Focal Points will serve as contacts for anyone con- ducting or wishing to conduct recommended actions within range states or working group themes. The Focal Points will report annually to the Action Plan Implementation Coordinator for the duration of the action plan (2019–2028). This process is aimed at ensuring communication and coordination to efficiently use resources and maximise outputs. The Implementation Coordinator will be recruited from within the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group’s Sun Bear Expert Team, which has a mandate to coordinate global sun bear conservation. The coordinator will serve a term coinciding with that of the Specialist Group membership and will report the Bears Crudge/Free B. annually to the Bear Specialist Group Co-chair(s). An imple- Malayan sun bear in a semi-natural enclosure.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 33 Conservation mentation progress report will be submitted annually by the Implementation Coordinator for publication in the winter issue of Interna- tional Bear News. The role of Implementation Coordinator for the first term (until 2020) is being filled by Brian Crudge (sunbearaction- [email protected]), reporting to BSG Co-chairs, Dave Garshelis and Rob Steinmetz. The various actions in the plan relate to both wild and captive sun bears and will be implemented by a wide range of people and organisations, including students, university departments and researchers, government departments, and non-governmental organ- isations. The Implementation Task Force will act as a central hub for this diverse array of activities, keeping track of current and past projects conducted under the umbrella of the action plan. People and organisations carrying out projects and actions are encouraged to notify and communicate their progress to the Implementation Task Force. The Sun Bear Expert Team has representatives in most sun bear range countries, and these representa- tives along with other Focal Points will be responsible for monitoring and maintaining communication with projects occurring in their respective countries. At the time of writing, the action plan document is in the final stages of produc- tion. Once complete it will be available to download from the Free the Bears, BSG, and CPSG websites. The IUCN/SSC is committed to developing Conservation Action Plans for all 23,000 Threatened species on the Red List. In partnership with the IUCN/SSC, National Geographic Society recently launched a new Structure of the sun bear action plan implementation task force for 2018–2020 program to provide funding to halt further (reproduced from Crudge et al. 2018). biodiversity decline by implementing species conservation plans for species and groups of species (see: www.nationalgeographic.org/grants/grant-opportunities/species-recovery/). One such grant was awarded in 2018 for research into motivations for hunting sun bears, one of the priority actions in the plan. There are many other priori- ties identified for sun bear conservation and so it is our hope that this Action Plan will serve as a catalyst for further interest in sun bear conservation and will aid all stakeholders in ensuring that their work contributes to a truly global effort aimed at reversing the decline of the world’s smallest bear species.

Literature Cited Crudge, B. 2017. Shining a light on sun bears. International Bear News 26(3): 34–35. Garshelis, D., and R. Steinmetz. 2017. The world’s least known bear species gets its day in the sun. International Bear News 26(3): 5-6. Crudge, B., C. Lees, M. Hunt, R. Steinmetz, G. Fredriksson, and D. Garshelis. 2018 (in prep). Status review and rangewide conservation action plan for sun bears, 2019–2028. IUCN/ SSC Bear Specialist Group, Free the Bears, TRAFFIC.

34 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Conservation If You Build It They Will Come: Black Bear Dens on Vancouver Island

Helen Davis, MSc, RPBio Artemis Wildlife Consultants 1-1096 Stoba Lane, Victoria, BC, Canada V8X 2W5 Email: [email protected]

A project aimed at increasing the supply of black bear (Ursus americanus) dens on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada us- ing a new and innovative approach has been underway for the last 5 years. The project is attempting to create black bear dens using existing forest structures (e.g., hollow trees and stumps) and artifi- cial structures in areas where past forest harvesting has reduced the number of large trees needed by bears for denning. Black bears in coastal BC typically only use cavities in and under large trees because these are the only spots that keep them warm and dry during the cool and wet winter weather. Black bears use these dens for 3-6 months during which time females give birth to cubs. Generations of bears often re-use the same den. The team, led by Helen Davis of Artemis Wildlife Consultants, worked to create potential bear dens in large hollow cedar trees by cutting a bear-sized entrance into the base of the tree. They also turned 4 large hollow stumps into potential dens by covering the top and creating an entry for bears. In addition to enhancing natural structures, the team installed 13 artificial black bear dens made of plastic that simulate naturally-occurring den structures. Davis included placing a bit of vegetation and bear hair in all the cavities to make it seem “more like home” to bears when they investigated the structures. Davis has been monitoring the “new” dens with motion-sensitive video cameras and was excited to document the first use of one of the structures by a bear over this past winter (2017-18). Davis and her technician created the den in 2015 by finding a large, hollow western red cedar stump, cutting an entrance into the cavity and (top) Bear at entrance of den created in cedar stump. capping the stump with plywood. The bear that used the den can (bottom) Bedding inside den after use by bear. be seen moving and digging inside the den and pulling piles of Photo credits: Helen Davis. vegetation into the den to create its “” (see video: https://youtu.be/O_dxaZYBC6Q). It is unknown what sex the bear is, but it first appeared at the den at the end of November 2017. Black bear dens are not protected by regulation on Vancouver Island or the south coast of BC, unlike other areas of BC (i.e., Haida Gwaii, Great Bear ). However, forest companies may take the initiative to conserve dens that are found prior to logging. The structures were installed and created on land owned by TimberWest Forest Corp and on Crown land managed by the Queesto Community Forest and BC Timber Sales. The project is currently funded by TimberWest Forest Corp and BC Timber Sales. Natural and artificial structures will continue to be monitored for use by Davis in the coming years.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 35 Illegal Trade Towards Establishing Efficient Protection Against Poaching for Sun Bears

Roshan Guharajan Peter M. Lagan Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Siew Te Wong Email: [email protected] Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Bornean Sun Bear Conservation Centre, Sabah, Malaysia Azrie Petrus Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, David L. Garshelis Germany Co-chair, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota, USA Andreas Wilting Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Gopalasamy Reuben Clements Germany Sunway University, Selangor, Malaysia Rimba, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Robert C. Ong Kim Leong Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia Wai-Ming Wong Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Indra Purwandita Herry Sunjoto Panthera, New York, USA Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia

Johnny Kissing Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia

Sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) in Borneo are threatened by habitat loss and degradation as well as illegal hunting. Apart from the large scale forest conversion to agricultural use (e.g., oil palm) logging is one of the primary drivers of habitat loss and degradation. Logging also creates roads, which increases access to poachers. However, previous studies have shown that sun bears are indeed adaptable and can survive in some types of logged and degraded forests (Wong et al. 2002, 2004; Wong and Linkie 2013; Yue et al. 2015; Guharajan et al. 2017; Wearn et al. 2017) . Given that so much of sun bear habitat on Borneo is logged to various degrees, the conservation of this species is largely dependent on controlling poaching. A recent comprehensive study of Bornean (Pongo pygmaeus), which share these habitats with sun bears, showed that poaching, not habitat per se, is the prime driver of population decline (Voigt et al. 2018). The aim of our work is to examine the prevalence of poaching and find ways to alleviate it. We are working within Deramakot Forest Reserve (Deramakot; 117.42924, 5.36803) and Tangkulap Forest Complex (Tang- kulap; 117.23178, 5.45651) in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. These areas are within a large region of relatively contiguous forest in central Borneo. The Sabah Forestry Department is responsible for these forests, and invests large amounts of resources into their management. As such, both Deramakot and Tangkulap are currently certified as well-managed under the Forest Stewardship Council scheme. Tangkulap was selectively logged up untill 2001, and is now a protected area comprised of 3 different forest reserves: Tangkulap, Sungai Talibu, and Timbah. Deramakot is a production forest where reduced-impact- logging guidelines are practised. Sun bears have been documented in both these forests from previous camera trapping surveys (Sollmann et al. 2017), alongside a Sunda pangolins (Manis javanica), banteng (Bos javanicus), and Sunda clouded ( diardi). The management practices used in these forests have not shown any obvious adverse effects on wildlife. Poaching, though, remains a threat to sun bears in this landscape, as evidenced by the discovery of a poaching camp with sun bear carcasses in 2015. This highlights the need for a comprehensive anti-poaching plan. The first step is to deploy people on the ground and collect baseline information on spatial and temporal patterns of poaching. The Sabah Forestry Department conducts vehicle patrols on roads within Deramakot and Tangkulap. However, it is likely that poachers enter on foot, making their detection difficult. Given this, the wildlife monitoring team from the Leibniz Insti- tute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and the Sabah Forestry Department began carrying out foot patrols in both Deramakot and Tangkulap beginning in January 2017. We focused patrols along ridgelines, riverbeds, and unused logging roads. From January 2017 to July 2018, funded in part by an IBA grant, we detected 621 incidents of poaching activity (0.81 poaching sign/km). Signs of poaching included rubbish, cut trails, spent cartridges, snares, and camps. The low number

36 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Illegal Trade

Deramakot Forest Reserve and Tangkulap Forest Complex and their location on the island of Borneo (inset).

of snares encountered (n=6) indicate this method is not widely used by poachers here, as opposed to elsewhere across Southeast Asia. The camps we identified generally seem to be used by 3-6 people and were either longer term base camps (with repeated use) or short term resting areas (typically single use). We distinguished these different camps based on the amount of rubbish left behind. Our patrols revealed 2 types of poachers: short-term poachers and people illegally cutting agarwood, which is locally known as gaharu. Gaharu is a resinous, fragrant wood used to make incense, perfumes and small carvings, created when a mould infests trees of the genus Aquilaria. Short-term poachers stayed close to roads and left the forest after one night (evi- denced by their tracks), usually seeking ungulates for either personal consumption or commercial purposes. On the other hand, gaharu poachers travelled in groups and spent lengthy periods in the forest, searching for gaharu and taking any commercially valuable wildlife (including sun bears). Gaharu poachers travelled over long distances (because the targeted trees were widely dispersed) and were especially difficult to track.

(left) Patrol team consisting of Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and Sabah Forestry Department personnel. (center) A poaching camp and (right) rubbish left behind by poachers.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 37 Illegal Trade Although we have not managed to cover the entire landscape, we believe we have learned enough to demonstrate the importance of these foot patrols in detecting and understanding poaching activity. We are now setting up covert camera traps to document individual poachers in known entry points identified from our patrols. We have started to receive photos of poachers, allowing us to begin building a database of offenders and document their activity patterns. In parallel to patrolling, we are also conducting camera trapping surveys of wildlife, to understand gradients in species distribution related to habitat quality and poaching. In the near future, this will enable us to examine the effects of poaching pressure on sun bear distribution. Establishing effective site protection for sun bears and other species that share its habitat is time consuming and chal- lenging, due to funding limitations, manpower shortages, difficult terrain, and the knowledge and skills of the poachers in evading detection. A pragmatic approach to conservation in this region dictates that we view logged forests as viable sun bear habitat, but only if poaching can be controlled. If we are to counter poaching in such forests, we need to urgently understand how and where poachers operate (Lam 2017), and what drives them.

Acknowledgements We thank the IBA and the donor of the Tropical Bear Research and Conservation Grant 2017 that has allowed us to conduct this project.

Literature Cited Guharajan, R., N.K. Abram, M.A. Magguna, B. Goossens, S.T. Wong, S.K.S.S. Nathan, and D. Garshelis. 2017. Does the vulner- able sun bear Helarctos malayanus damage crops and threaten people in oil palm plantations? Oryx: 1–9. Lam, W.Y., 2017. Where and when are poachers most active in Kenyir’s forests? Using crime science and wildlife research techniques to detect spatiotemporal patterns in poaching. MSc thesis. Universiti Malaysia Terengganu. Sollmann, R., A. Mohamed, J. Niedballa, J. Bender, L. Ambu, P. Lagan, S. Mannan, R.C. Ong, A. Langner, B. Gardner, and A. Wilting. 2017. Quantifying mammal biodiversity co-benefits in certified tropical forests. Diversity and Distributions 23: 317–328. Voigt, M., S.A. Wich, M. Ancrenaz, E. Meijaard, N. Abram, G.L. Banes, G. Campbell-Smith, L.J. d’Arcy, R.A. Delgado, A. Erman, D. Gaveau, B. Goossens, S. Heinicke, M. Houghton, S.J. Husson, A. Leiman, K.L. Sanchez, N. Makinuddin, A.J. Marshall, A. Meididit, J. Miettinen, R. Mundry, Musnanda, Nardiyono, A. Nurcahyo, K. Odom, A. Panda, D. Prasetyo, A. Priadjati, Purnomo, A. Rafiastanto, A.E. Russon, T. Santika, J. Sihite, S. Spehar, M. Struebig, E. Sulbaran-Romero, A. Tjiu, J. Wells, K.A. Wilson, and H.S. Kühl. 2018. Global demand for natural resources eliminated more than 100,000 Bornean orangutans. Current Biology 28: 761–769.e5. Wearn, O.R., J.M. Rowcliffe, C. Carbone, M. Pfeifer, H. Bernard, and R.M. Ewers. 2017. Mammalian species abundance across a gradient of tropical land-use intensity: a hierarchical multi-species modelling approach. Biological Conservation 212: 162–171. Wong, S.T., C.W. Servheen, and L. Ambu. 2004. Home range, movement and activity patterns, and bedding sites of Malayan sun bears Helarctos malayanus in the rainforest of Borneo. Biological Conservation 119: 169–181. Wong, S.T., C.W. Servheen, and L. Ambu. 2002. Food habits of Malayan sun bears in lowland tropical forests of Borneo. Ursus 13: 127–136. Wong, W.-M. and M. Linkie. 2013. Managing sun bears in a changing tropical landscape. Diversity and Distributions 19: 700–709. Yue, S., J.F. Brodie, E.F. Zipkin, and H. Bernard. 2015. Oil palm plantations fail to support mammal diversity. Ecological Applications 25: 2285–2292.

38 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Human-Bear Conflicts Brown Bear Behavior in the Human-Modified Landscapes of (NW Spain)

Vincenzo Penteriani IBA member, Ursus Associate Editor Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (IPE), CSIC, Spain Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo University, Spain Email: [email protected]; webpage: www.cantabrianbrownbear.org

Alejandra Zarzo-Arias Carlos Romo Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo C/Monroy 35-41, 2, 2ºC Salamanca, 37002 Salamanca, Spain University, Spain Pablo Vázquez García Andrés Ordiz Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource University of Valencia, Spain Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway Giulia Bombieri Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo María del Mar Delgado University, Spain Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo University, Spain Chiara Bettega Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo Juan Díaz García University, Spain Asturian Bear Team, Principado de , Oviedo, Spain Luca Russo David Cañedo Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo Asturian Bear Team, Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain University, Spain

Manuel A. González Pedro Cabral Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Department of Biology, School of Sciences and Technology, Alberta, Canada University of Évora,

The current large carnivore recolonization of parts of their historical range in Europe (Chapron et al. 2014) is bringing wild animal populations closer to humans, in areas where habitats are fragmented and encroached on by human settlements, roads and a variety of human activities. This close coexistence of large carnivores and humans has the potential to produce human-driven disturbances that can affect species behavior (Gaynor et al. 2018). The current expansion of brown bears Ursus arctos in human-modified landscapes demands an improvement of our knowledge on how this species manages to coexist with humans, and what potential effects human presence and activities may have on bear behavior. Sharing the landscape with humans may be costly, and thus bear conservation and manage- ment strategies should take into account potential behavioral alterations related to living in human-modified landscapes. Brown bears in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain) represent an example of an endangered, small and isolated bear population in human-modified landscapes, where human activities and presence might cause stress to bears and, conse- quently, alter their behavior. Additionally, brown bear viewing is nowadays a common practice in the Cantabrian Mountains (Ruiz-Villar et al. submitted; Penteriani et al. 2017). Thanks to the IBA grant RG_16_2016, we studied brown bear behavior by analyzing 3132 videos (78.5 hours of observed behaviors recorded by the digiscoping technique; 167 adult bears, 42 subadults and 112 females with cubs) with the free software BORIS (http://www.boris.unito.it/pages/download.html) during a 10-year period (2008-2017). We explored potential factors that may cause the appearance of vigilance/alert behaviors, as a proxy of human disturbance, as well as the duration of such behaviors (Zarzo-Arias et al., submitted). We considered that bears were exhibiting vigilance behavior when they were: (1) sniffing the air; (2) exploring their surroundings by intensively looking around; and (3) focusing attention in a given direction. Then, we analyzed the time bears dedicated to different behaviors, namely feeding, resting, mating, and nursing cubs, in relation to the human and natural characteristics of the landscape they inhabit. Specific characteristics of individuals, such as fur marks, color and body morphology, allowed identification of some individuals over the years (Higashide et al. 2012). Beyond the fact that it was not possible to observe bears during the night, we consider that diurnal

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 39 Human-Bear Conflicts

The locations (purple dots) of the 3132 videos (78.5 hours in total) of different brown bear behaviors (167 adults, 42 subadults and 112 females with cubs), within the population distribution (green shape) in the Cantabrian Mountains (north-western Spain). observations are best to detect bear reactions to humans because that is the time when humans are active, and there is greater potential for bear and human overlap. Each video was also classified seasonally, on the basis of the main bear cycle in the Cantabrian Mountains, i.e., (January to mid-April), mating (mid-April to June) and hyperphagia (July to December). In the Cantabrian Mountains, not all bears hibernate every year and hibernation may be relatively short, and thus several observations were also recorded in winter. The location of each video-recorded bear was also used to analyze the characteristics of the human and natural environment surrounding bear behavior. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to explore whether (a) the appearance of the vigilance behavior and (b) the time bears spent alert (vigilance behavior duration) depended on the proximity of different human structures (human settlements, roads, trails and bear tourism viewing points) or habitat types (forest, open habitat and shrubland). Main results showed that: (1) the bear class had a significant effect, with adult bears displaying less vigilance than subadults

Distribution of vigilance behavior duration (in sec) among the different bear classes (adults, subadults, and females with cubs) in each season (hibernation, mating, and hyperphagia).

