DOCSLIB.ORG

The Florida Black Bear

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Florida Black Bear The Florida Black Bear Mike Orlando Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Introduction ▪ Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) ▪ The only species of bear in Florida. Photo by Charles Towne Black Bear Biology Males vs Females 250 – 450 lbs (760) 125 – 250 lbs (400) 60 miles2 15 miles2 More risk-taking More secretive/careful Male Female 350 lbs 150 lbs Weight ▪ Florida’s largest documented bear is 760 Lbs. Sex Identification ▪ big blocky head ▪ with cubs ▪ large size and mass ▪ slim fox like head and muzzle Size Identification Pat Delaney Dessert Ranch Smaller/slimmer head, ears appear large = smaller bear Newsweek Black Bear Senses ▪ Black bears have ok eyesight, not as good as humans. Recent research indicates bears have color vision. ▪ Bears have acute hearing and an excellent sense of smell. ▪ Bears have a strong “homing” instinct. Additional information can be found at www.MyFWC.com National Geographic Smell Requirements Habitat generalists Can live in close proximity to people Do bears den in Florida? ▪ 1-5 cubs ▪ Born Feb ▪ Emerge April ▪ Stay with female 1.5 years Young Bears ▪ April to August – males disperse, find own range ▪ Bottom of bear order…top of human order? ▪ Stay on the move for a few years Population Estimates Black Bear Distribution ▪ There are approximately 4,050 bears in the state, the majority of which are on public lands. Orlando Sentinel Bear Range and Population Estimates North 500 West Panhandle Central 120 East 1,200 Panhandle 1,060 Big Bend 30 45% of historic range occupied South (Abundant or Common) Central 100 Total Population = 4,050 bears South 1,040 Behavior ▪ Normally Crepuscular ▪ Nocturnal in neighborhoods ▪ Active 18 hours/day in Fall ▪ 5,000 to 20,000 calories/day Diet Plants, 80% Meat, Insects, 5% 15% Avoidance ▪ 90% of time ▪ Runs ▪ Hides ▪ Climbs Curiosity ▪ Ears/nose high ▪ Stands upright ▪ NOT Aggressive Curiosity Defensive/Warning Behavior ▪ Like a Rattlesnake ▪ Personal space ▪ We can de-escalate Hot aggression - Defensive Cold aggression - Predatory Defensive vs. Predatory If anyone reports ▪ Head & ears up ▪ Head & ears down a bear exhibiting ▪ Vocalizationany of these ▪ No vocalization ▪ Large/quickbehaviors, actionscontact ▪ Precise/slow actions FWC ASAP! ▪ Avoid eye contact ▪ Direct eye contact ▪ Yawns or salivates ▪ Stalk or follow > 90% result in minor injury > 90% result in death Habituated Not Habituated If a Bear Approaches You… ▪ Defensive = Stand ground = No eye contact = Slow movement = Quiet ▪ Predatory = Be aggressive = Yell = Swing arms If a Bear makes Contact… ▪ Do NOT run or play dead ▪ Fight back AGGRESSIVELY Bear Spray Bear Incident Response Plan ▪ Forms a local Bear Incident Response Team Regional Commander, Director, Biologist, PIC, & Bear Management Program ▪ Defines roles of FWC staff (DLE, HSC, OED) ▪ Continually adapting Bears have injured 15 people in Florida since 1970s ▪ 67% occurred in FWC’s Northeast Region ▪ 60% incidents resulted in minor to moderate injury ▪ 60% since 2012 ▪ 60% female w/ young ▪ 53% involved a dog ▪ 53% intentional interaction Florida’s Conflict Wildlife- Bears Little or no management ? Abundant Sustainable coexistence ? ? Conflict management Over-exploited Rare More Recovery management Rebounding numerous Human Population 20 million residents + 5 million visitors/day Human Influence ▪ Habituation - accustomed to people ▪ Food Conditioned Terry DeBruyn - associates people with food ▪ Food Conditioned & Habituated - strong positive association, not afraid to approach Statewide Bear Related Calls 2000 - 2017 (n = 64,355) 7,000 6,734 6,688 6,212 6,226 6,073 6,000 5,136 5,000 4,196 4,092 4,000 3,340 2,795 3,000 2,745 Number of Callsof Number 2,154 1,919 2,000 1,364 1,594 1,143 1,104 1,000 840 0 Year Statewide Reasons for Calls 2000 - 2017 (n = 64,355) Illegal Activity <1% General Interaction Miscellaneous 38% 1% Public Safety Incident 1% In Structure In Garbage 1% 31% Sick/Dead Bear 11% Bear-Animal Encounter Property 4% Damage 13% 68A-4.001. General Prohibitions (4) (a) Intentionally feeding bears is prohibited except as provided for in this Title. (b) Placing food or garbage, allowing the placement of food or garbage, or offering food or garbage that attracts bears and is likely to create or creates a nuisance is prohibited after receiving prior written notification from the Commission. Notice of Non-Compliance ▪ ONLY for unintentional feeding ▪ NOT considered an official LE action ▪ Unsecured trash in conflict area is enough ▪ Reduce number of repeat visits Feeding Penalties ▪ Penalties for all feeding rules (except Fish) 1st Offense = Non-criminal, $100 fine 