Tatshenshini and Alsek Rivers of Alaska

ASSESSING THE RISKOF BEAR-HUMANINTERACTION AT RIVERCAMPSITES

A. GRANTMacHUTCHON, 237 CurtisRoad, Comox,BC V9M3W1, Canada, email: [email protected] DEBBIEW. WELLWOOD, P.O. Box 3217, Smithers,BC VOJ2N0, Canada,email: [email protected]

Abstract: The Alsek and Tatshenshinirivers of Yukon, British Columbia, and Alaska, and the Babine River, British Columbia, are seasonally importantfor grizzly bears(Ursus arctos) and Americanblack bears(Ursus americanus). Recreationaltravelers on these rivers use riparianhabitats for camping, which could lead to bear-humaninteraction and conflict. During visits in late summer 1998-99, we used 4 qualitativeindicators to assess risk of bear-humaninteraction at river campsites: (1) seasonal habitatpotential, (2) travel concerns, (3) sensory concerns, and (4) bear sign. We then rated each campsite on a 5-class scale, relative to other campsites, for the potential to displace bears and the potential for bear-human encounters. We used these ratingsto recommendhuman use of campsites with relatively low risk.

Ursus 13:293-298 (2002)

Key words: Alaska,American black bear, bear-human conflict, British Columbia, grizzly bear, habitat assessment, river recreation, Ursus americanus, Ursus arctos, Yukon

Riparianhabitats in manyriver valleys in westernNorth 1997). The Tatshenshiniand Alsek river valleys com- America are seasonally important for grizzly bears prise a large proportionof available bear habitatwithin (Hamilton and Archibald 1986, Reinhart and Mattson the parksthrough which they flow, and the importanceof 1990, MacHutchon et al. 1993, Schoen et al. 1994, riparianhabitats to bearsis high (Simpson 1992, Herrero McCann 1998, Titusand Beier 1999) andAmerican black et al. 1993, McCann 1998). The main period of human bears (Reinhartand Mattson 1990, MacHutchonet al. use coincides with seasonalmovement of grizzly bearsto 1998, Chi and Gilbert 1999). Humansfrequently use riv- low elevations (McCann 1998). McCann(1994) recom- ers for recreationaltravel and use riparianhabitats for mendedevaluating the risk of bear-humaninteraction at camping. Management agencies are concerned about campsites because of these overlaps in bear and human potential negative effects that increasing human use of use. Seeing grizzly bearsis a main attractionof travelon riversmay have on bears,other wildlife, and the physical the Babine River, British Columbia. Most recreational environment. They also want to maintainhuman safety tripsoccur in late summerand fall when grizzly bearsare by minimizingbear-human encounters. Interactionwith at the river feeding on salmon (Oncorhynchusspp.). An- humans can negatively affect bears by displacing them glers also intensively use the river at this time from importantriparian habitat (Reinhartand Mattson (MacHutchon 1998). Consequently, British Columbia 1990, Olson and Gilbert 1994, MacHutchonet al. 1998, (BC) Parksrecognized a need to assess risk of bear-hu- Chi and Gilbert 1999), changing bear activity patterns man interactionat campsites along the Babine River (A. (MacHutchonet al. 1998, Olson et al. 1998, Chi and Gil- MacDonald, BC Parks, Smithers, British Columbia, bert 1999), changing bear habitats(Schoen et al. 1994), Canada,personal communication, 1998). This paperde- or when conflictsoccur, leading to the destructionor trans- scribes our method for qualitativelyassessing and rating location of bears. Interactionscan negatively affect hu- the potentialfor displacementof bears and for bear-humans throughdestruction of property,human injury,or man encounters at river campsites on the Tatshenshini, death(Herrero 1985). We define bear-humaninteraction Alsek, and Babine rivers (MacHutchon 1998, 2000; as any activity and its effect involving bearsand humans, Wellwood and MacHutchon1999a,b). including observations, encounters, and conflicts. We define a bear-humanencounter as a situationwhen a bear is awareof humanpresence, regardless of whetherpeople STUDYAREAS are aware of the bear. During encounters,bears can be displaced, may ignore people, or may approachpeople. Tatshenshiniand AlsekRivers We define a bear-humanconflict as a more serious inter- The Tatshenshiniand Alsek rivers(59?25'N, 137?40'W) action where a bear chargespeople, people take extreme bothoriginate in the Yukonand flow approximatelysouth evasive action in response to a bear, people use a deter- throughBritish Columbia. The TatshenshiniRiver joins renton a bear,property is damaged,or a bearmakes physi- the Alsek River upstreamof the Alaska border,and the cal contact with a person. Alsek River empties into the Gulf of Alaska at Dry Bay, Popularity of the Tatshenshini and Alsek rivers of Alaska. Thereis a transitionfrom a dry,cold, continental Yukon, British Columbia, and Alaska, for recreational interiorclimate to a wet, warmer,maritime climate along travel has increasedsubstantially since 1989, coinciding the Tatshenshiniand Alsek rivers, and vegetation com- with world-wide publicity generated to protect the munitiesreflect this climatic transition.The Tatshenshini TatshenshiniRiver from mining development(Dill et al. Riverhas runsof sockeye (Oncorhynchusnerka), chinook 294 Ursus 13:2002