40 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Human-Bear Conflicts and females with cubs; (2) the appearance of vigilance behavior was not modulated by any of the human elements and habitat variables we considered in our analyses; and (3) vigilance behaviors lasted slightly less during hyperphagia, when bears focus on feeding prior to hibernation and cubs are no longer at risk of infanticide. Thus, as an end conclusion, neither the ap- pearance nor the duration of vigilance behavior in Cantabrian brown bears seemed to be influenced by the closeness of any of the human structures and activities that we took into account in this study. Additionally, during the mating season, when the need to protect offspring is crucial due to the high risk of infanticide, females with cubs spend somewhat more time on vigilance behaviors compared to other seasons. Then, alert Penteriani Vincenzo behaviors of females with cubs may reflect the potential risk A female brown bear in a human-modified landscape of driven by males rather than by humans and their activities. Cantabrian Mountains (Picture Vincenzo Penteriani) In the Cantabrian Mountains, illegal poaching has declined in recent decades, resulting in the positive trends exhibited by this population (Gonzalez et al. 2016). Lower rates of human-induced mortality in recent times might have improved bear-to-human tolerance, as may have happened in other populations where bears are not persecuted (Smith et al. 2005). Brown bears have largely coexisted with humans in Europe, including northern Spain. If the positive trend persists, brown bears would have to expand into even more encroached landscapes in the Cantabrian Mountains (Zarzo-Arias et al., submitted). Human activities and infrastructure do not seem to provoke critical behavioral responses in the brown bears of the Cantabrian Mountains, but physiological reactions of bears to human presence, i.e., stress responses, should also be investigated, because they do not necessarily need to manifest visible behavioral changes and can have a cost on disturbed animals (Støen et al. 2015). Certain levels of tolerance from both humans and large carnivores, which are reflected in behav- ioral patterns, seem crucial to facilitate persistence and eventual recovery of bears in human-modified landscapes, even where human encroachment is high.

Acknowledgements We thank the Administrations of the Gobierno del Principado de Asturias and the Junta de Castilla y León for providing the authorizations for the field work. This research was financially supported by the IBA grant project IBA-RG_16_2016 ‘Brown bear behavior in human-dominated landscapes: the effect of human density and ecotourism’.

Literature Cited Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andren, J. V. Lopez-Bao, et al. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519. Gaynor, K. M., C. E. Hojnowski, N. H. Carter, and J. S. Brashares. 2018. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife . Science 360:1232–1235. Gonzalez, E. G., J. C. Blanco, F. Ballesteros, L. Alcaraz, G. Palomero, and I. Doadrio. 2016. Genetic and demographic recov- ery of an isolated population of brown bear Ursus arctos L., 1758. PeerJ 4:e1928. Higashide, D., S. Miura, and H. Miguchi. 2012. Are chest marks unique to Asiatic black bear individuals? Journal of Zoology 288:199–206. Penteriani, V., J. V. López-Bao, C. Bettega, F. Dalerum, M. del M. Delgado, K. Jerina, I. Kojola, et al. 2017. Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism: A review. Biological Conservation 206:169–180. Ruiz-Villar, H., A. Morales-González, G. Bombieri, A. Zarzo-Arias, and V. Penteriani. Submitted. Characterization of a brown bear aggregation during the hyperphagia period in the Cantabrian Mountains, NW Spain. Smith, T. S., S. Herrero, and T. D. DeBruyn. 2005. Alaskan brown bears, humans, and habituation. Ursus 16:1–10. Støen, O. G., A. Ordiz, A. L. Evans, T. G. Laske, J. Kindberg, O. Fröbert, J. E. Swenson, et al. 2015. Physiological evidence for a human-induced landscape of fear in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Physiology and Behavior 152:244–248. Zarzo-Arias, A., M. M. Delgado, A. Ordiz, J. Díaz García, D. Cañedo, M. A. González, C. Romo, et al. n.d.-a. Submitted. Brown bear behaviour in human-modified landscapes: the case of the endangered Cantabrian population, NW Spain. Zarzo-Arias, A., V. Penteriani, M. M. Delgado, P. Peón Torre, R. García Gonzalez, M. C. Mateo-Sánchez, P. Vázquez García, et al. n.d.-b. Submitted. Identifying potential areas of expansion for the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain).

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 41 Human-Bear Conflicts Communication is Key for Human–bear Coexistence: the Experience of Trentino (Italian Alps)

Marta Gandolfi Autonomous Province of Trento, Forests and Wildlife Department MUSE – Science Museum of Trento, Zoology Research Section, Trento, Italy E-mail: [email protected]

Claudio Groff Member: European Brown Bear Expert Team and Human–Bear Conflicts Expert Team IUCN Bear Specialist Group Autonomous Province of Trento, Forests and Wildlife Department, Trento, Italy Email: [email protected]

Paolo Pedrini MUSE – Science Museum of Trento, Vertebrate Zoology Research Section, Trento, Italy

Brown bears (Ursus arctos) have always been present in the Alps, but in the late 1990s only few free-ranging individuals remained in Trentino (Northern Italy, Central-Eastern Alps). Thus, in the early 2000s, 10 bears were reintroduced, within a LIFE Project, from Slovenia. Since then, the brown bear population has grown to about 60 individuals, inhabiting the western part of Trentino and coexisting with people and human activities. This successful establishment of a new bear population has required an efficient and effective communication strategy, which the Autonomous Province of Trento has worked on since the beginning of the reintroduction project, trying to constantly improve it during the years, with new activities and tools. Communication about large carnivores is essential for their conservation worldwide. People often have an exaggerated sense of fear and alarmism about large carnivores, which is harmful to conservation efforts that rely on acceptance of their coexistence in human-populated areas. An efficient communication strategy has to deal with this misinformation, trying to minimize its occurrence and its impact. Attempts to adapt and improve communication while the Trentino bear population grew have occurred in 3 phases over the past 20 years.

First phase During 2002–2009, the first few years after the brown bear reintroduction, communication efforts were directed at inform- ing people about bears and the newly bolstered population in the . This phase focused on the dissemination of facts and information about the ecology, distribution and history of the species. In 2003, the first communication project was called “Let’s know the brown bear!”. It included activities and initiatives to inform the community (young and adult) about the brown bear, its biology and main characteristics. It included didactic activities, laboratories for schools, and informative materials targeted at different groups. The same year we created a dedi- cated web site (www.grandicarnivori.tn.it) on large carnivores in Trentino, with many pages devoted to brown bear ecology, conservation and management. In 2004, the first “Protocol of communication in critical situations” was launched. The purpose was to spread information related to certain critical situations (e.g., bear attacks on humans, accidents with problematic bears, etc.). This was intended to counter false alarmism, which was expected to occur.

Second phase During this phase (2010–2015), we addressed the issues associated with a rapidly growing bear population. This neces- sitated direct information channels with local authorities and local public. It began with the publication of the PACOBACE (Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown bear in the Central-Eastern Alps), with the aim of informing people about the management aspects expected with the brown bears in Trentino. We also focused on fact-checking and creating relation- ships and dialogue with the local journalists. In 2011, a “Round Table with Breeders, Beekeepers and Farmers” was created, from which we organized public meetings with these important stakeholders. Then a “Round Table of Participation and Information”, was established to meet all the stakeholders (private associations, parks, mountain clubs, touristic agencies, others) working for bear conservation. Last, a “Round Table for the Communication on Brown Bear” was created, gathering all the local institutions working to communi- cate about brown bears. The 3 Round Tables continue to meet several times each year.

42 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Human-Bear Conflicts Third phase Since 2016 our communication efforts have been based on a new “Brown Bear Communication Plan” aiming at a wider scale. It contains a comprehensive information strategy including innovative actions planned at many different levels. The new Communication Plan (technically started in 2017), involves the Press Office and the Forest and Wildlife Depart- ment of the Autonomous Province of Trento, the Science Museum of Trento, and Adamello Brenta Natural Park, and aims to enhance social acceptance of the bear. The plan provides information deeper into the community with more attention to some critical aspects, such as the best human responses in case of bear encounters and how to act when frequenting bear territory. Some improvements have already been made, such a revision of the web site, with upgrades and new sections, including a “true or false news?” page for fact checking and a “map of females with cubs” (https://grandicarnivori.provincia. tn.it/Orse-con-piccoli). It also includes specific training courses for journalists, teachers, environmental guides, touristic operators; new informative signs in the field telling people they are entering into a bear area; new educational activities (“large carnivores at school” laboratories) and more. Moreover, we keep networking and sharing ideas with all the institu- tions working on brown bear conservation in Trentino and also abroad, together with continuing local Round Tables. The public events (which began in the 1980s, well before the reintroductions) will start to be organized differently for different stakeholders. New actions are planned, such as the creation of a new logo, new concept and coordinated theme and many other new project ideas which will be implemented in the near future. Creating a new, thriving brown bear population in Europe was relatively easy insofar as moving bears into the area and letting them do their thing, but managing the human responses has been a challenge that has required continual effort, innovation, and adaptation.

Scheme of the communication tools adopted in Trentino (I) Acknowledgements The Forest and Wildlife Department works with many local institutions (MUSE – Science Museum of Trento, Adamello Brenta Natural Park, SAT (Alpine Club), WWF Trentino, Trentino Marketing, Trentino Hunters Association, FEM – Edmund Mach Foundation), volunteers and other people interested in brown bear conservation, which, according with their aims and at different levels, help to inform the community about brown bears. This network has proven to be very important for the effectiveness of the Communication Strategy. Our thanks go to all of them.

To read more about brown bear in Trentino (Large Carnivore Report 2017): https://grandicarnivori.provincia.tn.it/content/download/14245/248974/file/Rapporto_Grandi_ carnivori_20171_ENG.pdf

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 43 Human-Bear Conflicts Use of Geospatial Techniques to Target Water Sources for Sloth Bears, Aimed at Alleviating Conflicts with People

Arzoo Malik Michael Proctor Wildlife and Conservation Biology Research Lab Birchdale Ecological Department of Life Sciences, Hemchandrachrya North Kaslo,BC, Canada Gujarat University, Patan (Gujarat)-India 384265 Email [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Nishith Dharaiya Wildlife and Conservation Biology Research Lab Department of Life Sciences, Hemchandrachrya North Gujarat University, Patan (Gujarat)-India 384265 Email: [email protected]

In Gujarat, India, sloth bears are mainly found in five protected areas with highly fragmented tropical dry deciduous forests. Habitat degrada- tion is one of the major threats to sloth bears in the region; the other important threats are human-bear conflict, change in land use and lack of community participation in bear con- servation (Dharaiya et al. 2016). Loss of habitat results in bears moving into areas inhabited by humans leading to increased encounters, conflicts, human injury, and sometimes retalia- tory killing (Garcia et al. 2015). Previous studies revealed two main reasons for increasing conflicts: sharing forest resources, including Study area showing Jessore Sloth Bear Sanctuary in Gujarat, India. movement of sloth bears into villages and humans entering forested bear habitat (Dharaiya and Ratnayeke 2009). Sloth bear movements into human areas are driven primarily by their need to access food and water. Sloth bears are generalists, therefore food may be less of an issue, however, in summer, water becomes a limiting resource which pushes bears outside of their typical habitat in search of it. Studies have revealed regular sightings of sloth bears near water sources and villages after dark in summer (Sultana et al. 2015), but also, within 500 m of water sources irrespective of the season (Bargali et al. 2012). Also, the number of attacks in Gujarat has increased over the past decade when more than 300 were reported, primarily in the hot dry summer. These patterns support the fact that water is a major factor in driving the sloth bears into human settled areas where conflicts and attacks occur. To address the importance of water resources within typical sloth bear habitat, we carried out an experiment in Jessore wildlife sanctuary, an important sloth bear sanctuary in Gujarat which contains the highest sloth bear density in the state (https://forests.gujarat.gov.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/Wildlife-Population-Estimation1.pdf). In GIS, human-bear conflict locations were overlaid on to land use lay- ers to assess patterns of conflicts and attacks relative to settlements and water bodies in the sanctuary. We found that 71 % (5 out of 7) conflicts during 2016 were within 1000 m of water sources. Also, water close to settlements increased the probability of an encounter with a sloth bear. Our main objective was to target water resources within sloth bear habitat in Jessore sanctuary using GIS to help identify areas where water could accumulate naturally if a containment structure was built. By iden- tifying such areas, water could be provided throughout the year for bears and other wildlife, removing the need for bears to leave the sanctuary for water and ultimately reduce human-bear conflicts, human injury, and Number of sloth bear signs recorded retaliatory killing. within the distance of 1000m. To reach our objective, we created a drainage map of Jessore sanctu-

44 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Human-Bear Conflicts ary using 3 algorithms within Arc GIS® (i.e., Fill Sinks, Flow Direction, and Flow Accumulation). First, using a digital elevation model (DEM, from Indian Space Research Organisation) as an input raster, we ran the Fill Sinks tool to create a depressionless DEM layer. To identify flow direction we needed to remove imperfections in the DEM by “filling” sinks. This prevents water from being virtually “trapped” in higher elevation cells. To do this, Flow Direction was then used to determine the flow path of water, where each cell in the raster has a unique value determining the flow from higher to lower elevation. This output was then used as an input raster for the Flow Accumulation tool that calculated the flow from upstream cells to downstream

Results of hydrological drainage modelling. (top) Sloth bear attack locations and settlement areas. (center) Locations of Sloth bear attack in the study area with reference to the natural water bodies. (bottom) Proposed sites to build water accumulation structures to keep bears in the sanctuary and away from human conflict.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 45 Human-Bear Conflicts cells based on terrain. After determining the drainage pattern for the sanctuary, 12 probable water accumulation points were identified and confirmed through ground surveys. To validate our proposed water accumulation points, we digitized all nearby bear sign to assess bear presence within a 2000 m buffer. Fifty-seven percent of sloth bear sign was within 1000 meters of our proposed water accumulation points. We propose to build water containment structures, and the Forest Department has agreed to do this, where water can be stored during the monsoon and be available to bears in the dry season when most conflicts occur. The local Forest Depart- ment has constructed artificial water holes in the sanctuary to overcome the water scarcity but they require constant filling by water trucks and are expensive to maintain. In contrast, our proposed water accumulating points are designed to fill with natural runoff during the monsoon and may therefore help in reducing this extra cost for filling up the water holes. The Forest department has agreed to build these containment structures. Also our water points are inside the sanctuary at the higher elevation where it is difficult for water trucks to reach but easier for bears to find. This study suggests that hydro- logical modelling can be an effective and advanced tool for managing bear habitat and alleviating encounters between humans and bears, promoting coexistence. The first author has received R & C Grants from the IBA to continue this study for further monitoring of these water containment points through camera traps and field surveys. This will help determine utilisation of these points by bears and also see if our new water holes reduce movement of bears outside their habitat into human settled areas, and ultimately reduce human bear conflicts.

