Spring 2020 Vol

International Bear News

Tri-Annual Newsletter of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) and the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group Spring 2020 Vol. 29 no. 1

The first photographic evidence of Himalayan Brown Bear from Lippa-Asrang Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh, India. Photo credit: Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. See page 23-25 for more information on the research project that captured the photograph.

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 Manager’s Corner 6 Earth Day 2020: An Opportunity to Reflect 32 Foot-Snaring Bears Near Population Centers on Bears Over the Past 50 Years 33 American Black Bear Dispersal into Iowa and Indiana IBA Member News 8 Transition News Workshop Reports 9 In Memoriam: David Wildt 35 A Step Toward Developing Population 10 In Memoriam: Glen Contreras Monitoring Guidelines for Asian Bears

Conference Announcements Conservation 37 27th International Conference On Bear 11 Sun Bear Conservation Action Plan Research & Management, September 21 – Implementation Update 25, 2020, Kalispell, Montana, United States 13 Update of Florida Bear Plan documents Conservation Success 15 Possible Evidence for a Lack of Medicinal Workshop Announcements Efficacy in Sun Bear Bile? 38 Human-Bear Conflict Conference, October 4-7, 2021, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United Illegal Trade States 17 International Trade in Bear Products for 38 25th Eastern Black Bear Workshop, 2021. Traditional Asian Medicine Wisconsin 38 The 3rd International Symposium on Sun

Bear Conservation and Management Biological Research 20 What’s on the Menu for Brown Bears at Golestan Restaurant? Student Forum 21 Sign Surveys Reveal Andean Bear Habitat 38 Truman Listserv and Facebook Page Use in Guaramacal National Park, Venezuelan Andes Publications 23 First Photographic Evidence of Himalayan 39 Recent Bear Literature Brown Bear from Lippa-Asrang Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh, India IBA Officers & Council 26 Is Climate Change Allowing the Asiatic 45 Executive Council Members and Ex-Officio Black Bear to Inhabit a Trans-Himalayan Members Valley of Himachal Pradesh (India)? 29 Attempts to Find Three Bear Species in BSG Expert Team Chairs Meghalaya, India 47 Bear Specialist Group Team Chairs

2 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 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) Merrill Maben (Proofing) Alpha Graphics, Bozeman, MT, USA (Printing and Distribution) Coordinated by: Jennapher Teunissen van Manen, 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 species. 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 South America: Marco Enciso, Email:[email protected] Europe: Stefanie Franke, Email: [email protected] Central Asia: Tatjana Rosen, Email: [email protected] Zoo and Captive Bear Organizations: Jordan Schaul, Email:[email protected] Bear Specialist Group: Dave Garshelis, Email:[email protected] Manager’s Corner: Carl Lackey, Email: [email protected] All other submission and/or inquiries: Mark Edwards, Email: [email protected] Consult website for submission guidelines. Deadline for the Summer 2020 issue is 05 June 2020.

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 order 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 Bear Conservation Fund through an IBA grant.

International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 3 IBA President President’s Column

John Hechtel IBA President Email: [email protected]

It’s 31 March, and the column I wrote only 2 months ago seems a lot less relevant. So, I’m taking advantage of a small window to rewrite my column. With all the uncertainty the world is facing, it’s difficult to know what will be going on by the time this IBN comes out. Hopefully things will have started improving, and our bear conservation community and our families will have stayed safe and healthy during the pandemic. This is turning into a profound moment that will likely change life in ways we can’t predict. Crises can be divisive and harmful but can also be opportunities to improve societies and the planet. The natural world and its resilience help keep me optimistic. And I’m confident our members will focus on positive change.

I want to let you know that the decision to postpone the Kalispell Conference was not an easy one. The conference plan- ners put a lot of effort into making this meeting one of the best. Although still months away, there was so much uncertainty around the pandemic’s potential severity and duration, and its effects on things like international travel and visa applications, that we decided it was prudent to postpone it until 2021. We will provide you with details as alternative plans are developed.

Now more than ever it’s important that our members consider IBA and bear conservation as worthy of their focus and energy. The choices of how we occupy our limited time are crucial. During the outbreak most of us are now spending work and free time at home-- a lot of it looking at screens. The competition to capture our interest is now a major force shap- ing the online world. Aggressive attempts to seize, use, and monetize people’s attention and personal information are being employed. Electronic distractions and superficial clickbait are pervasive. All this while attention spans, in general, are decreasing. Internet access hasn’t resulted in the better-informed, thoughtful public we hoped for, but tends to allow people to reinforce their views rather than to open their minds. Finding accurate content amidst the misinformation and propaganda is often difficult, even though it’s crucial. I hope we can maintain IBA’s reputation as a trustworthy source of knowledge on bears, and work to not only facilitate professional communication, but serve as a reliable source of information for the public as well.