(0. tshawytscha),and coho salmon (0. kisutch). Small dance)of individualbear foods as high, moderate-to-high, numbers of chum (0. keta) and pink salmon (O. moderate,low-to-moderate, or low. Based on food avail- gorbuscha) occur on the lower Alsek River. Common ability (Herreroet al. 1986), we then rated the overall mammalsalong both riversinclude grizzly bears,Ameri- potential of the habitatto supportbears in spring, sum- can black bears, moose (Alces alces), and Arctic ground mer, and late summeror fall. Along the Tatshenshiniand squirrel(Spermophilus parryii). Alsek rivers,we consideredspring to be 15 May-14 June, summerto be 15 June-21 July, and late summerto be 22 BabineRiver July-30 September based on grizzly bear research of The BabineRiver (55?20'N 126?50'W)is in northcen- McCann(1998). We consideredspring in the BabineRiver tral British Columbia,Canada, and flows northand west drainageto be May and June, summerto be July and Au- to the Skeena River. The upperBabine River has a mod- gust, and fall to be Septemberand October (Resources erately dry continentalclimate and the lower river has a InventoryCommittee 1999). We assumed that seasonal moderately wet-to-dry climate transitionalbetween the availability of bear foods was a reasonableindicator of coast andinterior. The BabineRiver has runsof 6 species the likelihood of a bear feeding near a campsite. Habitat of salmon,including sockeye, chinook,coho, chum,pink, assessment relied on our experience with the range of and steelhead (0. mykiss). Common mammals include habitatsavailable in local ecosystems as well as our re- grizzly bears, black bears, and moose. search experience and a literaturereview of bear habitat use and diet within the ecosystems surveyed or ecologi- cally similar areas (Herreroet al. 1986). We compared METHODS andrated habitats relative to a benchmarkhabitat we con- We documentedcampsites through interviews with park sidered the best available in a particularecosystem (Re- staff, river guides, and other local people. We visited sources InventoryCommittee 1999). We used a 5-class campsitesduring 21-31 August 1998 on the Alsek River, rating scale. High value habitat was considered to be 7-11 September1998 on the Babine River, and 30 July- withinapproximately 81-100% of the potentialof a bench- 11 August 1999 on the TatshenshiniRiver. We identified markhabitat. Otherclasses were moderate-to-high(61- campsites as spots with featuressuch as a shorelinewith 80%), moderate (41-60%), low-to-moderate(21-40%) slow-moving water or a back-eddy for safe boat moor- and low (0-20%). age, reasonableaccess from the river,clear and flat areas Travel concerns.-We identified geographic features for tents, wind and weather protection, clear water for thatinfluenced the likelihood thata beartravelling a river drinking,and firewood. Presence of fire scars, unnatu- would pass through or near a campsite, such as valley rally arrangedrocks or logs, and disturbedvegetation, junctions and constrictionsin terrain,including rock out- surfacelitter, or soil confirmedcampsites. crops, cliffs, cut banks, moraines,and peninsulas. Loca- We evaluated24 campsitesalong the TatshenshiniRiver, tion of well-used bear trails and marktrees and potential 43 along the Alsek River, and 16 along the Babine River. travel routes influenced the travel concerns rating. We We assessed the potential for bear-humaninteraction at ratedtravel concerns as high, moderate,or low regardless campsites and within approximately250 m of the camp- of the season. site perimeteron the side of the river with the campsite. Sensory concerns.-We defined sensory concerns as Riverssurveyed were not a majorphysical barrier to bears featuresthat reducedthe ability of bears and humans to (river channel widths varied from 100-500 m), but we detect each other,such as vegetationand topographythat assumed bears on the opposite side of a river would not limited visibility,noise from riversor creeks thataffected be encounteredby people and would be less likely to be hearing,or wind thataffected hearing and smell. We rated displaced by human activity. We sketched and photo- visibility concernsindependently from other sensory con- graphedareas around campsites to indicaterelative posi- cerns and ratedeach campsite as high, moderate,or low tion of habitats, bear foods, trails, mark trees, and with no distinctionmade between seasons. We consid- prominentgeographic features. We used 4 indicatorsto ered visibility low if it was not substantiallyobscured assess relative risk of bear-humaninteraction: (1) sea- within approximately50 m of the main campsite. Vis- sonal habitat potential, (2) travel concerns, (3) sensory ibility concern was high if visibility was substantially concerns,and (4) bear sign. obscured in most directionswithin approximately10 m Seasonal habitatpotential.