2nd Offense = 2nd degree misdemeanor Up to $500 fine Up to 60 days in jail ▪ For Bears and Crocodilians ONLY 3rd Offense = 1st degree misdemeanor Up to $1,000 fine Up to 1 year in prison 4th + Offense = 3rd degree felony Up to $5,000 fine Up to 5 years in prison Solutions Anything that attracts dogs, cats, or raccoons will also attract bears Garbage is a strong bear attractant ▪ Bring pet food inside and store it securely. ▪ Store trash in secure building until the morning of pickup. ▪ Screen enclosures are not secure. ▪ Protect gardens, compost, and livestock with electric fencing. ▪ Clean grills and store them in a secure area. ▪ Remove or modify wildlife feeders (i.e. bird feeders) if there is a bear in the area. Garbage (Commercial) Edelweiss Restaurant, Colorado Springs Residential Garbage ▪ Secure in building until morning pickup ▪ Retrofit cans ▪ Build Caddy ▪ Buy new cans Bear resistant containers and plans for building one are at: MyFWC.com/bear Securing Attractants Residential Garbage Local Governments getting BearWise ▪ Local ordinances on garbage ▪ Community-wide effect ▪ Do not need to specify the ‘how’ “All garbage containers must be either wildlife resistant or be securely stored until 6:00 A.M. or later on the morning of scheduled pick up” ▪ Seminole, Lake, Santa Rosa, and Orange counties, Fort Walton Beach, HOAs BearWise Funding Efforts ▪ Since 2007, almost $1.6 million to local governments in 16 counties - 10,420 cans - 169 dumpsters - 5 E-fences - 9,754 hardware kits - 92 sheds ▪ FY 18-19, $500,00 available to counties, cities, HOAs > 60% for local governments with ordinances (Seminole, Orange, Lake, and Santa Rosa counties) First Responders Training Train law enforcement, parks, and other staff that are likely to be exposed or respond to bear conflicts > 2,200 trained from 50 agencies Of the 6,000 Bear Calls FWC receives each year… ▪ 65% are related to bears seeking out food ▪ 58% receive advice over phone ▪ 23% receive a site visit ▪ 2% result in a trapping effort Bear Call System ▪ Business hours = Regional Wildlife Assistance Biologist ▪ After Hours = Duty Officer either 1) Routes to WAB next day OR 2) If immediate response necessary, sends LE or Biologist on list ▪ Weekends/Holidays = Biologist on call When and who should I call about bears? When and who should I call about bears? Call the FWC: During regular business hours: 850-265-3676 Outside regular business hours: 888-404-3922 When and who should I call about bears? Get in a safe location and call the FWC: During regular business hours: 850-265-3676 Outside regular business hours: 888-404-3922 Securing Garbage Works! Bear Bear Interactions Interactions Reduction Before After Modified 71% 32% 55% Trashcans Bear-Resistant 97% 5% 95% Trashcans Working Together • State • Counties • Cities • Waste Management Companies • Residents Education and Outreach Bear Management reaches over 20,000 people annually Community involvement. (focus groups) Political involvement. (county ordinances) Aversive Conditioning and Methods of Deterrents Thank You Questions ? Comments .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Museum of Natural History
    p m r- r-' ME FYF-11 - - T r r.- 1. 4,6*. of the FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY THE COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BOBCAT, BLACK BEAR, AND FLORIDA PANTHER IN SOUTH FLORIDA David Steffen Maehr Volume 40, No. 1, pf 1-176 1997 == 46 1ms 34 i " 4 '· 0?1~ I. Al' Ai: *'%, R' I.' I / Em/-.Ail-%- .1/9" . -_____- UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE Numbers of the BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY am published at irregular intervals Volumes contain about 300 pages and are not necessarily completed in any one calendar year. JOHN F. EISENBERG, EDITOR RICHARD FRANZ CO-EDIWR RHODA J. BRYANT, A£ANAGING EMOR Communications concerning purchase or exchange of the publications and all manuscripts should be addressed to: Managing Editor. Bulletin; Florida Museum of Natural Histoty, University of Florida P. O. Box 117800, Gainesville FL 32611-7800; US.A This journal is printed on recycled paper. ISSN: 0071-6154 CODEN: BF 5BAS Publication date: October 1, 1997 Price: $ 10.00 Frontispiece: Female Florida panther #32 treed by hounds in a laurel oak at the site of her first capture on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in central Collier County, 3 February 1989. Photograph by David S. Maehr. THE COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BOBCAT, BLACK BEAR, AND FLORIDA PANTHER IN SOUTH FLORIDA David Steffen Maehri ABSTRACT Comparisons of food habits, habitat use, and movements revealed a low probability for competitive interactions among bobcat (Lynx ndia). Florida panther (Puma concotor cooi 1 and black bear (Urns amencanus) in South Florida. All three species preferred upland forests but ©onsumed different foods and utilized the landscape in ways that resulted in ecological separation.