I joined IBA over 40 years ago and watched it develop from a mostly North American association to a truly international one that better serves its members and the cause of global bear conservation. For a professional group run by volunteers, we’ve accomplished a lot, and can be proud. We’ve been careful and cautious, but also effective, as befits biologists. And thanks to the generosity of the Bevins and Homer Funds and other donors, we have a successful grants program. Partner- ships with groups such as the IUCN Bear Specialist and Polar Bear Specialist Groups have also been key in working towards our shared goals. But we also face serious challenges -- volunteer burnout, increasing workloads, keeping IBA useful and relevant to its members, and addressing growing threats to bears and their habitats.

Over the last few years IBA leadership formulated a bold plan to face our challenges, to make us more efficient and effective at what we do so well, and to hopefully increase our capacity to do more. Thanks to a gift from an anonymous donor, we recently hired an Executive Director, Chris Kelley, who has over 30 years in non-profit management and fundraising to help IBA with the next phase. Chris is working closely with Council to understand IBA and our current programs so he can help us create a network of donors with the interest and capacity to support IBA and our grants program. You can read more about Chris’ background in the Communication Team’s Transition column in this issue. Unfortunately, the pandemic has

4 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 IBA President disrupted the expansion of our fundraising efforts, as it has all of our lives. It’s going to take some time to see what longer- term implications for non-profits are. But we are still trying to look strategically to the future and are fortunate to have an experienced Executive Director who can guide us through these challenging times.

I’m also happy to introduce and welcome our new Council members. As a result of the last election we have a new VP for the America’s, Karyn Rode, and 2 new members of IBA Council, Anne Hertel and Karine Pigeon. There is also a bylaw provi- sion to appoint 1 additional council member during an election cycle to help increase species or regional representation. I’m happy to announce Konstantin Tirronen was voted in by Council to an appointed seat. For many years IBA has been trying to increase Russian participation in IBA, and Konstantin is an excellent choice to help with that. Furthermore, I want to thank all the other excellent candidates who were willing to run for Council, and I hope they will consider running again.

In my role as President, I’m still learning about IBA structure and operations, as well as my new responsibilities. It’s a bit intimidating. But it also reminds me that most members don’t realize how much work goes on behind the scenes to keep IBA running. Things such as ensuring we are able to host conferences, publish IBN and Ursus, maintain a website, raise money, review and award grants, keep records, and make sure we follow non-profit legal and tax requirements. We often just assume IBA will be there for us, and for the bears, without considering how much work that takes. We depend on an active engaged membership, who help run IBA, and who support and maintain its role as a major, positive force for global bear conservation. As we move forward, we will try to keep you informed about opportunities for you to get more involved.

Please feel free to contact me with any concerns or ideas you have. ([email protected])

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 5 IUCN BSG Co-Chairs Earth Day 2020: An Opportunity to Reflect on Bears Over the Past 50 Years

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

There are many reasons to be sad, frustrated, and annoyed with the current state of the Earth. Fifty years ago the destruction of the environment inspired the first “Earth Day” (April 22, 1970), intended to arouse a growing movement of people to take stock of the health of the Earth each year, and provoke changes in how we interact with and affect our planet and its biota. The 50th anniversary of Earth Day is a good time to reflect on how we’ve done, and to think about how to proceed. It’s also a good marker to examine what’s happened with bears. The first true conference of bear biologists happened to occur 7 months after the first Earth Day (Nov 1970). (It followed from an informal workshop 2 years earlier.) Ian McTaggart Cowan (1972) provided a keynote address on “The Status and Conservation of Bears (Ursidae) of the World — 1970”, which serves as our best benchmark for what was known at the time, and the perceived status of each of the species (excluding the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, which at the time was not considered a bear).