-We compileda list of bear of the main campsite. Visibility concern was moderate foods for the rivers and ecosystems surveyed from our when only a portion of area arounda campsite was ob- research, a literaturereview, scat analysis, and feeding scured. We subjectivelyjudged noise from a numberof sign in the field. We described vegetation aroundeach locations arounda campsite while we assessed habitat. campsiteand rated availability (i.e., distributionand abun- Noise from moving water was most significant when a RISKOF BEAR-HUMAN INTERACTION ONRIVERS * MacHutchon and Wellwood 295 campsite was near a steeply descending creek or near a consideredmoderate based on habitatpotential. Hence, rapid on the main river. The sensory influence of wind we reasonedthat risk of displacing a bear also would be was the most difficult to judge because of its transient moderate. However, if a bear did come into an area,risk nature. Some locations, however, were frequentlywindy of encountering it would be relatively high because it froma consistentdirection. We learnedabout typical wind would be hard for bears or humans to detect each other patterns through conversations with park staff, river andthe bearwould be morelikely to travelthrough camp. guides, and otherlocal people. If visibility was restricted Consistency was maintainedin all ratingsby making as- more on one side of a campsite than another,prevailing sessments relative to other habitatsor campsites within winds were a potentiallyimportant influence on the abil- the same ecosystem. ity of bears to detect humansbefore reachinga campsite. Bear sign.-We recorded fresh and old bear sign as evidence of use, includingtracks, scats, feeding, andbeds. RESULTS Inequities in our ability to detect bear sign existed be- Most campsiteshad lowest apparentrisk of either dis- cause some sign were moreobvious than others and camp- placing or encounteringbears during spring and highest sites often only were examined during 1 season. apparentrisk duringlate summeror fall (Table 1). Public Consequently,these bear signs had a lesser influence on tripsprimarily occur duringsummer and late summeron risk ratingsthan other factors; they were recordedbut not the Alsek and Tatshenshini rivers (McCann 1994, rated. Wellwood and MacHutchon1999a) and in late summer Synthesis.-These 4 indicatorswere subjectively syn- and fall on the Babine River (MacHutchon1998). The thesized, and each campsite was rated relative to other potentialfor bear-humanconflict on all rivers was high- campsitesfor both the potentialfor displacementof bears est in late summerthrough fall. and the potentialfor bear-humanencounter in each sea- We recommendedmanagement agencies continue to son. We categorized campsites as having high, moder- allow humanuse of campsites ratedlow or low-to-mod- ate-to-high,moderate, low-to-moderate, or low apparent erate risk in all seasons. For campsites with a moderate risk. Habitatpotential was the most significantindicator rating in summer throughfall, we recommendedeither of probablebear use in risk ratingsbecause we assumed closing the site to camping,encouraging voluntary use of food and the search for it had the greatestinfluence on a lower risk sites, or implementingmitigation measures at bearbeing at a location duringa particularseason. Other the site to minimize risk to people and bears. Generally, indicatorswere generallyused to modifyrisk ratings when we recommendedmanagement agencies close campsites deemedappropriate, and these otherindicators usually had with moderate-to-highor high rating. Occasionally,agen- the most influence on the risk of encounteringa bear. For cies chose to keep a site ratedmoderate-to-high risk open example,if habitatpotential was moderate,but travel,vis- if there were no lower risk campsites within a practical ibility, and other sensory concerns were high, we rated distance along a river,in which case we suggested alter- risk of displacementmoderate and risk of encountermod- native mitigationmeasures. erate-to-high. Likelihood of a bearbeing in the area was