Literature cited: Bargai, H.S., Akhtar, N., and Chauhan, N.P.S. 2012. The sloth bear activity and movement in highly fragmented and disturbed habitat in Central India. World Journal of Zoology 7 (4):312-319. Dharaiya, N., Bargali, H. S., and Sharp, T. 2016. Melursus ursinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016. Dharaiya, N., and Ratnayake, S. 2009. Escalating human- sloth bear conflict in north Gujarat: a though time to encourage support for bear conservation. International Bear News 18: 12–14. Garcia, K., Joshi, H., and Dharaiya, N. 2015. Assessment of human–sloth bear conflicts in North Gujarat, India. Ursus 27 (1): 5-10 Garshelis, D.L., Joshi, A.R., Smith, J.L.D., and Rice, C.G. 1999. Sloth bear conservation action plan. In: C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton (eds), Bears: status survey and conservation action plan, pp. 225-240. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. Sultana, F., Khan, S., and Nabi, G. 2015. Occupancy and habitat use of sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) in Mukundara Hills Tiger reserve, Rajasthan, India. Flora and Fauna Vol.21. pp. 203208.

46 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Human-Bear Conflicts New Project: The Ecology of Brown Bear Damage at Large Scales

Carlos Bautista Javier Naves Member: Human-Bear Conflict Expert Team, IUCN Bear Doñana Biological Station (EBD-CSIC) Specialist Group Spanish National Research Council, Seville, Spain Institute of Nature Conservation Email: [email protected] Polish Academy of Science, Krakow, Email: [email protected] Nuria Selva Member: European Brown Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Eloy Revilla Specialist Group Doñana Biological Station (EBD-CSIC) Institute of Nature Conservation Spanish National Research Council, Seville, Spain Polish Academy of Science, rakow, Poland Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Food matters It matters to you, to the sparrow sitting on the park bench, and to the bear roaming the forest. Those of us living close to supermarkets do not worry much about how many nuts the forest produced. However, times of feast and famine are not rare in nature and fluctuations in primary production greatly affect consumers’ communities and their interaction across trophic levels (Ostfeld and Keesing 2000). For instance, a year of low seed production is followed by a decrease in the abun- dance of mice and other seed consumers which, in turn, affects the density of generalist predators eating (Ostfeld and Keesing 2000, McShea 2008). Yet, many species of animals are adaptive. In human-dominated landscapes they may compensate for shortages of natural food by utilizing human-derived products, such as crops or livestock (Woodroffe et al. 2005). As a result, the temporal lack of natural food may increase human-wildlife interactions, and cause conflict situations (e.g., Artelle et al. 2016). Why is food important? Because conflicts arising from wildlife damage to crops and livestock may impose considerable costs for humans and ani- mals, the affected persons can suffer significant economic and sentimental losses, and in response, some retaliate against wildlife. In order to prevent these losses and to protect wildlife, managers and researchers make big efforts to understand how, when, where, and why these damages occur. Some studies have observed correlates with damage occurrence, such as the density of wildlife and humans, husbandry practices, and strategies to manage wildlife and damage (Woodroffe et al. 2005). Lately, some studies have started to investigate the role of landscape features and the availability of natural and anthropogenic food resources (e.g., Suryawanshi et al. 2013). However, the connection between availability of food resourc- es and damage seems to be inconclusive: while some studies have found lower damage at times of more food (Suryawanshi et al. 2013), others suggest that greater resource availability may lead to increased occurrence of wildlife-caused damage (Treves et al. 2004, Karanth et al. 2013). Does food influence conflict situations, and if so, how much? To answer these questions, we started a project aimed at quantifying the influence of the availability of natural food re- sources on the occurrence of wildlife-caused damage. Specifically, we use the brown bear (Ursus arctos) as a model species and focus on food habits and damage across different brown bear populations. The project is entitled “Does food matter?

(left) Brown bear scat full of beechnuts (Fagus sylvatica) in the Polish Carpathians. (center & right) damaged by brown bear in the Polish Carpathians (note outline of pawprint on box). Bears presumably turn to these human-related food sources, which can be rich but risky, when natural foods are less plentiful. Photo credits: Carpathian Brown Bear Project.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 47 Human-Bear Conflicts Assessing the role of pulses in resource availability as a driver of temporal variation in brown bear damage occurrence” and is based on an international cooperation between the Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IOP PAN) and the Doñana Biological Station of the Spanish National Research Council (EBD-CSIC). The project is funded by the National Science Centre in Poland (UMO-2017/25/N/NZ8/02861) and will be conducted in 2018-2021. We aim to assess the relationship between the temporal variation in bear dietary composition and occurrence of bear- caused damage. It has been shown that scat analysis can capture differences in the relative availability of food resources (e.g., Ciucci et al. 2014). We hypothesize that variation in the consumption of different natural foods across years is a good predictor of bear-caused damage. For instance, in temperate Europe, hard mast ( and beechnuts) is a critical food resource for brown bears before hibernation (Naves et al. 2006, Ciucci et al. 2014). Accordingly, we expect that during hyperphagia, poor hard mast crops may prompt bears to shift their diet and raid fruit plantations and apiaries. The big picture We plan to look for dietary data on bear populations located in the temperate regions of Asia, Europe and North America. To capture the variation in the proportion of foods consumed by bears, we will seek data that span a minimum of 4 years. Additionally, we will also search for data on reported and verified bear damage matching the same data period and area. We will add the data obtained from other areas to our main dataset with already 3000 scats and over 5000 verified damages in the Cantabrian and Carpathian populations. Specifically, we will model the number of verified damages as a response of the average frequency of different food categories at seasonal and annual scales. We will divide the bear damages in 3 categories (livestock, apiaries, crops) and analyze them as separate response variables (see Bautista et al. 2017). To explore the influence of different ingested foods, we will calculate the frequency of 5 categories of natural foods (green vegetation, fleshy , hard mast, and ) and analyze each category as a separate explanatory variable. Finally, we aim to include in all the models other potential sources of temporal variation, such as density of bears and humans, livestock and apiary abundance, and the economic effort invested in prevention. This will allow us to quantify the relative importance of resource consumption by bears on the amount of damage they cause.

Contact us! If you are interested in our study and think you can contribute with suitable data and/or you would like further details about our project, we kindly invite you to contact us. We really hope that together we can try to understand a bit better the factors underlying bear damages and, thus, improve coexistence between humans and bears.

Literature Cited Artelle, K.A., S.C. Anderson, J.D. Reynolds, A.B. Cooper, P.C. Paquet, and C.T. Darimont. 2016. Ecology of conflict: marine food supply affects human-wildlife interactions on land. 6: 25936. Bautista, C., J. Naves, E. Revilla, N. Fernández, J. Albrecht, A.K. Scharf, R. Rigg, A.A. Karamanlidis, K. Jerina, D. Huber, S. Palazón, R. Kont, P. Ciucci, C. Groff, A. Dutsov, J. Seijas, P.I. Quenette, A. Olszańska, M. Shkvyria, M. Adamec, J. Ozolins, M. Jonozovič, and N. Selva. 2017. Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear damage on a continental scale. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:282–292. Ciucci, P., E. Tosoni, G. Di Domenico, F. Quattrociocchi and L. Boitani. 2014. Seasonal and annual variation in the food habits of Apennine brown bears, central Italy. Journal of Mammalogy 95:572–586. Karanth, K.K., A.M. Gopalaswamy, P.K. Prasad, and S. Dasgupta. 2013. Patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensa- tion: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biological Conservation 166:175–185. McShea, W.J. 2008. The Influence of Crops on Annual Variation in and Bird Populations. Ecology 81:228–238. Naves, J., A.Fernández-Gil, C. Rodríguez, and M. Delibes. 2006. Brown bear food habits at the border of its range: a long- term study. Journal of Mammalogy 87:899–908. Ostfeld, R.S. and F. Keesing. 2000. Pulsed resources and community dyamics of consumers in terrrestrial ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:232–237. Suryawanshi, K.R., Y.V. Bhatnagar, S. Redpath, and C. Mishra. 2013. People, predators and perceptions: Patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and wolves. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:550–560. Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, E.K. Harper, D.J. Mladenoff, R.A. Rose, T.A. Sickley, and A.P. Wydeven. 2004. Predicting Human-Carnivore Conflict: A Spatial Model Derived from 25 Years of Data on Wolf Predation on Livestock. Conservation Biology 18:114–125. Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood and A. Rabinowitz. 2005. Poeple and wildlife: Conflict or coexis- tence. Cambridge University Press, New York.

48 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Biological Research What is it About the Terai of Nepal that Favors Sloth Bears over Asiatic Black Bears?

Karine Pigeon Pooja Basnet Member: Sloth Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Kathmandu Forestry College, Kathmandu, Nepal SheLeads Wildlife Research, , Canada Email: [email protected] Kiran Timalsina Green Governance Nepal, Kathmnandu, Nepal Bhupendra Prasad Yadav Member: Sloth Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Dave Garshelis Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Co-chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group Kathmandu, Nepal Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grand Rapids, MN, USA 55744

Few studies have examined the coexistence of bear species and whether interspecies competition can cause one species to decline or even disappear from an area (Mattson et al. 2005; Steinmetz et al. 2011, 2013). The case of Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) and sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) is particularly interesting because within the Terai Arc Landscape — a lowland strip along the foothills of the — there are areas where these 2 species overlap (, India), and areas that appear similar, where they do not (Nepal with almost exclusively sloth bears; with exclusively Asiatic black bears). To date, we know little about ecological requirements that could explain why sloth bears and Asiatic black bears ap- pear to coexist in some areas but not others. A recent report of a photo of an Asiatic (Himalayan) black bear within the Terai of Nepal, the first such evidence of this species in this region of Nepal (Yadav et al. 2017), focused our interest in this area. Was this bear a lone individual wandering in from a higher elevation area, or did black bears exist in low density, undetected until now? Or was something changing in terms of the habitat that might lead to colonization of the area by black bears? For this study, we had a unique opportunity to make use of by-catch data acquired from motion-detecting cameras set- up in protected areas of Nepal as part of an ongoing monitoring effort for the National tiger (Panthera tigris) population surveys (Dhakal et al. 2014). We were provided photos of bears obtained from the camera traps set out in 2013 by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Nepal. We conducted field investigations at these sites aiming to assess species-specific habitat preferences and understand the occur- rence and persistence of Asiatic black bears and sloth bears in a gradient of environments along the Terai. In late January 2018, we set-out to Bardia and Location of sampling sites associated with camera locations and opportunistic plots surveyed within Bardia adjacent Banke National and Banke National Parks in an attempt to discern habitat characteristics associated with presence of sloth Parks in southwestern bears and Asiatic black bears. Also shown are communities adjacent to the parks (buffer zone communities).

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 49 Biological Research Number of sampled sites where we recorded evidence of claw marks on trees, diggings, or scats from a sloth bear, Asiatic black bear, or unknown bear species in Bardia and Banke National Parks, Nepal, during January–March 2018. %Lowland is the percentage of species-specific signs observed in lowland plots over the total number of plots where we observed signs of that species. At some plots, more than 1 type of sign was found (e.g., claw marks and digging). We considered all digging into mounds to be from sloth bears and classified other types of ground digging as “unknown” bear species. Bear Species Claw Marks Digging Scat %Lowland Sloth 16 17 4 80% Birendra Adikari Birendra Asiatic Black 6 NA NA 17% The Nepal Terai field team, from left to right: Birendra Adikari (Bardia National Park staff), Karine Pigeon (research biologist), Unknown 2 4 2 20% Ram Shahi (ornithologist), Manbir Kami (retired park staff), Total 24 21 6 NA and Pooja Basnet (forestry graduate). Nepal (both with 1–2 recent records, but no historic records of Asiatic black bears) to measure habitat characteristics and food availability for sloth bears and Asiatic black bears in the lowlands and Siwalik hills (i.e., steep rugged forested hills). Climate in the region dictates the seasonality of food availability and varies between the subtropical monsoon (June to October), the dry season (October to February), and the hot season (March to June; Bhuju et al. 2007). Lowlands are com- posed of Sal (Shorea robusta) forests, Khair-sissoo (Acacia catechu, Dalbergia sissoo) / riverine forests, and (each in distinct patches), while the Siwaliks are composed of riverine forests, tropical deciduous forests / hill Sal, and tropical evergreen forests (i.e., Chir pine, Pinus roxburghii) at higher elevation (Dinerstein 1979, Bhuju et al. 2007). Elevation ranges from 100 to 1450 m above sea level. From January through March, we measured concealment cover, canopy cover, stand composition and structure, and food availability at 51 camera sites and 17 opportunistic sites, including 79 line transects. At each camera site (i.e., plot), we sampled 3 subplots (30 x 30 m) and 2 line transects (100 m length each), while only 1 subplot was sampled at opportunistic sites. We sampled a total of 168 subplots associated with 25 camera sites that produced photos of sloth bears (n=22 sites) or Asiatic black bears (n=3 sites), 26 cameras with pseudo-absences (i.e., no recorded photos of either bear species), and at 17 opportunistic sites where we found presence of sloth bears or Asiatic black bears (based on sign). We surveyed a total of 9.6 ha within transects (9600 m total length x 10 m-wide) in the lowlands and Siwalik hills to assess the presence and abundance of tree markings, ground digs, termite mound diggings, and the density of termite mounds and hills within each landscape. We knew from previous work of others that sloth bears, but not black bears, feed largely on and , and that their digging into mounds is distinctly characteristic. We also distinguished the sign of these species based on characteristics of their claw marks on trees. We recorded the presence of fresh and old bear signs at camera sites, along Ram Shahi Karine Pigeon

(left) Karine holding a cover board used to quantify horizontal concealment at habitat plots. (right) Birendra (on the left) and Manbir (on the right) recording data associated with sloth bear markings on a mature ‘kainjalo’ tree (Bishcofia javanica). The long sliding marks are characteristics of sloth bear climbing.

50 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Biological Research transects, and at opportunistic sites while we were going to or coming from camera sites. Including camera sites and opportunistic sites, we observed evidence of activity from sloth bears at 28 sites, Asiatic black bears at 6 sites, and at 8 sites the bear sign could not be distinguished to species. The average density of termite mounds was highest in lowland Sal forests (8.5 mounds/ha), and averaged less than half that in other lowland habitats (3.8/ha), upland Sal forests (3.6 mounds/ha), and other upland habitats (2.3/ha). We are now using the information gathered during our field survey to investigate the relationships among food availabil- ity (presence of fruiting tree species and densities of termite mounds and ant mounds), habitat characteristics, and habitat use by sloth bears and Asiatic black bears in the region. Moving forward, we hope to continue fine-scale and broad-scale investigations within Nepal and India that will allow for a better understanding of 1) specific ecological characteristics associated with potential competition between these 2 species, possibly including exclusion of 1 over the other, and 2) how habitat degradation at the boundaries of protected areas might change the dynamic of these 2 species.

Acknowledgements We thank the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Bardia National Park, and for granting research permits to conduct this research. We would like to thank Green Governance Nepal (GGN) for official arrangements, field coordination, and support. A special thanks to members of the “Unstoppable Team Bhalu”: Manbir Kami, Ram Shahi, Birendra Adikari, and Pooja Basnet, as well as Durga Paudel and Bardia Tiger Resort (BTR) for help with prepara- tions and field logistic. We also thank the IBA Research & Conservation Grant for making this project possible.