    [Show full text]
  • Human-Black Bear Conflict a Review of the Most Common Management Practices
    HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT A REVIEW OF THE MOST COMMON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A black bear in Lake Tahoe, NV. Photo courtesy Urbanbearfootage.com 1 A black bear patrols downtown Carson City, NV. Photo courtesy Heiko De Groot 2 Authors Carl W. Lackey (Nevada Department of Wildlife) Stewart W. Breck (USDA-WS-National Wildlife Research Center) Brian Wakeling (Nevada Department of Wildlife; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) Bryant White (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) 3 Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction . The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and human-bear conflicts . “I Hold the Smoking Gun” by Chris Parmeter Status of the American Black Bear . Historic and Current distribution . Population estimates and human-bear conflict data Status of Human-Black Bear Conflict . Quantifying Conflict . Definition of Terms Associated with Human-Bear Management Methods to Address Human-Bear Conflicts . Public Education . Law and Ordinance Enforcement . Exclusionary Methods . Capture and Release . Aversive Conditioning . Repellents . Damage Compensation Programs . Supplemental & Diversionary Feeding . Depredation (Kill) Permits . Management Bears (Agency Kill) . Privatized Conflict Management Population Management . Regulated Hunting and Trapping . Control of Non-Hunting Mortality . Fertility Control . Habitat Management . No Intervention Agency Policy Literature Cited 4 Abstract Most human-black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict occurs when people make anthropogenic foods (that is, foods of human origin like trash, dog food, domestic poultry, or fruit trees) available to bears. Bears change their behavior to take advantage of these resources and in the process may damage property or cause public safety concerns. Managers are often forced to focus efforts on reactive non-lethal and lethal bear management techniques to solve immediate problems, which do little to address root causes of human-bear conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Ecology of Black Bears in the Okefenokee-Osceola Ecosystem
    Final Report to Study Cooperators Population Ecology of Black Bears in the Okefenokee-Osceola Ecosystem Prepared by: Steven Dobey1, Darrin V. Masters2, Brian K. Scheick2, Joseph D. Clark3, Michael R. Pelton1, and Mel Sunquist2 September 30, 2002 1 Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Tennessee 2 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida 3 USGS, Southern Appalachian Field Laboratory, University of Tennessee ii Population Ecology of Black Bears in the Okefenokee-Osceola Ecosystem Abstract: We studied black bears (Ursus americanus) on 2 study areas in the Okefenokee-Osceola ecosystem in north Florida and southeast Georgia from 1995–1999 to determine population characteristics (size, density, relative abundance, distribution, sex and age structure, mortality rates, natality, and recruitment) and habitat needs. We captured 205 different black bears (124M: 81F) 345 times from June 1995 to September 1998. Overall, adult bears on Osceola were 19% heavier than those on Okefenokee (t = 2.96, df = 148, P = 0.0036). We obtained 13,573 radiolocations from 87 (16M:71F) individual bears during the period of study. Seventeen mortalities of radiocollared bears were documented on Okefenokee, with hunting mortality accounting for 70.6% of these deaths. We documented only 2 (8%) mortalities of radiocollared females from Osceola; both were illegally killed. Annual survival rates for radiocollared females were lower on Okefenokee ( x = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80–0.93) than on Osceola ( x = 0.97, 95% CI = 2 0.92–1.00; 0.05 = 3.98, 1 df, P = 0.0460). Overall, 67 bears (51M:16F) were taken by hunters on the Okefenokee study area from 1995–1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundance and Density of Florida Black Bears in Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Osceola National Forest