Status Report 1970 Below are some highlights from Cowan’s 1970 status report (ordered as he did). Sun bear (Helarctos malayanus): Sporadic records of presence in northeast India, but none in Bangladesh. They live in heavy cover in Burma (Myanmar), but under threat from logging. They are nowhere abundant in mainland Malaysia, and still occur on Sumatra and Borneo, but status there is unknown. Wire snares set for pigs is a primary threat. Sloth bear (Melursus ursinus): Recorded as “still present” in India, but “vanishing” over most of its range during the past 20 years due to human invasion and “rife” poaching due to conflicts. Possible extirpation in some parks. It occurs in dry jungles of Sri Lanka (but no mention of Nepal). Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus): Rare in Venezuela; markedly declining in Colombia; “pristine” populations remain in Ecuador; scattered, heavily-hunted populations in Peru; fair numbers in Bolivia. This species is more threatened by hunting than by habitat destruction. Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus): Occurs in Baluchistan (Iran), as a relict subspecies that can only be saved by vigor- ous protection and compensation for crop damage. Virtually eliminated in Bangladesh due to forest destruction. Numbers greatly reduced in India, as well as Myanmar and Thailand, due to habitat loss. Still common on Honshu Island, Japan (scarce on Kyushu and Shikoku), but predicted to decline. Present in China, Russia, Korea, and Taiwan, but no information on status or threats. Brown bear (U. arctos): Still occurs at northern and southern extremes of original range, even though numbers have been vastly reduced. Southern population in Abruzzo, Italy, may be saved by a compensation program for farmers; disap- pearing in Trentino, Italy. Remnant populations of Syrian subspecies. No information about presence in Gobi. Total Russian population estimated at 100,000. In North America: hunted around Yellowstone, still present but very low numbers in Washington, relict population found in Swan Hills of Alberta, and a small population still survives in Mexico (this was probably wrong).

Many small, isolated populations of bears were extirpated during the half-century preceding Cowan’s (1972) report on the status of the world’s bears. Most striking among these was the disappearance of grizzly bears across the western U.S. The last grizzly was sighted in California in 1924, and that state still memorializes the species on its flag (inset), seal, and various monuments (pictured here, University of California, Berkeley). In the half-century since Cowan’s report, very few bear populations have been extirpated, and a number of populations have expanded, sometimes with human assistance. Conservationists are hoping that someday grizzlies will be reintroduced to California. D. Garshelis (flag: Wikimedia commons) Garshelis (flag: D.

6 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 IUCN BSG Co-Chairs American black bear (U. americanus): Complete or almost complete disappearance from 14 U.S. states, due to habitat loss from settlement. Densest populations in Washington and Idaho. Average yearly harvest of 17–20,000 in U.S., excluding Alaska, although harvest numbers are just a guess. There is “little purposeful hunting” for this species in Canada. Polar bear (U. maritimus): International collaboration highlighted by several recent meetings (1960s), with special attention on limiting harvest. The species’ distribution can be divided into 5 subpopulations.

Cowan concluded that during the 50 years prior to 1970, “bears of all species throughout the northern hemisphere have ceased to be looked upon as serious competitors to man.” He surmised that the 2 species in greatest danger were the Andean bear and sloth bear, and at the subspecies level the Baluchistan population of Asiatic black bear, Syrian brown bear, Mexican grizzly bear, and plains grizzly in the Swan Hills of Alberta.

Status Report 2020 There is not space here to compare, point by point, the current status of bears with that of Cowan’s assessment, 50 years ago, but a few specifics stand out. Sun bear: Still occurs in same range countries (plus Bangladesh) and are now known to occur in degraded habitats as well as primary forests. Snares remain a continuing threat. Sloth bear: No records of being extirpated in any area of India, even though conflicts remain common and still the major threat. In Nepal they live at very high densities in some parks and have even reoccupied some extirpated sites. Andean bear: No known areas of extirpation, but conflicts and habitat loss considered the major threats. Asiatic black bear: Baluchistan population still extant, with conservationists aiding it not through protection and compensation, but community education programs. Not lost in any range country, and few or no known disappearances of any populations (e.g., extirpated on Kyushu, Japan, well before 1970; small population expanding on Shikoku). Populations increasing in Japan, Korea, and even China (due to lower poaching and massive reforestation program). Brown bear: Increasing in most of Europe, with concerted conservation initiatives including population augmentations, conflict abatement, and public education; increasing in North America, with delisting of Yellowstone grizzlies pend- ing. Swan Hills population extant, and Syrian bears still extant (a few even seen recently on Syria-Lebanon border). Large project initiated on Gobi bears. American black bear: Recolonized 7 states (naturally or with human assistance) that were once extirpated; all states (except Hawaii) have at least occasional visitors; populations expanding nearly everywhere (including southward in Mexico); annual sustainable harvests of >40,000 across the continent. Polar bear: Hunting no longer a threat, but climate change severely impacting habitat on a global scale. Many sophis- ticated population and vital rate monitoring programs; 19 recognized subpopulations, with varying population trends.