Literature Cited Bhuju, R.B., P.R. Shakya, T.B. Basnet, and S. Shrestha. 2007. Nepal Biodiversity Resource Book. Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. Dhakal, M., K. Madhuri, J. Shant et al. 2014. Status of and prey in Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal. Dinerstein, E. 1979. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia wildlife reserve, Nepal. Part II: Habitat/animal interac- tions. Biological Conservation 16:265–300. Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, and T. Merrill. 2005. Are black bears a factor in the restoration of North American grizzly bear populations? Ursus 16: 11–30. Steinmetz, R., D.L. Garshelis, W. Chutipong, and N. Seuaturien. 2011. The shared preference niche of sympatric Asiatic black bears and sun bears in a mosaic. PloSONE 6(1), e14509. Steinmetz, R., D.L. Garshelis, W. Chutipong, and N. Seuaturien. 2013. Foraging ecology and coexistence of Asiatic black bears and sun bears in a seasonal tropical forest in Southeast Asia. Journal of Mammalogy 94:1–18. Yadav, S.K., B. R. Lamichhane, N. Subedi, M. Dhakal, R. K. Thapa, and L. Poudyal. 2017. discovered in Babai Valley of Bardia National Park, Nepal, co-occurring with sloth bears. International Bear News 26(3):23–25.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 51 Biological Research Characterizing Grizzly Bear Habitat using Vegetation Structure in Alberta, Canada

Brandon Prehn Scott Nielsen MSc Student, Department of Forest Resources Management Alberta Biodiversity Conservation Chair University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada Department of Renewable Resources Email: [email protected] , Edmonton, AB, Canada

Nicholas Coops Cole Burton Canada Research Chair in Remote Sensing Terrestrial Mammal Conservation Chair Department of Forest Resources Management Department of Forest Resources Management University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada

Gordon Stenhouse IBA Councillor fRI Research, Hinton, AB, Canada

Many studies have examined the role of anthropogenic features such as roads and seismic lines on grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) home range size, movement patterns, and mortality. However, the impact of forest structure on movement of individual grizzly bears is less well understood, principally due to difficulties undertaking extensive field sampling of vegetation structure over immense areas, or the use of poor surrogates of structure such as passive multispectral remote sensing datasets like landcover class or NDVI (Ciarniello et al. 2007; Munro et al. 2006; Nielsen et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2003). These passive forms of remote sensing limits interpretation and quantification of vegetation structure due to problems with spectral reflectance of different tree species, illumination angle effects, and shade (Koukoulas & Blackburn, 2004). Light detecting and ranging (Lidar) is an active remote sensing tool developed to provide highly detailed, three-dimensional representations of a scanned landscape through a combination laser-rangefinder and highly accurate, GPS-enabled inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Lim et al., 2003). The Lidar instrument records the relative arrangement signals as what’s called a “point cloud,” which has been shown to be related to the distribution of vegetation in the stand (Thomas et al., 2006). In the case of airborne Lidar, an aircraft typically flies at altitudes of between 500 and 3000 m (Hilker et al. 2010) and depending on the beam divergence parameters of the Lidar system, the laser footprint at the ground typically ranges between 0.2 - 0.9 m. Vegetation that intersects the beam scatters energy back to the sensor and the relative location of returns is recorded (Lim et al. 2003). In this study we investigated the role of vegetation structure in determining habitat selection at the fine-scale 4th order of selection (Johnson 1980) through the use of a matched case-control logistic regression as part of an integrated step- selection analysis (iSSA; Avgar et al. 2016). Specifically we asked 2 questions. First, what is the role of canopy cover in interior forest stands on habitat selection? Second, do resources in interior forest stands modify the selection for forest edges commonly seen with grizzly bears? We hypothesized that the interaction between vegetation height and overstory cover could best explain habitat selection: we understand that habitat selection by bears is heavily influenced by forest structure, especially in the case of continental interior bears, and we expect that when combined with information about watershed topographic moisture regime, solar radiation, and bears’ natural preference for edge habitat (i.e., a core model), addition of height of dominant vegetation and overstory cover would improve model predictions. We used Lidar to characterize landcover height and percent cover using data acquired by the Government of Alberta during leaf-on conditions between 2007 and 2008. The point density was on average 1.2 returns/m2 and covered the eastern 21000 km2 of the Bear Management Area. Data were processed using tools from FUSION and LAStools using an area-based approach as prescribed in the best practices guide by White et al. (2013). We used 75th percentile height and the percentage of all returns above 2 meters. To minimize the chance of over-specification of the model, we limited contextual variables to those well linked to vegetation characteristics: elevation, solar radiation, terrain wetness index, and a measure of distance to forest edge. We defined forest edge using our Lidar dataset. Because previous work in this area has shown that grizzly bears use roads with little regard for traffic volume (Roever et al. 2010) and the vegetation structure of roadsides can be summa- rized with Lidar height and cover metrics, we omitted roads from our model. The iSSA compares consecutive relocations (referred to as used steps) with some number of “control” relocations (also known as available steps) that are generated randomly from empirical or theoretical step length and turning angle distri- butions (Thurfjel et al. 2014). After sampling used and available locations, we fit a conditional logistic regression to each individual collar-year and used AIC tally to select the best model. We binned separate models corresponding to hypophagia

52 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Biological Research (den emergence – 15 June), early hyperphagia (16 June -15 August), and late hyperphagia (16 August – den entry). Additionally, we binned indi- vidual models according to sex and reproductive class (male, female, and females with cubs older than 1 year). We compared the AIC tally of the core model alone, as well as the core model added to each Lidar metric individually. Finally we considered the core model plus height, cover, and the interaction between them. Our results indicate that canopy cover and height interact to explain habitat selection at the fine scale in most cases. AIC tally was gen- erally concordant for males throughout the year, though there was much more variability in the AIC tally for females and females with cubs. There was moderate support for the core model plus height alone in females with cubs. Further discussion of the analysis and results is pending submission/review of Horizontal-perspective view of a point cloud in two different forest this work. stand classes. The y-axis is height above ground in meters. Literature Cited Avgar, T., J.R. Potts, M.A. Lewis and M.S. Boyce. 2016. Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(5): 619–630. Ciarniello, L. M., M.S. Boyce, D. R. Seip and D. C.Heard. 2007. Grizzly bear habitat selection is scale dependent. Ecological Applications 17(5): 1424–1440. Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology. Koukoulas, S. and G.A. Blackburn. 2004. Quantifying the spatial properties of forest canopy gaps using LiDAR imagery and GIS. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25(15): 3049–3072. Lim, K., P. Treitz, M. Wulder, B. St-Onge, and M. Flood. 2003. LiDAR remote sensing of forest structure. Progress in Physical Geography 27(1): 88–106. Munro, R. H. M., S.E. Nielsen, M.H. Price, G.B. Stenhouse and M.S. Boyce. 2006. Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central Alberta. Journal of Mammalogy 87(6): 1112–1121. Nielsen, S.E., M.S. Boyce, G.B. Stenhouse and R.H.M. Munro. 2003. Development and testing of phenologically driven grizzly bear habitat models. Écoscience 10(1): 1–10. Nielsen, S.E., S. Herrero, M.S. Boyce, R.D. Mace, B. Benn, M.L. Gibeau, and S. Jevons. 2004. Modelling the spatial distribu- tion of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies ecosystem of Canada. Biological Conservation 120(1): 101–113. Roever, C.L., M.S. Boyce, and G.B, Stenhouse. 2010. Grizzly bear movements relative to roads: application of step selection functions. Ecography. Thomas, V., P. Treitz, J.H. McCaughey, and I. Morrison. 2006. Mapping stand-level forest biophysical variables for a mixed- wood boreal forest using lidar: an examination of scanning density. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Thurfjell, H., S. Ciuti, and M.S. Boyce. 2014. Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Move- ment Ecology 2(1): 4. White, J. C., M. a Wulder, A. Varhola, M. Vastaranta, N.C. Coops, B.D. Cook, D. Pitt, and M. Woods. 2013. A best practices guide for generating forest inventory attributes from airborne laser scanning data using an area-based approach Forestry Chronicle 89(6): 722-723.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 53 Biological Research Identifying Seasonal Corridors for Brown Bears: an Integrated Modeling Approach

Daniele De Angelis PhD Student Department of Biology and Biotechnology “Charles Darwin”, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università 32, Rome 00185, Italy Email: [email protected]

Habitat loss and fragmentation are amongst the major causes of species extinction being often associated with critical reduction in landscape connectivity (Haddad et al., 2015). Lack of connectivity can severely hamper animal ability to under- take long-distance movements (e.g., migration, dispersal), impeding both gene flow and access to critical habitat (Tucker et al., 2018). In some bear (Ursus spp.) populations, the need for increasing pre-wintering food intake (i.e., hyperphagia) can lead to individual migration-like movement patterns, with animals completing seasonal long-distance round trips between summer and fall home ranges (Cozzi et al., 2016; Noyce & Garshelis, 2011). Recently developed analytical tools allow research- ers to disentangle animal movement patterns, and to model landscape connectivity based on empirical animal movement data, accounting for behavioural states (Maiorano, Boitani, Chiaverini, & Ciucci, 2017; Zeller, McGarigal, & Whiteley, 2012). In the study that we presented at the 26th IBA conference, held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, we illustrated an integrated modelling approach to determine potential seasonal corridors using Global Positioning System (GPS) relocations collected from 11 brown bears (U. arctos) in Croatia (De Angelis et al. 2018). We first studied bear seasonal movement patterns using Net Squared Displacement (NSD, Bunnefeld et al., 2011), revealing that some individuals performed partial and facultative

General location of the study area in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina (A); trajectory of a brown bear equipped with GPS collar showing seasonal displacement between summer (green star) and fall (orange star) home ranges (B); individual Net Squared Displacement profiles of migrant (red lines) and non-migrant (black lines) bears (C).

54 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Biological Research summer-fall migrations, as has already been reported for other bear populations (Cozzi et al., 2016; Noyce & Garshelis, 2011). We then attempted to model potential seasonal corridors connecting habitat patches preferred by bears prior to (i.e., summer) and after (i.e., fall) migratory events. We integrated the use of Resource Selection Functions (RSFs, Manly et al. 2002) and Step Selection Func- tions (SSFs, Fortin et al. 2005) to identify suitable summer and fall patches and to study bear habitat selection along their movement trajectories, investigating the effects of both natural (e.g., slope, elevation, land cover) and anthropogenic (e.g., railways, highways, roads) factors. To model potential cor- ridors between suitable summer and fall habitat patches, we used a recently developed algorithm, the randomized shortest path (RSP), in the attempt to increase the biological realism of simulated bear paths. In fact, rather than assuming totally random or totally optimal animal movements, as in more clas- sical approaches (e.g., current models, McRae et al. 2008, or least-cost paths, Pinto and Keitt 2009), RSP allows to evaluate different strategies adopted by animals navigating through the landscape (for more details, see Panzacchi et al., 2016) (Fig. 2D). The resulted connectivity maps that we obtained illus- trated the estimated probability of bear passage during seasonal movements within our study area. According to our findings, bears can successfully travel Illustrative workflow followed to model potential bear seasonal corridors for Dinaric bears in Croatia. 1. Distinction between bear GPS relocations linked to non-movement (i.e. clusters of bear reloca- across sub-optimal patches tions) and movement (bear steps between clusters). 2. Pre-migration (i.e. summer) and post-migra- to reach suitable habitat in tion (i.e. fall) spatial-explicit suitability models based on non-movement GPS relocations, estimated fall, although the presence of through resource selection functions (RSFs). 3. Spatial-explicit permeability model based on bear anthropogenic structures such movement steps, estimated through step selection functions (SSFs). 4. Prediction of bear seasonal as highways, main paved roads paths using randomised shortest pat (RSP), testing various strategies adopted by animals during and railways strongly decreased movements, from random ( = 0, equivalent to current models) to optimal ( = 0.1, approximating the probability of bear travel- least cost path). 5. Evaluation of the correlation between predicted corridors and the frequency of bear road-kills.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 55 Biological Research ing. At the current state, one of the major weaknesses of our study is the lack of data on fine-scale forest productivity in our study area, which we expect could improve our capability to identify natural areas being potentially highly attractive to bears during hyperphagia. Currently, we are working on refining our models, evaluating how well they fit with known locations of bear highway crossing events, and with the frequency of road-killed bears. Given our preliminary results, we are confident that our approach could reveal useful information for informing management actions aimed at preserving landscape permeability, by indicating areas where implementation (or improvement) of mitigation measures should be evaluated. I am truly grateful for the great opportunity offered by the IBA travel grant for presenting our study at the last Interna- tional Bear Conference, and I am honoured the scientific committee considered this study worthy the Best Student Poster Presentation Award. This study has been possible thanks to the cooperation of a fantastic group of researchers that I had the chance to work with during the years of my PhD: Paolo Ciucci, Josip Kusak, Djuro Huber, Slaven Reljić, Manuela Panzacchi, Bram Van Moorter, Luigi Maiorano, Matteo Falco, Goran Gužvica, and Lidija Šver. The results of this study will be published soon on a peer-reviewed journal.

Literature Cited Bunnefeld, N., Börger, L., Van Moorter, B., Rolandsen, C. M., Dettki, H., Solberg, E. J., & Ericsson, G. (2011). A model-driven approach to quantify migration patterns: individual, regional and yearly differences. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80(2), 466–476. Cozzi, G., Chynoweth, M., Kusak, J., Çoban, E., Çoban, A., Ozgul, A., & Şekercioğlu, H. (2016). Anthropogenic food resources foster the coexistence of distinct life history strategies: year-round sedentary and migratory brown bears. Journal of Zoology, 300(2), 142–150. De Angelis, D., D. Huber, J. Kusak, S. Reljić, G. Gužvica, L. Šver, B. Van Moorter, M. Panzacchi, P. Ciucci (2018). Identifying seasonal corridors for brown bears: an integrated modeling approach. Poster presentation at the 26th International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 16-21 September. Fortin, D., Beyer, H. L., Boyce, M. S., Smith, D. W., Duchesne, T., & Mao, J. S. (2005). Wolves influence elk movement: behav- iour shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology, 86(5), 1320–1330. Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., … Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmen- tation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Applied Ecology, (March), 1–9. Maiorano, L., Boitani, L., Chiaverini, L., & Ciucci, P. (2017). Uncertainties in the identification of potential dispersal corridors: the importance of behaviour, sex, and algorithm. Basic and Applied Ecology, 21, 66–75. Manly, B. F. J. J., Mcdonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., Erickson, W. P., McDonald, T. L., & Erickson, W. P. (2002). Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. McRae, B. H., Dickson, B. G., Keitt, T. H., & Shah, V. B. (2008). Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolu- tion and conservation, 88(1), 36–59. Noyce, K. V., & Garshelis, D. L. (2011). Seasonal migrations of black bears (Ursus americanus): causes and consequences. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(4), 823–835. Panzacchi, M., Van Moorter, B., Strand, O., Saerens, M., Kivimäki, I., St. Clair, C. C., … Boitani, L. (2016). Predicting the continuum between corridors and barriers to animal movements using Step Selection Functions and Randomized Shortest Paths. Journal of Animal Ecology, 85(1), 32–42. Pinto, N., & Keitt, T. H. (2009). Beyond the least-cost path: Evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic ap- proach. Landscape Ecology, 24(2), 253–266. Tucker, M. A., Böhning-Gaese, K., Fagan, W. F., Fryxell, J. M., Van Moorter, B., Alberts, S. C., … Mueller, T. (2018). Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science. Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K., & Whiteley, A. R. (2012). Estimating landscape resistance to movement: A review. Landscape Ecology, 27(6), 777–797.

56 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Biological Research Does Rebecca, a Seasoned Andean Bear Mother, Show Seasonal Birthing Patterns?