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2002 Abundance and Density of Florida Black Bears in Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Osceola National Forest Steven T. Dobey University of Tennessee, Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Dobey, Steven T., "Abundance and Density of Florida Black Bears in Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Osceola National Forest. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2002. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4533 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Steven T. Dobey entitled "Abundance and Density of Florida Black Bears in Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Osceola National Forest." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. Michael R. Pelton, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Gary McCracken, Lisa Muller, Joseph Clark Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Steven T.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Management of Black Bears in Mississippi
    Conservation and Management of Black Bears in Mississippi Prepared by: Brad W. Young Black Bear Biologist Mississippi Museum of Natural Science Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks August, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................1 JUSTIFICATION ..........................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................3 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ....................................................................................................................5 CONSERVATION STATUS ..........................................................................................................................7 State Status ..............................................................................................................................................7 Federal Status ..........................................................................................................................................7 BLACK BEAR ECOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................8 Physical Description ................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation and Loss: the Case of the Florida Black Bear (Ursus Americanus floridanus)
    Conserv Genet (2007) 8:455–464 DOI 10.1007/s10592-006-9184-z ORIGINAL PAPER Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation and loss: the case of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Jeremy D. Dixon Æ Madan K. Oli Æ Michael C. Wooten Æ Thomas H. Eason Æ J. Walter McCown Æ Mark W. Cunningham Received: 23 November 2005 / Accepted: 28 June 2006 / Published online: 28 September 2006 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006 Abstract Habitat loss and fragmentation can influ- genetically distinct populations. There was no isola- ence the genetic structure of biological populations. tion-by-distance relationship among Florida black bear We studied the genetic consequences of habitat frag- populations, likely because of barriers to gene flow mentation in Florida black bear (Ursus americanus created by habitat fragmentation and other anthropo- floridanus) populations. Genetic samples were col- genic disturbances. These factors resulted in genetic lected from 339 bears, representing nine populations. differentiation among populations, even those that Bears were genotyped for 12 microsatellite loci to were geographically close. Population assignment tests estimate genetic variation and to characterize genetic indicated that most individuals were genetically as- structure. None of the nine study populations deviated signed to the population where they were sampled. from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. Genetic variation, Habitat fragmentation and anthropogenic barriers to quantified by mean expected heterozygosity (HE), movement appear to have limited the dispersal capa- ranged from 0.27 to 0.71 and was substantially lower in bilities of the Florida black bear, thereby reducing smaller and less connected populations. High levels of gene flow among populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammalian Carnivores of Florida 1 Raoul Boughton, Bethany Wight, Elizabeth Pienaar, and Martin B
    WEC419 Mammalian Carnivores of Florida 1 Raoul Boughton, Bethany Wight, Elizabeth Pienaar, and Martin B. Main2 Florida’s diverse wildlife includes a group of mammals that Leopold demonstrated the important role of predator-prey are carnivorous (meat-eating). These mammalian relationships in the 1950s. Aldo Leopold documented predators belong to the animal order Carnivora, which are that while the removal of predators initially increased the characterized by having teeth adapted for tearing and deer population, the deer population ultimately collapsed. consuming flesh. However, it should not be thought that all Predation, and particularly predation by top-level carni- members of this animal order eat only meat; several, vores, is a critical ecosystem function. Numerous studies including Florida black bears and coyotes, are omnivorous