Changes Over 50 Years There has been an exponential rate of increase in our knowledge of bears over the past 50 years: in 1970 there were virtually no reliable population estimates for any species anywhere, and even information about presence or absence was dubious. It is certainly the case that we have lost bears in some areas but the baseline was too poor to detect it. Conversely, it is probably also true that some populations have increased without our knowing. We cannot accurately judge how much has changed, due to shifting baselines in knowledge and perceptions. Neverthe- less, even the most pessimistic person should be able to acknowledge that the work invested in science and conservation has thwarted many declines that were perceived or predicted 50 years ago.

Moving Forward Let’s use this 50th anniversary of Earth Day to generate optimism that our efforts have been working, and also let’s use it as an opportunity to learn (from what has worked and what hasn’t) and thereby guide our efforts in the future. Earth Day celebrations center around a vision of an attainable future, not a The BSG joins 50th anniversary Earth Day gloomy impossible dream. Bear biologists have plenty to celebrate, while at celebrants in recognizing that conserva- the same time, much work to do. Our message should be that we can succeed tion is achievable. This colorful special logo because we have. is intended to promote the optimism and Let’s look to some of the focal points of Earth Day 2020 to improve bear conser- inspiration for mobilizing the human energy vation: citizen science and volunteerism, advocacy and partnerships, education required to change our use of planet Earth.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 7 IUCN BSG Co-Chairs and special events. Earth Day is not about raising money, but about raising awareness among the Earth’s human citizens, and mobilizing the strength of the masses to change how we use our planet.

Literature Cited Cowan, I. McT. 1972. The Status and Conservation of Bears (Ursidae) of the World — 1970. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 2: 343–367. IBA Member News Transition News

Agnieszka Sergiel Alexander Kopatz Institute of Nature Conservation of Polish Academy of Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Sciences, Krakow, Poland Trondheim, Norway IBA Council Member, Co-chair of Communications team IBA Secretary, Co-chair of Communications team Member: European Brown Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Email: [email protected] Specialist Group Email: [email protected]

Dear IBA Members, With the first issue of IBN this year, here we are again with new information and updates on the transition. We left you with the history and summary of transition process in the last issue. As you might recall, and if not here is a gentle reminder, all information is available on the Structural Development page of the IBA website (https://www.bearbiology.org/structural- development/) where you can also review the summary of the structural development file (https://www.bearbiology.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Structural-Plan-Summary-Revised-09132019-Web-Version.pdf).

Here are a few highlights for you:

Meet Christopher Kelley, our Executive Director As of January 2020, we met the projected date to hire an Executive Director who started on January 1, 2020: Christopher Kelley. Chris has 32 years of professional experience in the not-for-profit sector, all in senior management and ED/CEO posi- tions with numerous employers, half of those years representing organizations whose mission was to protect and conserve wildlife and the environment. These include the National Audubon Society, the Greater Farallones Association and the current, part-time Executive Director of Conservation Earth/Wildmind Science. In addition to his work in conservation, Chris has worked in international development, healthcare, and social service sectors and has provided capacity building, fundraising, volunteer management, marketing, and strategic planning services to local, national and international organizations. IBA is a perfect fit for Chris’s skills, interests, and passion for wildlife conservation. Chris is married (22 years), has two boys, aged 10 and 14, and resides in San Anselmo, CA, about 15 miles north of San Francisco. He is excited to be a part of IBA and wishes to thank the IBA membership for its dedication to such a vital organization. Hiring an ED was Structure Change Step 2 in the plan. The funding for this employment was secured from a Founda- tion Grant specific to the transition process. The Executive Director will now work toward developing a donor base and fundraising for IBA grants programs and operational costs for IBA.

We have extended the contract for the Director of Transition The contract for Jennapher Teunissen van Manen as the Director of Transition expired on January 1, 2020. The Council voted to extend it for an additional six months (July 1, 2020), based on the financial assessment of IBA funds from the Treasurer.

We appreciate teamwork Christopher Kelley is working closely with Julia Bevins, Chair of the IBA Bear Conservation Fund. Together with Jennapher Teunissen van Manen, the Director of Transition, they are working to set donor events for the summer and fall depending on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic. This involves getting the legal requirements set up for IBA to be able to fund raise in

8 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 IBA Member News states other than Montana, finding people to host events, and finding speakers for the events.