Armando Castellanos Melchor Ascanta President, biologist Field Assistant Andean Bear Foundation Andean Bear Foundation Email: [email protected]

David Jackson Executive director, biologist Andean Bear Foundation Email: [email protected]

Very little is known of Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) maternal behavior due to the remote and inhospitable terrain in which they live, the elusive, shy nature of the species, and the precarious positioning of maternal dens that make it very dif- ficult to study mother-cub interactions (Jackson et al, 2017). Over the past 10 years we have been studying an Andean bear named Rebecca and her offspring, making multiple behavioral observations in order to ascertain species’ maternal behavior patterns. Individuals were tracked using GPS telemetry equipment and were identified by their unique facial markings. Ages of bears were mostly calculated using data on the time of and birthing events, though in the absence of this information, age was estimated using size difference between mother and cubs. Our study took place in the “La Virgen” sector of the Cayambe Coca National Park (PNCC), situated on the eastern pe- riphery of the Andean continental divide of central Ecuador, from 3900 - 4100 m above sea level. Rebecca was observed for the first time in late 2008 with 2 young approx. 14 - 16 months old, and was seen again in 2010 with young between 8 - 10 months old, crossing the inter-oceanic highway. In March 2015, Rebecca was photographed and filmed with 2 cubs approx. 9 - 10 months old, yet on 6 August 2015, pho- tographer Mario Pillajo confirmed that Rebecca was accompanied by a single cub, leading us to believe the other was dead. Feral dogs have become a serious threat to the local fauna in the “La Virgen” sector of the PNCC (Zapata-Rios and Branch 2016). As such, a possible hypothesis for the separation of mother and cub is that they were attacked by dogs, and were sub- sequently unable to find each other. However, in December 2016 Victor Quinchimbla photographed the lost individual, now a subadult bear that was seemingly suffering from a severe visual problem, which supports the feral dog attack hypothesis. After the separation event, on 3 September 2015 Rebecca and the remaining male cub was captured in an Iznachi trap (Castellanos 2002). Rebecca and her young were anaesthetized, blood samples were collected, and an Iridium / GPS collar was deployed on the mother bear. It was decided to not deploy a collar on the sub-adult male bear as he was still develop- ing and not yet of adult size. Rebecca was observed to have remained with the single cub for approximately 2 more months before separation, and subsequently gave birth to 2 new cubs in April 2016. Using the only wild Andean bear estimation of gestation period of 125 days recorded for another Andean bear that lives in the PNCC called Delia, we estimated Rebecca´s copulation date to be somewhere around the beginning of December 2016. This suggests that after separating from her previous cub, it was only a matter of weeks before she was in heat and mating again. The data from Rebecca´s Iridium/ GPS collar allowed us to locate her maternal nest and we identified that the new cubs were a mixed-sex litter, naming them “Sunfo” and “Tamia”. Rebecca stayed within a few meters of her “maternal nest” for 12 weeks, only foraging in the nest vicinity at night to eat the soft bases of Kunth (Cortaderia nitida) plants. Rebecca became very malnourished during this time, hydrating herself by merely licking rainwater off surrounding leaves. Periodic starvation in ausinus; Garshelis 2009). At 14 weeks, the cubs were moved ap- proximately 20 meters to a transient “nest”, which was used for 2 days before moving on to several “satellite ”. At 15 weeks the family completely abandoned the nest area and relocated 300 meters away to an upper montane forest. In July 2017, feral dogs were observed attacking Rebecca’s cubs. To avoid the dogs’ attack, the cubs sought refuge in rocky crevices and Rebecca remained close to protect them. Once the threat was over, Rebecca reunited with her cubs using Rebecca crosses a highway with her cubs.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 57 Biological Research typical vocalizations. In this case, the “tuuuuct” sound (Castellanos 2010), to which the cubs responded with the sound “auuauuauu”. In June 2017, Andrés Holguín filmed Sunfo and Tamia still suckling their mother at an age of approx. 14 months of age, equal to that reported for sloth bears (Garshelis 2009), thus contradicting the belief that Andean bears suckle for only 1 year (García-Rangel 2012). However, we were unable to identify the exact age of weaning. At 18 months, Rebecca separated from Sunfo and Tamia, although they remained close. Based on previous observations (García-Rangel 2012), we suspect that they accompanied her for almost 2 years. Four weeks after they had separated from their mother the 2 siblings remained together, which is similar to reports on brown bears (Blanco et al. 2016) and sloth bears (Garshelis 2009). Rebecca’s son. In August 2018, Rebecca and 2 new cubs of about 4 months old were pho- tographed by Marcelo Quipo. From the first sighting of Rebecca in 2008 until present, she has given birth at least 5 times and has raised at least 10 cubs, giving birth approx. once every 2 years. Based on data from Rebecca’s previous births, she appears to have synchronized her birthing to the month of April, leaving the “ma- ternal nest” in August, which coincides with the height of the rainy season. This could be a strategy to reduce the chances of being poached or preyed upon, and to synchronize fundamental periods of birth preparation with annual fructification pat- terns of important food sources. The synchronization of breeding with local climatic characteristics and phenology of plants foodstuffs has been reported in Colombia (Rodríguez, 1991), (Peyton 1980) and Venezuela (Torres et al., 1995). However, a clearly defined seasonality is questionable, as mother and cubs have been observed in the same region simultaneously, yet at different stages of development. Acknowledgments Our thanks to the National Geographic Society, Zoo Conservation Outreach Group, Termas Papallacta, and Ecological Project International for supporting our project; to the technicians and park rangers of the Cotopaxi and Cayambe Coca National Parks and to the Pichincha Ministry of the Environment for providing us with research permits. Also to Denis Torres for his edition and accurate comments on this manuscript. Literature cited Blanco, J., F., Ballesteros y G. Palomero. 2016. Rehabilitación de osos huérfanos, heridos, abandonados. Integrando conservación del oso y bienestar animal. Documento Técnico Fundación Oso Pardo. Castellanos, A. 2002. Captura de osos andinos (Tremarctos ornatus) con “Trampa Iznachi” en Ecuador. Ukuku, Boletín Informativo sobre la conservación del oso andino Año 4, N° 4 en: http://ukuku.cjb.net Castellanos, A. 2010. Guía para la rehabilitación, liberación y seguimiento de osos Andinos. 2010. Imprenta Anyma. Quito- Ecuador. 1-29 pp. Castellanos, A. 2015. Maternal behavior of a female Andean bear in the Paramo of Cayambe Coca National Park, Ecuador. International Bear News Spring 24 (1): 32-33. Jackson, D., A. Castellanos and D. Vasquez. 2017. Kinship relations in a multi-generational Andean Bear (Tremarctos ornatus) family in north Ecuador. International Bear News Spring. 26 (1): 24. García-Rangel, S. 2012. Andean bear Tremarctos ornatus natural history and conservation. Mammal Review 42:85–119 Garshelis, D. 2009. “Family Ursidae (Bears)”. In Wilson, Don; Mittermeier, Russell (eds). Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Volume 1: Carnivores. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. ISBN 978-84-96553-49-1. Peyton, B. 1980. Ecology, distribution and food habits of spectacled bears, Tremarctos ornatus, in Peru. Journal of Mammalogy 61: 639–652. Rodríguez D, Cuesta F, Goldstein I, Bracho AE, Naranjo L, Hernandez O. 2003. Estrategia ecorregional para la conservación del oso Andino en los Andes del Norte. Comunicaciones WWF Colombia, Cali, Colombia. Rodríguez, D 1991. Evaluación y uso del hábitat natural del oso andino Tremarctos ornatus (F. Cuvier, 1825) y un diag- nóstico actual de la subpoblación del parque nacional natural Las Orquídeas, Antioquia, Colombia. Tesis de Grado. Univ. Nac. Bogotá, Colombia. 132 pp. Torres, D., A. Lobo, R. Ascanio & G. Lobo. 1995. Monitoring the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) populations in the watershed of the Capaz river, Mérida, Venezuela. Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales La Salle 143: 25-40. Zapata-Ríos, G. and Branch, L. 2016. Altered activity patterns and reduced abundance of native mammals in sites with feral dogs in the high Andes. Biological Conservation 193, pp. 9–16.

58 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Biological Research Observations of a Sloth Bear Feeding on a Honeycomb in a Tree in Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, India

Om Gosatkar Nisha Singh Member, Youth for Nature Conservation Organization Project Leader Amravati, Maharashtra, India Wildlife and Conservation Biology Research Lab, Email: [email protected] HNG University, Patan (Gujarat), India 384265 Email: [email protected] Sunil Rathod Round Officer Maharashtra Forest Department Chikhaldara, Maharashtra, India Email: sunildevrathod1@ gmail.com

Hot summer days in central India drive animals to shrinking water holes, which provide excellent opportunities for view- ing. On one such day we rode through Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, to view wildlife, especially hoping to see a sloth bear (Melursus ursinus). For the past 7 years, I (OM) have been associated with Youth for Nature Conservation Organization (YNCO). I am interested in mammal ecology, wildlife conservation, human–bear conflict, and am involved in awareness programs for school children and villagers and training programs for Maharashtra forest department staffs. YNCO is a non-government organization from Amaravati, Maharashtra, working on wildlife issues under the guidance of Dr. Swapnil Sonone, member of the IUCN/SSC Sloth Bear Expert Team. The organization works on issues about conflicts with sloth bears, developing mitigation measures in and around Melghat Tiger Reserve. “Melghat” refers to a land where several mountains adjoin. It is hilly terrain of the Satpuda mountain range, with a dry deciduous forest dominated by teak (Tectona grandis; locally known as Sinpa) trees. Melghat is well known for its wilderness and great landscapes, providing good habitat for sloth bears and other wildlife. Project Tiger has made it a heaven for wild- life enthusiasts. We often visit Melghat, and have seen sloth bears many times during our field work. But this trip provided us with a chance to witness an event and behavior that we had not previously seen, and which has rarely been described in the literature. It was about 11:00 in the morning of May 22, 2018, when I started off into the field accompanied by a forest guard and other forest laborers. We drove 40–60 km on a track in the forest by safari vehicle. We came across a number of (Cuon alpinus), sambar (Rusa unicolor), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak), Indian (Bos gaurus), and many bird species. As evening fell (17:30–18:00), we decided to return to the base station. Just then, I glimpsed some movement in the branch of Arjun tree (Terminalia arjuna), 15–18 m above the ground. Looking closer, it was a sloth bear, or bana (as called by the local tribe). The bear was moving towards a honeycomb hanging from the underside of a branch. We were quietly observing the bear’s activities from 60–70 m away when we noticed 2 cubs on the ground playing in the dry stream bed under the tree. They seemed to be waiting for the mother to dislodge and drop some pieces of the - comb. But our vehicle scared them, and they ran off, while the mother remained intent at getting to the honeycomb. She seemed unaware of us. Sloth bears climb trees, but they are not as adept at tree climbing as some other bear species. Their long rather straight front , which are adapted for digging into termite or ant colonies, are not perfected for climbing. They can often ap- pear awkward. In this case, the bear worked its way out on the branch and spent 6–7 minutes trying to break off the honey- comb, using her and snout, while trying to balance on the branch by wedging her hind limbs in a crotch. Meanwhile, she was contending with swarming and stinging her snout, which she occasionally brushed away with a free paw. Finally she was successful in breaking off a few pieces. She also sucked out the honey periodically. This honey feeding event was recorded and posted on YouTube (https://www. Om Gosatkar youtube.com/watch?v=sKEvicMlzYg&feature=youtu.be). The scenic beauty of Melghat Tiger Reserve with The diet of sloth bears is known to vary seasonally and rugged habitat in Maharashtra, India

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 59 Biological Research

(left & center) Persistent efforts made by the mother sloth bear to break off honeycomb on the tree while being stung by swarming bees. (right) Sloth bear retreating from tree after noticing our presence. She quickly slid down the tree leaving characteristic sliding marks. Photo credits: Om Gosatkar.

geographically, sometimes being mainly and sometimes mainly fruits (Laurie and Seidensticker 1977, Baskaran et al. 1997, Joshi et al. 1997, Seidensticker et al. 2011, Sukhadiya et al. 2013). Melghat is filled with fruiting species as Madhuca indica, Zizyphus mauritiana, Miliusa tomentosa, Murraya koenigii, Carissa carandas, Cordia dichotoma, Emblica officinalis, religiosa, F. benghalensis, Cassia fistula, Syzygium cumini and Mangifera indica although most of these fruits are avail- able for a limited period of months (May–August or December–February). It is also often reported that sloth bears are especially fond of honey and honeycombs, which are found typically in trees. In a memorable scene in the movie The Jungle Book (2016), the sloth bear “” convinces the human boy Mowgli, who is an adept climber, to retrieve a honeycomb for him far up a cliff face (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLlsrug1NQE). We have found traces of honeycomb in sloth bear scats many times but because this substance is well digested, it is difficult to assess how important it is in the diet. This was our first instance of seeing a sloth bear feeding on a honeycomb. Claw marks of bears on M. indica, T. tomentosa, S. cumini, F. benghalensis and Bombax ceiba were often seen as high as 20–25 m in honey-bearing or fruit-bear trees during our field surveys. In all cases, we observed long marks on the trees, from the bear sliding backwards as it came down. This was described from direct observations by Laurie and Sedensticker (1977). We observed and recorded that behaviour in this instance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVT7qwAVDnA&feature=yo utu.be). We do not know, though, if her retreat down the tree was hastened by her seeing us. Within seconds, she was on the ground, looked in our direction, and quickly left without consuming the pieces of honey- comb on the ground. Leaving an indelible mark our memories, we were fortunate to see another sloth bear in the road, 2–3 km away, on our way back. Although others have observed sloth bears feeding on honeycombs in trees, I wanted to write about it because the experience so impressed me. One often hears of single incidents that shape people’s life, and for me, this was certainly one, increasing my desire to learn more about this species.

Literature Cited Baskaran, N., N. Sivaganesan, and J. Krishnamoorthy. 1997. Food habits of sloth bear in Mudumalai wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, Southern India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 94:1–9. Joshi, A.R., D.L. Garshelis, and J.L.D. Smith. 1997. Seasonal and habitat-related diets of sloth bears in Nepal. Journal of Mammalogy 78:584–597. Laurie, A. and J. Sedensticker. 1977. Behavioural ecology of the Sloth bear (Melursus ursinus). Journal of Zoology (London) 182:187–204. Seidensticker, J., K. Yoganand, and A.J.T. Johnsingh. 2011. Sloth bears living in seasonally dry tropical and moist broadleaf forests and their conservation. Pages 217–236 in W.J. McShea, S.J. Davies, and N. Bhump- akphan, editors. The ecology and conservation of seasonally dry forests in Asia. Dry forests of Asia: conservation and ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Sukhadiya, D., J.U. Joshi, and N. Dharaiya. 2013. Feeding Ecology and Habitat Use of Sloth Bear (Melursus ursinus) in Jassore Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. Indian Ecological Society. 40(1):14-18.

60 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Manager’s Corner SEAFWA BearWise Program Launches Website Biologists and Managers Collaborate on Landmark Regional Bear Education Program

Dan Gibbs, Wildlife Management/Bear Program Leader Chairman, SEAFWA Large Carnivore Working Group BearWise Committee Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 3030 Wildlife Way, Morristown, TN 37814 Email: [email protected] ; phone: 423-587-7037

After more than 2 years of research and development, the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) has introduced the BearWise program and the companion website, www.bearwise.org , dedicated to helping people live more responsibly with black bears and providing resources for both bear managers and the public. The BearWise program was pioneered by the bear biologists from SEAFWA’s 15 member states, where about 70,000 black bears are trying to share space with more than 124 million people. Growing populations of both bears and humans are lead- ing to a rising number of human-bear encounters and conflicts. The BearWise program offers consistent, science-based information and smart, proven and practical ways to prevent conflicts, resolve problems, and develop BearWise communities to keep bears wild. Participating member states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, , , Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The dedicated BearWise Committee, which is a part of SEAFWA’s Large Carnivore Working Group, is co-chaired by Dan Gibbs, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Maria Davidson, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The committee of bear biologists also includes Colleen Olfenbuttel, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and David Telesco, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The BearWise website features an informative home page that explains the BearWise mission, and a wealth of information can be found in the 4 main sections: the 6 BearWise Basics; Bear Safety Tips for encounters, outdoor recreation and farming and raising livestock; guidelines and success stories for BearWise communities; and general information about black bears. Extensive resources are available now at www.bear- wise.org, including a printable PDF of the Six BearWise Basics, examples of conflict prevention programs and materials from throughout the southeast, instructional and informational videos, examples of legislation and community ordinances and much more. A library of materials and a password-protected section for wildlife professionals is under development. As the BearWise program continues to grow and develop, more resources will be added to the website for bear managers and professionals as well as members of the public, including homeowner associations and municipalities.

BearWise, Helping People Live Responsibly with Black Bears, A Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agen- cies Program Visit www.bearwise.org to subscribe to email updates.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 61 Workshop Announcements 24th Eastern Black Bear Workshop April 22 – 25, 2019. Potosi, Missouri

Laura Conlee Resource Scientist – Furbearer Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, USA Email: [email protected]

The Missouri Department of Conservation is excited to host the 24th Eastern Black Bear Workshop 22–25 April, 2019 at the YMCA of the Ozarks Lodge in Potosi, MO: http:// www.ymcaoftheozarks.org. The purpose of the Eastern Black Bear Workshop (EBBW) is to bring together state/provincial biologists, federal biologists, and university researchers with responsibilities for managing black bear (Ursus americanus) populations in the eastern USA and Canada to discuss issues important to the management, conservation, and perpetuation of those black bear popula- tions. EBBWs are inherently different from general conferences. Whereas conferences have the purpose of sharing informa- tion through the presentation of research and management papers, EBBWs are designed not only to share information, but more specifically to discuss and find solutions to problems of managing bear populations at the regional level. Visit www.easternblackbear- workshop.org for lodging, registra- tion, agenda items, and poster submissions. Registration will open by January 7, 2019.

Contact: Laura Conlee: laura. [email protected] or 573-815- 7900 ext. 2903. Missouri Department of Conservation Trail camera footage of Bear 1428 and her yearlings exiting their den on a warm March day in southern Missouri.