have demonstrated that the loss of top-level predators can and will eat both animal and plant materials. This have negative effects on ecosystems, including declines in document provides an overview of Florida’s mammalian biodiversity. carnivores from large to small. Although other animals in Florida also consume meat (opossums, for instance, Predator-prey relationships are complex. The removal of members of Order Marsupia-lia, or pouched mammals), large predators has been shown in some cases to lead to this document focuses only on Florida mammals in Order an increase in deer and other herbivore populations that Carnivora. damage and eventually modify habitats. When gray wolves were nearly extirpated from Yellowstone National Park, Although ecologists and wildlife enthusiasts consider the elk population increased, but abundance of woody and the existence of Florida’s carnivores both important and herbaceous plants decreased, which in turn affected other fortunate in a world where many large carnivores are herbivores.
    [Show full text]
  • Human–Black Bear Conflicts
    HUMAN–BLACK BEAR CONFLICTS A REVIEW OF COMMON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Carl W. Lackey Stewart W. Breck Brian F. Wakeling Bryant White HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS MONOGRAPH NUMBER 2 Human-Wildlife Interactions: Monograph 2. A publication of the Jack H. Berryman Institute Press, Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are indebted to a large number of people and organizations for their support of this publication and their assistance in bringing it to fruition, including Richard Beausoleil (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Jeremy Hurst (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), and Carole Stanko (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). We would also like to thank Reid DeWalt, Mark Vieira, Melanie Kaknes, Casey Westbrook (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), Heather Reich (Nevada Department of Wildlife), and Tom Decker (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) for reviewing this document. This document was requested, reviewed, and endorsed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). Significant portions of this document were drawn with permission from the North East Black Bear Technical Committee’s 2012 document, An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options (Hurst et al. 2012), which in turn drew upon several state and provincial black bear management plans across North America. We express our gratitude to all fellow bear managers in North America for their willingness to share this valuable information. Members of the AFWA ad hoc Human–Black Bear Conflicts Task Force include: Richard Beausoleil (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Stewart W. Breck (USDA-WS-National Wildlife Research Center), Michael Boudreau (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources), Maria Davidson (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries), Jeremy Hurst (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), Carl W.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges in Estimating Size and Conservation of Black Bear in West-Central Florida
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Kentucky University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School 2004 CHALLENGES IN ESTIMATING SIZE AND CONSERVATION OF BLACK BEAR IN WEST-CENTRAL FLORIDA Joshua Hager Brown University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Brown, Joshua Hager, "CHALLENGES IN ESTIMATING SIZE AND CONSERVATION OF BLACK BEAR IN WEST-CENTRAL FLORIDA" (2004). University of Kentucky Master's Theses. 283. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/283 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF THESIS CHALLENGES IN ESTIMATING SIZE AND CONSERVATION OF BLACK BEAR IN WEST-CENTRAL FLORIDA The Greater Chassahowitkza Ecosystem black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) population of west-central Florida is likely to be the smallest documented population of the species. It has experienced almost no recruitment since 1997 and exhibits behavior that appears to be a response to human activities. The local diet is dominated by the fruit of saw palmetto and sabal palm, species that exhibit patchy distributions and irregular mast production. These food supplies are often separated by busy highways that have killed 6 bears since 1997, 21% of known individuals. Motion-activated camera surveys suggest that the bear population is declining in this rapidly urbanizing part of Florida; results of the 2002 survey estimated 28 " 18 bears in the GCE, while 2003 estimates recorded 12 " 7 individuals (Lincoln-Petersen).