Table 1. Apparent risk of bear-human interaction at campsites along the Tatshenshini and Alsek rivers in Yukon and British Columbia, Canada, and Alaska, USA, and the Babine River in British Columbia, Canada, based on visits in late summer, 1998- 99.

Campsites(%) with risk of bear-humaninteraction

TatshenshiniRiver (n = 24) Alsek River (n = 43) Babine River (n = 16) Late Late Spring Summer Summer Spring Summer Summer Spring Summer Fall

Risk rating Disa Enca Dis Enc Dis Enc Dis Enc Dis Enc Dis Enc Dis Enc Dis Enc Dis Enc Low 45.8 16.7 29.2 12.5 16.7 12.5 51.2 30.2 32.6 14.0 30.2 16.3 75.0 68.8 25.0 18.8 0.0 6.3 Low-to- 25.0 41.7 20.8 33.3 16.7 20.8 25.6 39.5 23.3 46.5 18.6 32.6 25.0 31.3 12.5 18.8 25.0 12.5 moderate Moderate 25.0 29.2 33.3 20.8 41.7 25.0 14.0 23.3 34.9 34.9 32.6 23.3 0.0 0.0 37.5 56.3 31.3 62.5 Moderate-to- 4.2 8.3 16.7 16.7 20.8 20.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 2.3 16.3 25.6 0.0 0.0 25.0 6.3 31.3 12.5 high High 0.0 4.2 0.0 16.7 4.2 20.8 2.3 0.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 6.3 a Dis = displacementof bears, Enc = bear-humanencounter 296 Ursus 13:2002