Truman Listserv and Facebook Page • Discussions pertaining to bear biology, management, or study design challenges • Assistance with proposals and study design through IBA professionals • Job searches, announcements, information regarding the IBA and student membership • Planning for IBA student activities and meetings • IBA membership is encouraged, but not required, for initial sign-up Listserv Signup Instructions - Visit: https://www.bearbiology.org/membership/students/ - Follow the links to request an invitation - If you’re a new member, please submit a paragraph about your project and include your contact inform- ation so we can all get to know you. Facebook Signup Instructions - Visit: https://facebook.com/groups/IBA.Conference/

62 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Publications Recent Bear Literature Marion Schneider Email: [email protected] If you have an article recently published please email the citation for inclusion in the next issue of Recent Bear Literature. The deadlines for the next issues are: • Spring Issue: 5 February: Agnieszka Sergiel: [email protected] • Summer Issue: 12 July: Agnes Pelletier: [email protected] • Fall Issue: 5 October: Marion Schneider: [email protected]

For easy access to articles, we are including the DOI citation, as well as the email contact of one coauthor if available. To open articles from their DOI, enter the DOI citation in the text box provided at the following website: http://dx.doi.org Allen, M.L., A.S. Norton, G. Stauffer, N.M. Roberts, Y. Luo, Q. Li, D. MacFarland and T.R. Van Deelen. 2018. A bayesian state-space model using age-at-harvest data for estimating the population of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Wisconsin. Sci Rep, 8(1): 12440. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30988-4. Ambarlı, H., D. Mengüllüoğlu, J. Fickel and D.W. Förster. 2018. Population genetics of the main population of brown bears in Southwest Asia. PeerJ, 6: e5660. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5660. Email: [email protected]. Amin, R., H.S. Baral, B.R. Lamichhane, L.P. Poudyal, S. Lee, S.R. Jnawali, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Upadhyaya, M.B. Pandey and R. Shrestha. 2018. The status of nepal’s mammals. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 10(3): 11361-11378. DOI: 10.11609/jott.3712.10.3.11361-11378. Email: [email protected]. Arinell, K., S. Blanc, K.G. Welinder, O.G. Støen, A.L. Evans and O. Fröbert. 2018. Physical inactivity and platelet function in humans and brown bears: A comparative study. Platelets, 29(1): 87-90. DOI: 10.1080/09537104.2017.1336530. Email: [email protected]. Arnemo, J.M., B. Ytrehus, K. Madslien, J. Malmsten, S. Brunberg, P. Segerström, A.L. Evans and J.E. Swenson. 2018. Long-term safety of intraperitoneal radio transmitter implants in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5(252). DOI: 10.3389/ fvets.2018.00252. Email: [email protected]. Arun, A.S., P.M. Sidharth, V.P. Rashamol, V. Sejian and R. Bhatta. 2018. Comparative study on the rhythmic changes in haematologi- cal parameters between captive and free ranging wild sloth bear (Melursus ursinus). Biological Rhythm Research: 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/09291016.2018.1498231. Email: [email protected]. Ashrafzadeh, M.-R., R. Khosravi, M. Ahmadi and M. Kaboli. 2018. Landscape heterogeneity and ecological niche isolation shape the distribution of spatial genetic variation in iranian brown bears, Ursus arctos (: Ursidae). Mammalian Biology, 93: 64-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2018.08.007. Email: [email protected]. Bai, W., T. Connor, J. Zhang, H. Yang, X. Dong, X. Gu and C. Zhou. 2018. Long-term distribution and habitat changes of protected wildlife: Giant pandas in Wolong , . Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(12): 11400-11408. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-1407-6. Email: [email protected], [email protected]. Bando, M.K.H., O.L. Nelson, N. Webster, J.D. Ramsay, H.J. Bacon and R. Sellon. 2018. Aortic aneurysm, dissection, and rupture in six bile-farmed bears. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 49(3): 738-747. DOI: 10.1638/2018-0018.1. Email: monica.bando@wsu. edu. Barber, J. 2018. Effects of food distribution and external factors on the activity budgets of captive sun bears (Helarctos malayanus). Department of Biology, Sonoma State University. Barlow, A., J.A. Cahill, S. Hartmann, C. Theunert, G. Xenikoudakis, G.G. Fortes, J.L.A. Paijmans, G. Rabeder, C. Frischauf, A. Grandal- d’Anglade, A. García-Vázquez, M. Murtskhvaladze, U. Saarma, P. Anijalg, T. Skrbinšek, G. Bertorelle, B. Gasparian, G. Bar-Oz, R. Pinhasi, M. Slatkin, L. Dalén, B. Shapiro and M. Hofreiter. 2018. Partial genomic survival of cave bears in living brown bears. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(10): 1563-1570. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0654-8. Bista, M., S. Panthi and S.R. Weiskopf. 2018. Habitat overlap between asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus and Ailurus fulgens in Himalaya. PLOS ONE, 13(9): e0203697. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203697. Email: [email protected]. Bombieri, G., V. Nanni, M.d.M. Delgado, J.M. Fedriani, J.V. López-Bao, P. Pedrini and V. Penteriani. 2018. Content analysis of media reports on predator attacks on humans: Toward an understanding of human risk perception and predator acceptance. BioSci- ence, 68(8): 577-584. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy072. Email: [email protected]. Burton, A.C., J.T. , P. Adriaens, J. Treweek, D. Paetkau, M. Wikstrom, A. Callender, R. Vardanyan and A. Stepanyan. 2018. Density and distribution of a brown bear (Ursus arctos) population within the biodiversity hotspot. Journal of Mammalogy, 99(5): 1249-1260. DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyy081. Email: [email protected]. Cahill, J.A., P.D. Heintzman, K. Harris, M.D. Teasdale, J. Kapp, A.E.R. Soares, I. Stirling, D. Bradley, C.J. Edwards, K. Graim, A.A. Kisleika, A.V. Malev, N. Monaghan, R.E. Green and B. Shapiro. 2018. Genomic evidence of widespread admixture from polar bears into brown bears during the last ice age. and Evolution, 35(5): 1120-1129. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msy018. Email: [email protected].

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 63 Publications Chanon, S., B. Chazarin, B. Toubhans, C. Durand, I. Chery, M. Robert, A. Vieille-Marchiset, J.E. Swenson, A. Zedrosser, A.L. Evans, S. Brunberg, J.M. Arnemo, G. Gauquelin-Koch, K.B. Storey, C. Simon, S. Blanc, F. Bertile and E. Lefai. 2018. Proteolysis inhibition by hibernating bear serum leads to increased protein content in human muscle cells. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 5525. DOI: 10.1038/ s41598-018-23891-5. Charlton, B.D., M.A. Owen, J.L. Keating, M.S. Martin-Wintle, H. Zhang and R.R. Swaisgood,. 2018. Sound transmission in a bamboo forest and its implications for information transfer in giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) bleats. Scientific reports, 8(1): 12754. Email: [email protected]. Chen, D., C. Li, L. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, G. Cheng, D. Li, G. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Chen, M. Feng, C. Wang, H. Wu, L. Deng, H. Ming and X. Yang. 2018. Analysis of the influence of living environment and age on vaginal fungal microbiome in giant pan- das (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) by high throughput sequencing. Microbial Pathogenesis, 115: 280-286. DOI: 10.1016/j.mic- path.2017.12.067. Email: [email protected]. Chen, Y.-p., Q. Liu, Q.-y. Ma, L. Maltby, A.M. Ellison and Y. Zhao. 2018. Environmental toxicants impair liver and kidney function and sperm quality of captive pandas. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 162: 218-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.07.008. Email: [email protected]. Cheng Huang, X.-Y.L., Liu-Jun Shi, Xue-Long Jiang. 2018. Patterns of human-wildlife conflict and compensation practices around Daxueshan Nature Reserve, China. Zoological Research, 39(6): 406-412. DOI: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2018.056. Email: jiangxl@ mail.kiz.ac.cn. Chirichella, R., A. Mustoni, F. Zibordi, M. Armanini, A. Caliari and M. Apollonio. 2018. Rent a room in the alps: Winter den site prefer- ences of native and reintroduced brown bears. Mammal Research: 1-10. DOI: 10.1007/s13364-018-0402-0. Email: rchirichella@ uniss.it. Chouksey, S., S. Singh, R. Pandey and V.S. Tomer. 2018. Monitoring the status of human-wildlife conflict and its impact on com- munity based conservation in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 10(2): 710-715. DOI: 10.31018/jans.v10i2.1771. Coogan, S.C.P., N.C. Coops, D.M. Janz, M.R.L. Cattet, S.P. Kearney, G.B. Stenhouse and S.E. Nielsen. 2018. Towards grizzly bear popula- tion recovery in a modern landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13259. Email: sean.c.p.coogan@ gmail.com. Coogan, S.C.P., D. Raubenheimer, G.B. Stenhouse, N.C. Coops and S.E. Nielsen. 2018. Functional macronutritional generalism in a large , the brown bear. Ecology and Evolution, 8(4): 2365-2376. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3867. Email: [email protected]. Crudge, B., T. Nguyen and T.T. Cao. 2018. The challenges and conservation implications of bear bile farming in Viet Nam. Oryx: 1-8. DOI: 10.1017/S0030605317001752. Email: [email protected]. Daugaard-Petersen, T., R. Langebæk, F.F. Rigét, M. Dyck, R.J. Letcher, L. Hyldstrup, J.-E.B. Jensen, R. Dietz and C. Sonne. 2018. Persis- tent organic pollutants and penile bone mineral density in east greenland and canadian polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during 1996–2015. Environment International, 114: 212-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.022. Email: [email protected]. Davoli, F., M. Cozzo, F. Angeli, C. Groff and E. Randi. 2018. Infanticide in brown bear: A case-study in the Italian alps–genetic identification of perpetrator and implications in small populations. Nature Conservation, 25: 55. DOI: 10.3897/natureconserva- tion.25.23776. Email: [email protected]. Deacy, W.W., J.A. Erlenbach, W.B. Leacock, J.A. Stanford, C.T. Robbins and J.B. Armstrong. 2018. Phenological tracking associated with increased consumption by brown bears. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 11008. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29425-3. Dietz, R., J.-P. Desforges, K. Gustavson, F.F. Rigét, E.W. Born, R.J. Letcher and C. Sonne. 2018. Immunologic, reproductive, and car- cinogenic risk assessment from pop exposure in east greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during 1983–2013. Environment International, 118: 169-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.020. Email: [email protected]. Ditmer, M.A., S.J. Rettler, J.R. Fieberg, P.A. Iaizzo, T.G. Laske, K.V. Noyce and D.L. Garshelis. 2018. American black bears perceive the risks of crossing roads. Behavioral Ecology, 29(3): 667-675. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary020. Email: [email protected]. Dorji, S., R. Rajaratnam, L. Falconi, S.E. Williams, P. Sinha and K. Vernes. 2018. Identifying conservation priorities for threatened eastern himalayan mammals. Conservation Biology, 32(5): 1162-1173. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13115. Email: [email protected]. Du, X., F. Dai, F. Yao, M. Tan and Q. Pan, 2018. Genome Sequence of Weissella cibaria M2, a Potential Probiotic Strain Isolated from the Feces of a Giant Panda. Microbiology Resource Announcements, 7(11). DOI: 10.1128/mra.01121-18. Eriksen, A., P. Wabakken, E. Maartmann and B. Zimmermann. 2018. Den site selection by male brown bears at the population’s expansion front. PLOS ONE, 13(8): e0202653. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202653. Email: [email protected]. Fahimi, H., A.T. Qashqaei, M. Chalani, Z. Asadi, S. Broomand, N. Ahmadi and G.H. Yusefi. 2018. Evidence of seed germination in scats of the asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus in (mammalia: Carnivora). Zoology in the , 64(2): 182-184. DOI: 10.1080/09397140.2018.1444573. Email: [email protected]. Fawzi, N., V. Husna and J. Helms. 2018. Measuring using remote sensing and its implication for conservation in Gunung Palung National Park, West , Indonesia. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing: pp: 012038. Finďo, S., M. Skuban, M. Kajba, J. Chalmers and M. Kalaš. 2018. Identifying attributes associated with brown bear (Ursus arctos) road- crossing and road-kill sites. Canadian Journal of Zoology. DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2018-0088. Flanders, J.A., R.F. Wack, N. Pusterla, S.M. Mapes, D. Collins and K.C. Gamble. 2018. Survey for equine herpesviruses in polar bears