    [Show full text]
  • Home Range, Habitat Use, and Food Habits of the Black Bear in South-Central Florida
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School 2008 HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND FOOD HABITS OF THE BLACK BEAR IN SOUTH-CENTRAL FLORIDA Wade Allen Ulrey University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Ulrey, Wade Allen, "HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND FOOD HABITS OF THE BLACK BEAR IN SOUTH- CENTRAL FLORIDA" (2008). University of Kentucky Master's Theses. 524. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/524 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF THESIS HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND FOOD HABITS OF THE BLACK BEAR IN SOUTH-CENTRAL FLORIDA I studied a small, enigmatic, and imperiled black bear population in south-central Florida from 2004 - 2006. Annual home ranges of males (96.0 km2) were larger than those of females (32.2 km2). Female home ranges were smaller in winter than in summer or fall. At the landscape scale, bears selected forests, scrub, and citrus, but avoided urban areas. At the home range scale, bears selected bay swamp and hardwood hammock, but avoided urban areas and grassland. Bears selected bay swamp in winter, forests and scrub in summer, and forests, scrub, and marsh in fall. The bear’s diverse diet included citrus fruit. Important foods were acorn, saw palmetto fruit, and Florida carpenter ant.
    [Show full text]
  • LOUISIANA BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN Ursus Americanus Luteolus
    LOUISIANA BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN Ursus americanus luteolus January 2015 LOUISIANA BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN Ursus americanus luteolus Prepared by: Maria Davidson, Sean M. Murphy, Kenny Ribbeck, Fred Kimmel, and Jeffrey Duguay Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA With input from Deborah Fuller and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service January 2015 For further information, please contact: Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries P.O. Box 98000 Baton Rouge, LA 70898 (225) 765-2800 Recommended citation: Davidson, M., S. M. Murphy, K. Ribbeck, F. Kimmel, and J. Duguay. 2015. Louisiana Black Bear Management Plan. Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, 74 pp. Front cover: Louisiana black bear ( Ursus americanus luteolus ). Photo by John Flores ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Secretary Robert Barham and Assistant Secretary Jimmy Anthony (Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries) for their support and guidance with the development of this document. We also thank Robert Gosnell (Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries) for his experienced insight and review. We thank Duck Locascio, Tommy Tuma, Cody Cedotal, David Breithaupt, Paul Link, Sutton Maehr, and Venise Ortego (Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries) for their contributions and reviews of this document. We are especially grateful for the research conducted by Joseph Clark (United States Geological Survey), Jared Laufenberg (University of Tennessee), and the numerous biologists, technicians, graduate students, and university researchers that have provided LDWF with the necessary data for conservation and management of the Louisiana black bear. We also thank Deborah Fuller and Robert Greco (United States Fish & Wildlife Service) for their insight and supply of the necessary information for the development of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Ursus Americanus American Black Bear Least Concern
    Ursus americanus American Black Bear Least Concern Geographic Range Information American black bears are found through much of Canada, the United States, and the northern half of Mexico. Although they were extirpated from large portions of their historic range because of habitat loss and (mainly intentional) overexploitation, their occupied range has been expanding in recent years (Pelton et al. 1999, Williamson 2002). The species has, nevertheless been extirpated from large parts of its former range, especially in the Midwest of the United States, and in Mexico. American black bears presently occupy all provinces and territories of Canada, except Prince Edward Island (where they were extirpated in 1937), 41 U.S. states (with occasional sightings in at least 3 others), and 8 states of northern Mexico. The species never existed outside of these three countries. Range Countries Canada Mexico United States 2 Population Information During the past two decades, most American black bear populations have grown both numerically and geographically (Williamson 2002). Sixty percent of U.S. and Canadian states and provinces report increasing populations, and all other populations appear to be either stable or fluctuating with no clear trend (Garshelis and Hristienko 2006). Based on 3 sums of estimates for individual states, the total U.S. population, excluding Alaska, is estimated at somewhat greater than 300,000. No reliable estimate exists for numbers of black bears in Alaska, although most authorities presume there to be 100,000–200,000 animals. Similarly, large populations in some parts of Canada are not reliably known, but countrywide estimates center around 450,000 (principally in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec).
    [Show full text]