DISCUSSION managementpriorities considering the tradeoffbetween We originally worked on a quantitativecampsite risk bear conservationand humanuse objectives (Leonardet assessment method, but the methods we tried were too al. 1990, Aumiller and Matt 1994). time-consumingand expensive, and thereforeof limited Management agencies should consider designated value for quickly evaluatinga large numberof sites. The campsites or strongly encourage people to use low-risk quantitativerelationship between the variableswe assessed campsites. Lymanet al. (2000:10) suggested that desig- was unknown. There were complex interactionsof fac- natedcampsites reduce the wildernesscharacter of a river. tors affectingthe likelihood of bearsusing a specific area For some humansthis may be true. However,designated and encounteringpeople. Therefore,we decided that no campsitescan help maintainthe overallwildness of a river matterhow they were measured,quantitative measures for bears, other wildlife, and humans by concentrating would eventually have to be qualitativelysynthesized to humanuse and human impacts, thus giving wildlife ac- determineoverall risk ratings. In addition,several indi- cess to largerareas of the valley bottom with no human catorsof potentialbear use, such as sign, travelconcerns, activity. Other advantagesof designated campsites are: and sensory concerns, could not be effectively measured (1) they can be placed in the lowest quality bear habitat, and always requiredsubjective estimation. As a result, (2) spatiallocation and use of campsites is more predict- we developeda qualitativeassessment method, but based able to bears, (3) bearscan betteradjust their activities to on knownor approximatedbear habitat use anddiet, habi- avoid humans, (4) surpriseencounters may be less fre- tat benchmarks,and professional experience of research- quentif bearsare awareof humanpresence, and (5) more ers (Herreroet al. 1986). localized bear-humanconflicts, if any occur. Potential Ourcampsite risk assessment method is relativelyquick disadvantagesof designated campsites are: (1) human and inexpensive to use; therefore,it is valuable for man- food odors may concentrateafter repeated human use, agementplanning over large areas or manycampsites. The increasingcampsite attractivenessto bears, (2) restricted main disadvantageis subjectivityof the assessments,re- camping choices for people on wildernessrivers, (3) un- sulting in ratingsthat may be difficult to replicate. How- reliableaccess to some sites as riverchannels change, and ever, even if risk ratings are not entirely accurate,they (4) locationof some campsitesmay be difficultto describe shouldprovide a consistentrelative measure among camp- or find. sites. Less experiencedindividuals could use these meth- Managementagencies should continue to look for al- ods for campsite risk assessment and planningprovided ternativelow risk campsites. Low risk campsites: (1) are they learnabout bear diet, habitatuse, and rangeof avail- situatedin low-value bear habitat,(2) are not located on ablehabitats within local ecosystems. Investigatorswould wildlife travelroutes, (3) are open and providegood vis- be most consistent in their ratingsby making them rela- ibility, (4) are not in windy or noisy areas,(5) do not have tive to other habitatsor campsites within the same eco- eddies or obstructionsthat may catch and hold salmon system. carcasses, and (6) flood regularlyin the off-season to re- All campsiteswe evaluatedhad some risk of bear-hu- move food odors. To benefit river users, good low-risk man interactionbecause bears use riparianhabitats all campsiteswould be spacedto allow for some user choice along the Tatshenshini,Alsek, andBabine rivers. Travel- and to have shelterfrom wind, clear water,firewood, and ers typically chose campsites with convenient pullouts, scenic views. flat areasfor tents nearthe river,shelter from wind, clear water,and firewood (Dill et al. 1997). Often, it appeared the potential for interactionwith bears was not consid- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ered in campsite choice. As a result, managementagen- This studywas a collaborativeproject of ParksCanada, cies need to restricthuman use of highest risk campsites BC Parks, U.S. National Park Service, and Yukon De- andimplement other mitigation measures to minimizethe partmentof RenewableResources. We particularlythank potential for negative bear-humaninteraction. Specifi- T. Elliot,K. McLaughlin,and R. Breneman,Parks Canada; cally, measuresneed to be in place to minimize the possi- G. MacRae, A. MacDonald, D. Cichowski, and L. bility of bearsbecoming conditionedto humanfood, and Gawalko, BC Parks; M. Beth Moss, D. Kaleta, and J. agencies need to quicklyrespond to any bear-humancon- Capra,U.S. NationalPark Service; andF. McRae, Yukon flicts at campsites. Managersof other recreationalareas Departmentof RenewableResources. We are gratefulto have addressedconcerns about bear-humaninteraction H. Bury, S. Himmer,R. Maraj,E. Schindler,D. Goble, by locatingcampsites and trails away from well used bear and his staff; T. Smith, R. Stewart,and L. Vanderstarfor habitatsor restrictingcampsite and trail use (Herreroet theirhelp; andto R. McCannand S. MacDougallfor their al. 1986, McCroryet al. 1986). All managementof camp- early supportof the work. T. Smithand S. Riley provided site use should be done in the context of clearly defined helpful comments on an earlierdraft. RISKOF BEAR-HUMAN INTERACTION ONRIVERS * MacHutchon and Wellwood 297