64 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Publications (Ursus maritimus) and exotic equids housed in US AZA institutions. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 49(3): 599-608. DOI: 10.1638/2016-0189.1.Email: [email protected]. Fujiki, D. 2018. Can frequent occurrence of asiatic black bears around residential areas be predicted by a model-based mast produc- tion in multiple fagaceae species? Journal of Forest Research, 23(5): 260-269. DOI: 10.1080/13416979.2018.1488653. Email: fujiki@ wmi-hyogo.jp. García Marín, J.F., L.J. Royo, A. Oleaga, E. Gayo, O. Alarcia, D. Pinto, I.Z. Martínez, P. González, R. Balsera, J.L. Marcos and A. Balseiro. 2018. Canine adenovirus type 1 (cadv-1) in free-ranging European brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos): A threat for cantabrian population? Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13013. Email: [email protected]. Gervasi, V. and P. Ciucci. 2018. Demographic projections of the Apennine brown bear population Ursus arctos marsicanus (mammalia: Ursidae) under alternative management scenarios. The European Zoological Journal, 85(1): 243-253. DOI: 10.1080/24750263.2018.1478003. Email: [email protected]. Giroud, S., A.L. Evans, I. Chery, F. Bertile, G. Tascher, J. Bertrand-Michel, G. Gauquelin-Koch, J.M. Arnemo, J.E. Swenson, E. Lefai, S. Blanc and C. Simon. 2018. Seasonal changes in eicosanoid metabolism in the brown bear. The Science of Nature, 105(9): 58. DOI: 10.1007/s00114-018-1583-8. Email: [email protected]. Gocinski, B.L., K.K. Knott, B.M. Roberts, J.L. Brown, C.K. Vance and A.J. Kouba. 2018. Changes in urinary androgen concentration indicate that male giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) respond to impending female oestrus during and outside the typical spring breeding season. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(2): 399-408. DOI: 10.1071/RD16345. Email: bencharl- [email protected]. Gomez, L. and C.R. Shepherd. 2018. Trade in bears in Lao PDR with observations from market surveys and seizure data. Global Ecol- ogy and Conservation, 15: e00415. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00415. Email: lalita.gomez@traffic.org. Guharajan, R., T.W. Arnold, G. Bolongon, G.H. Dibden, N.K. Abram, S.W. Teoh, M.A. Magguna, B. Goossens, S. Te Wong and S.K. Nathan. 2018. Survival strategies of a frugivore, the sun bear, in a forest-oil palm landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation: 1-21. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-018-1619-6. Email: [email protected]. Guskov, V.Y., I.N. Sheremetyeva, I.V. Seryodkin and O.Y. Tyutenkov. 2018. Cranometric variability in brown bears of the . Biology Bulletin, 45(4): 368-375. DOI: 10.1134/s1062359018040064. Email: [email protected]. Han, F.-R., X.-M. Guang, Q.-H. Wan and S.-G. Fang. 2018. Deep sequencing of fosmid clones indicates gene conversion in the male-specific region of the giant panda Y . Genome Biol Evol, 10(9): 2168-2177. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evy174. Email: [email protected]. He, K., J. Qing, Z. Zhang, B. Yang, K. Zhang, F. Huang, Z. Yang, Q. Dai, X. Gu, X. Yang, Y. Huang, D. Li and H. Zhang. 2018. Assessing the reproductive status of a breeding, translocated female giant panda using data from GPS collar. Folia Zoologica, 67(1): 54-60. DOI: 10.25225/fozo.v67.i1.a5.2018. Email: [email protected]. Hilderbrand, G.V., D.D. Gustine, B.A. Mangipane, K. Joly, W. Leacock, L.S. Mangipane, J. Erlenbach, M.S. Sorum, M.D. Cameron, J.L. Belant and T. Cambier. 2018. Body size and lean mass of brown bears across and within four diverse ecosystems. Journal of Zool- ogy, 305(1): 53-62. DOI: 10.1111/jzo.12536. Email: [email protected]. Hu, Y., H. Pang, S. Ling, R. Wei, Y. Zhu, H. Zhang, D. Li, D. Li and C. Wang. 2018. Sequence analysis of the ATP synthase of subunits (ATP8 and ATP6) genes of mitochondrial DNA genome from Ailuropoda melanoleuca. Mitochondrial DNA Part B, 3(2): 1092-1093. DOI: 10.1080/23802359.2018.1424574. Email: [email protected]. Huang, Q., C.H. Fleming, B. Robb, A. Lothspeich and M. Songer. 2018. How different are species distribution model predictions?— Application of a new measure of dissimilarity and level of significance to giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca. Ecological Informatics, 46: 114-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.06.004. Email: [email protected]. Huang, Q., J. Kraus and M. Songer. 2018. Qinling mountains, china: The relationships between bamboo mineral content and giant panda habitat selection during migration. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 41(2): 195-208. Ivanov, E., I. Mordvintsev, N. Platonov, S. Naidenko, A. Tiunov and V. Rozhnov. 2018. Isotopic composition of blood of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the Kara–Barents sea population. In: Doklady Biological Sciences. Springer: pp: 93-96. Jamhuri, J., L.D. Samantha, S.L. Tee, N. Kamarudin, A. Ashton-Butt, A. Zubaid, A.M. Lechner and B. Azhar. 2018. Selective logging causes the decline of large-sized mammals including those in unlogged patches surrounded by logged and agricultural areas. Biological Conservation, 227: 40-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.004. Email: [email protected]. Jati, A.S., H. Samejima, S. Fujiki, Y. Kurniawan, R. Aoyagi and K. Kitayama. 2018. Effects of logging on wildlife communities in certified tropical in , Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management, 427: 124-134. DOI: 10.1016/j. foreco.2018.05.054. Email: [email protected]. Jiangzuo, Q., J. Wagner, J. Chen, C. Dong, J. Wei, J. Ning and J. Liu. 2018. Presence of the middle cave bears in China confirmed – Evidence from Zhoukoudian area. Quaternary Science Reviews, 199: 1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.09.012. Email: [email protected]. Johnson, H.E., D.L. Lewis, T.L. Verzuh, C.F. Wallace, R.M. Much, L.K. Willmarth and S.W. Breck. 2018. Human development and climate affect hibernation in a large carnivore with implications for human–carnivore conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(2): 663- 672. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13021. Email: [email protected]. Kennedy, J.R., L. Rogers and F.A. Kaestle. 2018. Ancient DNA evidence for the regional trade of bear paws by Chinese diaspora com- munities in 19th-century Western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science, 99: 135-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2018.09.005.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 65 Publications Email: [email protected]. Kristensen, T.V., E.E. Puckett, E.L. Landguth, J.L. Belant, J.T. Hast, C. Carpenter, J.L. Sajecki, J. Beringer, M. Means, J.J. Cox, L.S. Eggert, D. White and K.G. Smith. 2018. Spatial genetic structure in American black bears (Ursus americanus): Female philopatry is vari- able and related to population history. Heredity, 120(4): 329-341. DOI: 10.1038/s41437-017-0019-0. Ladle, A., T. Avgar, M. Wheatley, G.B. Stenhouse, S.E. Nielsen and M.S. Boyce. 2018. Grizzly bear response to spatio-temporal vari- ability in human recreational activity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13277. Email: [email protected]. Ladyfandela, N., W. Novarino and J. Nurdin. 2018. Jenis-jenis carnivora di kawasan suaka alam malampah, sumatera barat, indone- sia. JURNAL BIOLOGI UNAND, 6(2): 90-97. DOI: (ISSN : 2303-2162). Email: [email protected]. Lara-Díaz, N.E., H. Coronel-Arellano, C.A. López-González, G. Sánchez-Rojas and J.E. Martínez-Gómez. 2018. Activity and resource selection of a threatened carnivore: The case of black bears in Northwestern . Ecosphere, 9(1): e01923. DOI: 10.1002/ ecs2.1923. Email: [email protected]. Laske, T.G., A.L. Evans, J.M. Arnemo, T.L. Iles, M.A. Ditmer, O. Fröbert, D.L. Garshelis and P.A. Iaizzo. 2018. Development and utiliza- tion of implantable cardiac monitors in free-ranging American black and Eurasian brown bears: System evolution and lessons learned. Animal Biotelemetry, 6(1): 13. DOI: 10.1186/s40317-018-0157-z. Email: [email protected]. Laufenberg, J.S., H.E. Johnson, P.F. Doherty and S.W. Breck. 2018. Compounding effects of human development and a natural food shortage on a black bear population along a human development-wildland interface. Biological Conservation, 224: 188-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.004. Email: [email protected]. Lillie, K.M., E.M. Gese, T.C. Atwood and S.A. Sonsthagen. 2018. Development of on-shore behavior among polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Inherited or learned? Ecology and Evolution, 8(16): 7790-7799. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4233. Email: [email protected]. Lincoln, A.E. and T.P. Quinn. 2018. Optimal foraging or : Selective consumption and discarding of salmon by brown bears. Behavioral Ecology: ary139-ary139. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary139. Email: [email protected]. Ling, L.S., N.M. Maseri, K. Hambali and A. Amir. 2018. A preliminary camera traps assessment of terrestrial vertebrates at different elevation gradients in Gunung Stong State Park, Kelantan, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal, 70(1): 3-11. Email: kamarul@umk. edu.my. Lischka, S.A., T.L. Teel, H.E. Johnson, S.E. Reed, S. Breck, A. Don Carlos and K.R. Crooks. 2018. A conceptual model for the integra- tion of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions. Biological Conservation, 225: 80-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.020. Email: [email protected]. Livingstone, E., L. Gomez and J. Bouhuys, 2018. A review of bear farming and bear trade in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Global Ecology and Conservation, 13: e00380. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00380. Email: [email protected]. Lone, K., K.M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, M. Fedak, M. Andersen, P. Lovell and J. Aars. 2018. Aquatic behaviour of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in an increasingly ice-free arctic. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 9677. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-27947-4. Ma, B., S. Lei, Q. Qing and Y. Wen, 2018. Should the endangered status of the giant panda really be reduced? The case of giant panda conservation in Sichuan, China. Animals, 8(5): 69. DOI: 10.3390/ani8050069. Ma, T., Y. Hu, I.-R.M. Russo, Y. Nie, T. Yang, L. Xiong, S. Ma, T. Meng, H. Han, X. Zhang, M.W. Bruford and F. Wei. 2018. Walking in a heterogeneous landscape: Dispersal, gene flow and conservation implications for the giant panda in the qinling mountains. Evolutionary Applications, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/eva.12686. Email: [email protected]. Mangipane, L.S., J.L. Belant, D.D. Gustine, G.V. Hilderbrand and B.A. Mangipane. 2018. Sex-specific variation in denning by brown bears. Mammalian Biology, 93: 38-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2018.08.001. Email: [email protected]. McFadden-Hiller, J.E. and J.L. Belant. 2018. Spatiotemporal shifts in distribution of a recolonizing black bear population. Ecosphere, 9(9): e02375. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2375. Email: [email protected]. McKenney, E.A., M. Maslanka, A. Rodrigo and A.D. Yoder. 2018. Bamboo specialists from two mammalian orders (, car- nivora) share a high number of low-abundance gut microbes. Microbial ecology, 76(1): 272-284. DOI: 10.1007/s00248- 017-1114 -8. Email: [email protected]. McLellan, B.N., G. Mowat and C.T. Lamb. 2018. Estimating unrecorded human-caused mortalities of grizzly bears in the flathead valley, British Columbia, Canada. PeerJ, 6: e5781. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5781. Email: [email protected]. Miller, L.J., J.A. Ivy, G.A. Vicino and I.G. Schork. 2018. Impacts of natural history and exhibit factors on carnivore welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science: 1-9. DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1455582. Email: [email protected]. Min-Shan Ko, A., Y. Zhang, M.A. Yang, Y. Hu, P. Cao, X. Feng, L. Zhang, F. Wei and Q. Fu. 2018. Mitochondrial genome of a 22,000-year-old giant panda from Southern China reveals a new panda lineage. Current Biology, 28(12): R693-R694. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.008. Email: [email protected]. Miranda, E.B.P., 2018. Reintroducing apex predators: The perils of muddling guilds and taxocenoses. Royal Society Open Science, 5(7). DOI: 10.1098/rsos.180567. Email: [email protected]. Moen, G.K., A. Ordiz, J. Kindberg, J.E. Swenson, J. Sundell and O.-G. Støen. 2018. Behavioral reactions of brown bears to approaching humans in Fennoscandia. Écoscience: 1-11. DOI: 10.1080/11956860.2018.1513387. Email: [email protected]. Mohd-Azlan, J., H. Nurul-Asna, T.S. Jailan, A.A. Tuen, L. Engkamat, D.N. Abdillah, R. Zainudin and J.F. Brodie. 2018. Camera trapping of terrestrial animals in Tanjung Datu National Park, , Borneo. RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY, 66: 587-594. Email: [email protected].

66 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Publications Mynbayeva, B., N. Voronova, A. Tanybayeva, K. Musdybayeva, G. Yerubayeva and B. Amirasheva. 2018. New records of the tian shan (or Himalayan) brown bear Ursus arctos isabellinus horsfield, 1826 (carnivora: Ursidae) in Zailiyskiy Alatau mts., Kazakhstan. ACTA ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA, 70(2): 185-188. Email: [email protected]. Nakajima, A., S. Koike, K. Yamazaki, C. Kozakai, Y. Nemoto, T. Masaki and K. Kaji. 2018. Feeding habits of Asian black bears (Ursus thibetanus) in relation to the abundance and timing of fruiting in 13 tree species. Mammal Study, 43(3): 167-178. DOI: 10.3106/ ms2017-0032. Email: [email protected]. Nemoto, Y., R. Saito and H. Oomachi. 2018. Seasonal variation of cesium-137 concentration in Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and (Sus scrofa) in fukushima prefecture, japan. PLOS ONE, 13(7): e0200797. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200797. Email: [email protected]. Niedziałkowska, M., M.W. Hayward, T. Borowik, W. Jędrzejewski and B. Jędrzejewska. 2018. A meta-analysis of ungulate preda- tion and prey selection by the brown bear Ursus arctos in Eurasia. Mammal Research. DOI: 10.1007/s13364-018-0396-7. Email: [email protected]. Norton, D.C., J.L. Belant, J.G. Bruggink, D.E. Beyer, Jr., N.J. Svoboda and T.R. Petroelje. 2018. Female American black bears do not alter space use or movements to reduce infanticide risk. PLOS ONE, 13(9): e0203651. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203651. Email: nortonc3@.gov, [email protected]. O’Regan, H.J. 2018. The presence of the brown bear Ursus arctos in Britain: A review of the evidence. Mammal Review, 48(4): 229-244. DOI: 10.1111/mam.12127. Email: [email protected]. Oshima, T., M. Ohtani and S. Mimasaka. 2018. Injury patterns of fatal bear attacks in Japan: A description of seven cases. Forensic Science International, 286: e14-e19. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.02.021. Email: [email protected]. Pagano, A.M., A.M. Carnahan, C.T. Robbins, M.A. Owen, T. Batson, N. Wagner, A. Cutting, N. Nicassio-Hiskey, A. Hash and T.M. Wil- liams. 2018. Energetic costs of locomotion in bears: Is locomotion energetically economical? Journal of Experimental Biology, 221(12): jeb175372. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.175372. Email: [email protected]. Pappa, S., D.C. Schreve and F. Rivals. 2018. The bear necessities: A new dental microwear database for the interpretation of palaeo- diet in ursidae. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.10.015. Email: Spyridoula. [email protected]. Penteriani, V., A. Zarzo-Arias, G. Bombieri, D. Cañedo, J. Díaz García, M.M. Delgado, P. Peón Torre, M. Fernández Otero, P. Vázquez García, V.M. Vázquez and T. Sánchez Corominas. 2018. Density and reproductive characteristics of female brown bears in the Cantabrian mountains, NW Spain. The European Zoological Journal, 85(1): 313-321. DOI: 10.1080/24750263.2018.1499826. Email: [email protected]. Pérez-Ramos, A., K. Kupczik, A.H. Van Heteren, G. Rabeder, A. Grandal-D’Anglade, F.J. Pastor, F.J. Serrano and B. Figueirido. 2018. A three-dimensional analysis of tooth-root morphology in living bears and implications for feeding behaviour in the extinct . Historical Biology: 1-13. DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2018.1525366. Email: [email protected]. Ran, M.-X., Y. Li, Y. Zhang, K. Liang, Y.-N. Ren, M. Zhang, G.-B. Zhou, Y.-M. Zhou, K. Wu and C.-D. Wang. 2018. Transcriptome sequenc- ing reveals the differentially expressed lncrnas and mrnas involved in cryoinjuries in frozen-thawed giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) sperm. International journal of molecular sciences, 19(10): 3066. DOI: 10.3390/ijms19103066. Ratnayeke, S., F.T. van Manen, G.R. Clements, N.A.M. Kulaimi and S.P. Sharp. 2018. Carnivore hotspots in peninsular Malaysia and their landscape attributes. PLOS ONE, 13(4): e0194217. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194217. Email: [email protected]. Riley, D.A., J.M.V. Dyke, V. Vogel, B.D. Curry, J.L.W. Bain, R. Schuett, D.L. Costill, T. Trappe, K. Minchev and S. Trappe. 2018. Soleus muscle stability in wild hibernating black bears. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 315(2): R369-R379. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00060.2018. [email protected]. Robbins, C.T., N.L. Woodford, G. Goolsby Clyde, C. Minor, O.L. Nelson, M.M. Brewer, P.H. Khalife and J.R. Hawley. 2018. Salmon poisoning disease in grizzly bears with population recovery implications. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(7): 1396-1402. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21502. Email: [email protected]. Roberts, B.M., J.L. Brown, D.C. Kersey, R.J. Snyder, B.S. Durrant and A.J. Kouba. 2018. Use of urinary 13,14, dihydro-15-keto-prosta- glandin f2α (pgfm) concentrations to diagnose pregnancy and predict parturition in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanolecua). PLOS ONE, 13(5): e0195599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195599. Email: [email protected], [email protected]. Rode, K.D., J.K. Fortin-Noreus, D. Garshelis, M. Dyck, V. Sahanatien, T. Atwood, S. Belikov, K.L. Laidre, S. Miller, M.E. Obbard, D. Vongraven, J. Ware and J. Wilder. 2018. Survey-based assessment of the frequency and potential impacts of recreation on polar bears. Biological Conservation, 227: 121-132. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.008. Email: [email protected]. Romagnoli, N., G. Pagnanelli, C. Lambertini, E. Drayton, A. Buonacucina and A. Peli. 2018. Cardiorespiratory effects of medetomidine and dexmedetomidine combined with tiletamine-zolazepam for the immobilization of Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) under isoflurane general anesthesia. PLOS ONE, 13(7): e0200833. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200833. Email: carlotta.lamber- [email protected]. Sanyal, A., K.A. Rawat, S. Das, S. Dvivedi, M. Rajan and R. Zaidi. 2018. Are humans encroaching too much? Man versus bear. Interna- tional Surgery Journal, 5(3): 917-922. DOI: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20180803. Email: [email protected]. Sasi, R. and H.N. Kumara. 2018. Conservation status of large mammals in Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, India. In: Indian hotspots. Springer: pp: 287-296.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 67 Publications Sasmal, I., N.P. Gould, K.L. Schuler, Y.-F. Chang, A. Thachil, J. Strules, C. Olfenbuttel, S. Datta and C.S. DePerno. 2018. Leptospirosis in urban and suburban American black bears in Western North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.7589/2017-10- 263. Email: [email protected]. Servin, J., D. Carreón-González, A. Huerta-García, F. Castro-Campos and L.F. González-Saravia. 2018. Record of (Ursus americanus) in Durango, México. THERYA, 9(3): 261. DOI: 10.12933/therya-18-580 ISSN 2007-3364. Email: jservin@correo. xoc.uam.mx. Sethy, J. and N.P. Chauhan. 2018. Dietary preference of Malayan sun bear Helarctos malayanus in Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Wildlife Biology, 2018: wlb. 00351. DOI: 10.2981/wlb.00351. Email: [email protected]. Shakeri, Y.N., K.S. White and T. Levi. 2018. Salmon-supported bears, , and extensive resource subsidies to granivores. Ecosphere, 9(6): e02297. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2297. Email: [email protected]. Shan, L., Q. Wu, L. Wang, L. Zhang and F. Wie. 2018. Lineage-specific evolution of bitter genes in the giant and red pandas implies dietary adaptation. Integrative Zoology, 13(2): 152-159. DOI: 10.1111/1749 - 4877.12291. Email: [email protected]. Shirane, Y., M. Shimozuru, M. Yamanaka, H. Tsuruga, S. Hirano, N. Nagano, J. Moriwaki, M. Nakanishi, T. Ishinazaka and T. Nose. 2018. Sex-biased natal dispersal in Hokkaido brown bears revealed through mitochondrial DNA analysis. Eur J Wildl Res, 64(6): 65. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-018-1222-x. Email: [email protected]. Siddappa, C.M., S. Nair, R. Gupta, K. Mathesh, I. Selvaraj, A.A. Shanmugam and A.K. Sharma. 2018. Biochemical reference intervals for semi-captive sloth bears (Melursus ursinus ursinus) in India. International Journal of Livestock Research, 8(4): 311-315. Srivastava, A., V. Sarsani, I. Fiddes, S. Sheehan, R. Seger, M. Barter, S. Neptune-Bear, C. Lindqvist and R. Korstanje. 2018. Genome assembly and gene expression in the american black bear provides new insights into the renal response to hibernation. bioRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/316596. Email: [email protected]. Steffen, M.L. and T.L. Fulton. 2018. On the association of giant short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) in North America. Geobios, 51(1): 61-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.geobios.2017.12.001. Email: [email protected]. Stynder, D.D., L.R. DeSantis, S.L. Donohue, B.W. Schubert and P.S. Ungar. 2018. A dental microwear texture analysis of the early plio- cene African ursid africanum (mammalia, carnivora, ursidae). Journal of Mammalian Evolution: 1-11. DOI: 10.1007/ s10914-018-9436-y. Email: [email protected]. Swaisgood, R.R., M.S. Martin-Wintle, M.A. Owen, X. Zhou and H. Zhang. 2018. Developmental stability of foraging behavior: Evaluating suitability of captive giant pandas for translocation. Animal Conservation, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/acv.12418. rswaisgood@ sandiegozoo.org. Swaisgood, R.R., D. Wang and F. Wei. 2018. Panda downlisted but not out of the woods. Conservation Letters, 11(1): e12355. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12355. [email protected]. Thakur, M., E.W. Schättin and W.J. McShea. 2018. Globally common, locally rare: Revisiting disregarded genetic diversity for conser- vation planning of widespread species. Biodiversity and Conservation: 1-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-018-1579-x. Email: thamukesh@ gmail.com. Tochigi, K., T. Masaki, A. Nakajima, K. Yamazaki, A. Inagaki and S. Koike. 2018. Detection of arboreal feeding signs by Asiatic black bears: Effects of hard mast production at individual tree and regional scales. Journal of Zoology, 305(4): 223-231. DOI: 10.1111/ jzo.12564. Email: [email protected]. Tomiyasu, J., D. Kondoh, H. Sakamoto, N. Matsumoto, S. Haneda and M. Matsui. 2018. Lectin histochemical studies on the olfac- tory gland and two types of gland in of the brown bear. Acta Histochemica, 120(6): 566-571. DOI: 10.1016/j. acthis.2018.07.003. Email: [email protected]. Torres, D.F., E.S. Oliveira and R.R.N. Alves. 2018. Chapter 22 - understanding human–wildlife conflicts and their implications. In: Ethnozoology, R. R. Nóbrega Alves and U. P. Albuquerque, (Eds.). Academic Press: pp: 421-445. Tosoni, E., M. Mei and P. Ciucci. 2018. Ants as food for apennine brown bears. The European Zoological Journal, 85(1): 343-349. DOI: 10.1080/24750263.2018.1511762. Email: [email protected]. Van de Walle, J., G. Pigeon, A. Zedrosser, J.E. Swenson and F. Pelletier. 2018. Hunting regulation favors slow life histories in a large carnivore. Nature Communications, 9(1): 1100. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03506-3. van Heteren, A.H., M. Arlegi, E. Santos, J.-L. Arsuaga and A. Gómez-Olivencia. 2018. Cranial and mandibular morphology of middle pleistocene cave bears (): Implications for diet and evolution. Historical Biology: 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2018.1487965. Email: [email protected]. Veeraselvam, M., R. Sridhar, M. Jayathanagaraj, V. Ramakrishnan, P. Perumal and N. Rajesh. 2018. Molecular detection of leptospiro- sis in captive sloth bears (Melursus ursinus). Viengkone, M., A.E. Derocher, E.S. Richardson, M.E. Obbard, M.G. Dyck, N.J. Lunn, V. Sahanatien, B.G. Robinson and C.S. Davis. 2018. Assessing spatial discreteness of Hudson Bay polar bear populations using telemetry and genetics. Ecosphere, 9(7): e02364. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2364. Email: [email protected]. Vitásková, E., L. Molnár, I. Holko, P. Supuka, L. Černíková, E. Bártová and K. Sedlák. 2018. Serologic survey of selected viral pathogens in free-ranging Eurasian brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos) from Slovakia. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.7589/2017-11- 290. Email: [email protected]. Vongraven, D., A.E. Derocher and A.M. Bohart. 2018. Polar bear research: Has science helped management and conservation? Environmental Reviews: 1-11. DOI: 10.1139/er-2018-0021.