LITERATURECITED , H. DAVIS,AND M. GALLAGHER.1998. Temporal AUMILLER,L., ANDC. MATT. 1994. Managementof McNeil and spatialactivity patternsamong coastal bearpopulations. River State Game Sanctuaryfor viewing of brown bears. Ursus 10:539-546. InternationalConference on BearResearch and Management MCCANN,R.K. 1994. Kluane National Park grizzly bear 9(1):51-61. research project: year-end report-1993. Parks Canada, Cm,D.K., ANDB.K. GILBERT.1999. Habitatsecurity for Alaskan KluaneNational Park and Reserve, Haines Junction,Yukon, black bears at key foraging sites: are there thresholdsfor Canada. humandisturbance? Ursus 11:225-238. 1998. Kluane National Park grizzly bear research DILL,S., S. JACKSON,AND P. WRIGHT.1997. Kluanewilderness project. Interimfinal reportto accompanythe projectreview, study. Centre for TourismPolicy and Research, School of October 21 & 22, 1998. Parks Canada, Kluane National Resource and EnvironmentalManagement, Simon Fraser Parkand Reserve, Haines Junction,Yukon, Canada. University,Buraby, British Columbia,Canada. MCCRORY, W., S. HERRERO,AND P. WHITFIELD. 1986. Using HAMILTON,A.N., ANDW.R. ARCHIBALD.1986. Grizzly bear grizzlybear habitat information to reducehuman-grizzly bear habitat in the Kimsquit River valley, coastal British conflicts in KokaneeGlacier and ValhallaProvincial Parks, Columbia: evaluation. Pages 50-57 in G.P. Contrerasand B.C. Pages 24-30 in G.P.Contreras and K.E. Evans, editors. K.E. Evans, editors. Proceedingsof the grizzly bearhabitat Proceedings of the grizzly bear habitat symposium. U.S. symposium. U.S. Department of Agriculture General Departmentof AgricultureGeneral Technical Report INT- TechnicalReport INT-207, IntermountainResearch Station, 207, IntermountainResearch Station, Ogden, Utah, USA. Ogden, Utah, USA. OLSON,T.L., AND,B.K. GILBERT.1994. Variableimpacts of HERRERO,S. 1985. Bear attacks: their causes and avoidance. people on brownbear use of an Alaskanriver. International Lyons and Burford,New York,New York,USA. Conferenceon BearResearch and Management 9(1):97-106. , A. HOLCROFTWEERSTRA, R.M. ROTH,AND L. WIGGINS. , R.C. SQUIBB,AND B.K. GILBERT.1998. Brown bear 1993. The conservationsignificance of bearsand their habitat diurnalactivity and human use: a comparisonof two salmon in the Tatshenshini River Valley. Canadian Wildlife streams. Ursus 10:547-555. Federation,Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. REINHART,D.P., ANDD.J. MATTSON.1990. Bear use of cutthroat , W. MCCRORY, AND B. PELCHAT. 1986. Using grizzly trout spawning streams in Yellowstone National Park. bear habitat evaluations to locate trails and campsites in InternationalConference on BearResearch and Management KananaskisProvincial Park. InternationalConference on 8:343-350. Bear Researchand Management6:187-193. RESOURCESINVENTORY COMMITTEE. 1999. British Columbia LEONARD,R.D., R. BRENEMAN,AND R. FREY.1990. A case history wildlife habitatrating standards. Version 2.0. Terrestrial of grizzly bear managementin the Slims River area,Kluane Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee, NationalPark Reserve, Yukon. InternationalConference on Victoria,British Columbia,Canada. Bear Researchand Management8:113-123. SCHOEN,J.W., R.W. FLYNN, L.H. SURING,K. TrrIT,AND L.R. BEIER. LYMAN,R., J. ORDONEZ,AND M. SPEAKS.2000. The complete 1994. Habitat-capabilitymodel for brownbear in southeast guide to the TatshenshiniRiver. CloudburstProductions, Alaska. InternationalConference on Bear Research and Haines, Alaska, USA. Management9(1):327-337. MACHUTCHON,A.G. 1998. Bear hazardevaluation at campsites SIMPSON,K. 1992. Tatshenshiniwildlife habitat evaluation. on the Babine River, B.C. British Columbia Ministry of BritishColumbia Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks, Environment,Lands and Parks,Smithers, British Columbia, Smithers,British Columbia,Canada. Canada. TITUS,K., ANDL.R. BEIER.1999. Suitabilityof streambuffers . 2000. Risk assessment of bear-humaninteraction at and riparianhabitats for brown bears. Ursus 11:149-156. campsites on the TatshenshiniRiver and lower Alsek River, WELLWOOD,D.W., AND A.G. MACHUTCHON.1999a. Risk Yukon,B.C., andAlaska. BritishColumbia Parks, Smithers, assessmentof bear-humanconflict at campsiteson the Alsek British Columbia, Canada; U.S. National Parks Service, River, KluaneNational Park, Yukon. ParksCanada, Kluane Yakatat, Alaska, USA; Parks Canada, Haines Junction, NationalPark and Reserve, Haines Junction, Yukon, Canada. Yukon, Canada; and Yukon Department of Renewable , AND . 1999b. Risk assessment of bear-human Resources, Whitehorse,Yukon, Canada. conflict at campsiteson the Alsek River,Tatshenshini-Alsek , S. HIMMER,AND C.A. BRYDEN.1993. Khutzeymateen Park,British Columbia. British ColumbiaParks, Smithers, Valley grizzly bear study: final report. British Columbia British Columbia,Canada. Ministryof Forests,Wildlife Habitat Research Report WHR- Received: 28 2001. 31 and British Columbia Ministry of Environment,Lands May andParks, Wildlife Report R-25, Victoria,British Columbia, Accepted: 13 March 2002. Canada. Associate Editor: Riley.