68 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 Publications Wang, F., Q. Zhao, W.J. McShea, M. Songer, Q. Huang, X. Zhang and L. Zhou. 2018. Incorporating biotic interactions reveals potential climate tolerance of giant pandas. Conservation Letters, 0(0): e12592. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12592. Email: [email protected]. Wang, T., Y. Xie, Y. Zheng, C. Wang, D. Li, A.V. Koehler and R.B. Gasser, 2018. Chapter one - parasites of the giant panda: A risk factor in the conservation of a species. In: Advances in parasitology, D. Rollinson and J. R. Stothard, (Eds.). Academic Press: pp: 1-33. Wauters, J., K.S. Wilson, T. Bouts, I. Valentine, K. Vanderschueren, C. Ververs, A.F. Howie, M.T. Rae, A. Van Soom, R. Li, D. Li, H. Zhang and L. Vanhaecke. 2018. Urinary specific gravity as an alternative for the normalisation of endocrine metabolite concentrations in giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) reproductive monitoring. PLOS ONE, 13(7): e0201420. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201420. Email: [email protected]. Wei, F., R. Costanza, Q. Dai, N. Stoeckl, X. Gu, S. Farber, Y. Nie, I. Kubiszewski, Y. Hu, R. Swaisgood, X. Yang, M. Bruford, Y. Chen, A. Voinov, D. Qi, M. Owen, L. Yan, D.C. Kenny, Z. Zhang, R. Hou, S. Jiang, H. Liu, X. Zhan, L. Zhang, B. Yang, L. Zhao, X. Zheng, W. Zhou, Y. Wen, H. Gao and W. Zhang. 2018. The value of ecosystem services from giant panda reserves. Current Biology, 28(13): 2174- 2180.e2177. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.046. Email: [email protected]. Wei, W., R.R. Swaisgood, Q. Dai, Z. Yang, S. Yuan, M.A. Owen, N.W. Pilfold, X. Yang, X. Gu, H. Zhou, H. Han, J. Zhang, M. Hong and Z. Zhang. 2018. Giant panda distributional and habitat-use shifts in a changing landscape. Conservation Letters, 0(0): e12575. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12575. Email: [email protected]. Whiteman, J., H. Harlow, G. Durner, E. Regehr, S. Amstrup and M. Ben-David. 2018. Heightened immune system function in polar bears using terrestrial habitats. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology. DOI: 10.1086/698996. Email: [email protected]. Wick, M.V. and B. Hashem. 2018. Treatment of sarcoptic mange in an American black bear (Ursus americanus) with a single oral dose of fluralaner. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.7589/2017-12-310. [email protected]. Wilson, A.E., D.L. Sparks, K.K. Knott, A.J. Kouba, S. Willard and A. Brown. 2018. Behavioral, semiochemical and androgen responses by male giant pandas to the olfactory sexual receptivity cues of females. Theriogenology, 114: 330-337. DOI: 10.1016/j.therio- genology.2018.04.011. Email: [email protected]. Wirsing, A.J., T.P. Quinn, C.J. Cunningham, J.R. Adams, A.D. Craig and L.P. Waits. 2018. Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos) aggregate and display fidelity to foraging neighborhoods while preying on pacific salmon along small streams. Ecology and Evolution, 8(17): 9048-9061. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4431. Email: [email protected]. Wolfe, L.L., M.E. Wood, M.C. Fisher and M.A. Sirochman. 2018. Evaluation of chemical immobilization in captive black bears (Ursus americanus) receiving a combination of nalbuphine, medetomidine, and azaperone. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.7589/2018-03-079. [email protected]. Wynn-Grant, R., J.R. Ginsberg, C.W. Lackey, E.J. Sterling and J.P. Beckmann. 2018. Risky business: Modeling mortality risk near the urban-wildland interface for a large carnivore. Global Ecology and Conservation, 16: e00443. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00443. Email: [email protected]. Yang, S., X. Gao, J. Meng, A. Zhang, Y. Zhou, M. Long, B. Li, W. Deng, L. Jin, S. Zhao, D. Wu, Y. He, C. Li, S. Liu, Y. Huang, H. Zhang and L. Zou. 2018. Metagenomic analysis of bacteria, fungi, bacteriophages, and helminths in the gut of giant pandas. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9(1717). DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01717. Yu, B.E. 2018. First recorded case of female brown bear (Ursus arctos: Ursidae) with five second year cubs. Nature Conservation Research. Заповедная наука, 3(2). Yu, L., Y. Nie, L. Yan, Y. Hu and F. Wei. 2018. No evidence for MHC-based mate choice in wild giant pandas. Ecology and Evolution, 8(17): 8642-8651. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4419. Email: [email protected]. Zhang, J., W. Xu, L. Kong, V. Hull, Y. Xiao, Y. Xiao and Z. Ouyang. 2018. Strengthening protected areas for giant panda habitat and ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 227: 1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.016. Email: [email protected]. Zhang, Y., P.D. Mathewson, Q. Zhang, W.P. Porter and J. Ran. 2018. An ecophysiological perspective on likely giant panda habitat responses to climate change. Global Change Biology, 24(4): 1804-1816. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14022. Email: [email protected]. Zhang, Z.-Y., H.-M. Zhang, D.-S. Li, T.-Y. Xiong and S.-G. Fang. 2018. Characterization of the β-defensin genes in giant panda. Scien- tific Reports, 8(1): 12308. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29898-2. Zhu, L., Z. Yang, R. Yao, L. Xu, H. Chen, X. Gu, T. Wu and X. Yang. 2018. Potential mechanism of detoxification of cyanide compounds by gut microbiomes of bamboo-eating pandas. mSphere, 3(3). DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00229-18.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 69 IBA Officers & Council Council Members

President, Andreas Zedrosser (Norway) Councillor, Nishith Dharaiya (India) University of Southeast Norway HNG University Department of Life Sciences +47.3595.2765 [email protected] +91.999.898.1560 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2020 Term Ends: 09.January.2020

Vice President , Marty Obbard (Canada) Councillor, Yoshikazu Sato (Japan) of Natural Resources Rakuno Gakuen University +1.705.755.1549 [email protected] +81.113.88.4602 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2020 Term Ends: 09.January.2020

Vice President Eurasia, Mei-Hsui Hwang () Councillor, Gordon Stenhouse (Canada) National Pingtung University of Science & Technology fRI Research +886.8.7740416 [email protected] +1.780.865.8388 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2021 Term Ends: 09.January.2020

Past-President, Karen Noyce (United States) Councillor, Shyamala Ratnayeke (Malaysia) Retired-Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Sunway University Department of Biological Sciences +1.218.259.6686 [email protected] +60.3.7491.8622 Ext: 7177 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2020 Term Ends: 09.January.2020

Secretary, Jennapher Teunissen van Manen (United States) Councillor, Marta DeBarba (France) International Association for Bear Research and Management Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine (LECA) +1.530.379.5476 jennapher.teunissenvanmanen@outlook. +33.778574551 [email protected] com Term Ends: 09.January.2021 Term Ends: 09.January.2021 Councillor, Agnieszka Sergiel (Poland) Treasurer, Jennifer Fortin-Noreus (United States) Institute of Nature Conservation Polish Academy of Sciences U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service +48.12.370.35.64 [email protected] +1.406.243.4994 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2021 Term Ends: 09.January.2020 Ex-Officio Members

Ursus Editor, Jon Swenson (Norway) IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-chair, Dave Garshelis (United Norwegian University of Life Sciences States) Email: [email protected] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1-218-328-8874 [email protected] Bear Conservation Fund Chair, Julia Bevins (United States) Anchorage AK 99508 USA IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-chair, Rob Steinmetz (Thailand) 1-907-223-3483 [email protected] WWF-Thailand +66-2-942-7691 [email protected] IBN Editor, Mark Edwards (Canada) Royal Alberta Museum IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dag Vongraven (Norway) 1-780-453-9125 [email protected] Norwegian Polar Institute +47-7-775-0638 [email protected] Student Representative, Amy Macleod (Canada) University of Alberta [email protected]

Webmaster, Nadine Bechstein (Germany) [email protected]

70 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 BSG Expert Team Chairs BSG Co-Chairs Dave Garshelis Email: [email protected] Rob Steinmetz Email: [email protected]

BSG Deputy Chair (new position) Michael Proctor Email: [email protected]

Red List Authority Focal Point Bruce McLellan Email: [email protected]

European Brown Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Giant Panda Expert Team Co-chairs Djuro Huber Ron Swaisgood Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Jon Swenson Dajun Wang Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Asian Brown Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Andean Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Stefan Michel Ximena Velez-Liendo Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Bruce McLellan Russ Van Horn Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Michael Proctor Human-Bear Conflicts Expert Team Co-chairs Email: [email protected] Lana Ciarniello Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Email: [email protected] Dave Garshelis Patti Sowka Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Matt Hunt Captive Bears Expert Team Co-chairs Email: [email protected] Lydia Kolter Sun Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Email: [email protected] Nicola Field Gabriella Fredriksson Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Rob Steinmetz Email: [email protected]

Sloth Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Harendra Bargali Email: [email protected] Nishith Dharaiya Email: [email protected]

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 71 International Bear News Distribution 907 Jessie Way Bozeman, MT 59715 USA

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Update Your Contact Information at: www.bearbiology.org

About the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) The International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) is a non-profit tax-exempt organization open to profes- sional biologists, wildlife managers, and others dedicated to the conservation of all bear species. The organization has approxmi- ately 500 members from over 50 countries. It supports the scientific management of bears through research and distribution of information. The IBA sponsors international conferences on all aspects of bear biology, ecology, and management. The proceed- ings are published as peer-reviewed scientific papers in the journal Ursus. IBA Mission Statement Goal: The goal of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) is to promote the conservation and restoration of the world’s bears through science-based research, management, and education. Objectives: In support of this goal, IBA’s objectives are to: 1. Promote and foster well-designed research of the highest professional standards. 2. Develop and promote sound stewardship of the world’s bears through scientifically based population and habitat management. 3. Publish and distribute, through its conferences and publications, peer-reviewed scientific and technical information of high quality addressing broad issues of ecology, conservation, and management. 4. Encourage communication and collaboration across scientific disciplines and among bear researchers and managers through conferences, workshops, and newsletters. 5. Increase public awareness and understanding of bear ecology, conservation, and management by encouraging the transla- tion of technical information into popular literature and other media, as well as through other educational forums. 6. Encourage the professional growth and development of our members. 7. Provide professional counsel and advice on issues of natural resource policy related to bear management and conservation. 8. Maintain the highest standards of professional ethics and scientific integrity. 9. Encourage full international participation in the IBA through the siting of conferences, active recruitment of international members and officers, and through financial support for international research, travel to meetings, memberships, and journal subscriptions. 10. Through its integrated relationship with the Bear Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)/Species Survival Commission, identify priorities in bear research and management and recruit project proposals to the IBA Grants Program that address these priorities. 11. Build an endowment and a future funding base to provide ongoing support for IBA core functions and for the IBA Grants Program. 12. Support innovative solutions to bear conservation dilemmas that involve local communities as well as national or regional governments and, to the extent possible, address their needs without compromising bear conservation, recognizing that conservation is most successful where human communities are stable and can see the benefits of conservation efforts. 13. Form partnerships with other institutions to achieve conservation goals, where partnerships could provide additional fund- ing, knowledge of geographical areas, or expertise in scientific or non-scientific sectors.

Deadline for the Spring 2019 issue is 26 February 2019