Member involvement By now you have received an invitation to participate in a survey about the future of IBA programs. With this survey, we intend to learn from you, IBA members, what you think is important for IBA to focus on when developing new programs as the transition moves forward and successfully brings in more funds for our members and bears. The results of this survey are being used to establish priority programs and determine where funds are best directed to provide the services IBA members need to be successful at researching, managing, and conserving the world’s bears. Thank you if you filled out the survey, and for taking the time to do so, your voice matters and will help determine the direction of IBA funding.

What is next? We are now entering Structure Change Step 3: to establish 3 standing Council committees. Gradually we are going to broaden Council’s expertise and aim to improve organizational functioning by introducing a committee structure. Council will elect up to 3 or 4 additional Councilors with specific expertise in non-profit organizations (e.g., non-profit law, governance, philanthropy, etc.). With this new structure, the Council will be comprised of 11 Officers and Councilors elected by IBA members, up to 2 IBA members elected by Council to improve regional/species representation, and up to 4 additional people appointed by Council for non-profit expertise. Further, 3 standing committees will be established on Council: (1) Programs, (2) Governance and Internal Affairs, and (3) External Affairs. Every Councilor will serve on at least 1 of these committees. What will not change is that the President presides over Council meetings and the elected Council retains final say in all matters. Routine business will be handled by the Executive Director and Director of Transition, with oversight from the 3 Council committees, to balance workload and improve consistency and accountability. This 3-committee structure was developed by the Structural Development team and they found it is used by many boards of non-profit organizations with success at increasing efficiency and productivity within a professional but all-volunteer board. Because adding new voting members to the Council body will require amending the bylaws, we will incrementally approach the changes by implementing the 3-committee structure within the bounds of the bylaws. If the new committee structure shows promise, our attorney will guide us with amending the bylaws. As articulated in the bylaws, the proposed amendments will be sent to all members for comments, comments will be addressed, and the proposed amendments will be voted on by the membership.

In Memoriam: David Wildt

Bill McShea Member: Asiatic Black Bear and Population Monitoring Expert Teams, IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group Research Ecologist, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VA 22630, USA Email: [email protected]

It is with deep regret that I report the passing of Dr. David Wildt on January 15, 2020. David was a senior scientist emeritus at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI). His research specialty was reproductive physiology, and for many years he led the Center for Species Survival at the SCBI where staff focus on the breeding and care of endangered species. Dave’s team led ground-breaking studies on the reproduction of many endangered species including the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), African lion (Panthera leo), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), and giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). It was Dave’s work on giant panda that brought him in contact with many members of the Bear Specialist Group. He was a member of the BSG’s Giant Panda Expert team. He, along with Drs. JoGayle Howard, Susie Ellis (Dave’s wife) and Don Janssen (San Diego Zoo Global), led the first comprehensive health analysis of all the world’s captive pandas in the 1980’s, a project that included extensive travel through China. An eminent scientist with the Smithsonian Conservation Biology This work resulted in a comprehensive book on the captive breeding and health Institute, Dr. David Wildt was a leader in of giant pandas (D. E. Wildt et al. 2006. Giant Pandas: Biology, Veterinary Medicine solving the mystery of the giant panda’s and Management. Cambridge University Press). His team worked closely with their poor reproduction in captivity.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 9 IBA Member News Chinese colleagues on solving the impediments to reproduction within captive giant panda populations and those interactions and efforts directly led to the current explosion of births within the world’s captive population. Dave was the Director of the National Zoo’s Giant Panda Program, which provided millions of dollars for the critical infrastructure of the emerging system of nature reserves in China, as well as capacity building for both in-situ and ex-situ conservation work on giant pandas. His program supported both the training of young Chinese conservationists as well as the means for U.S. scientists to develop relationships and research programs within the giant panda reserves. As a key member of the AZA’s Giant Panda Science Advisory Committee, Dave helped shape the policies of the US institutions and agencies toward giant panda and wildlife conservation in China. Dave was incredibly supportive of collaborations and engagement with Chinese colleagues as conservation biology emerged within Chinese institutions, including negotiating giant panda loan agreements between the Chinese government and U.S.institutions. His expertise, understanding and personal connections will be sorely missed within the giant panda conservation community. Dave passed away after battling cancer within a year of his retirement. He was 69 years old and died peacefully at home surrounded by Susie and his family. He leaves behind a research community at SCBI and throughout the world that will stand on his shoulders for a generation. A fund has been established to support the David E. Wildt Lecture Series at SCBI; it will feature leading conservationists and aims to educate and inspire the next generation of conservation biologists.

In Memoriam: Glen Contreras

Julia Bevins Chair, Bear Conservation Fund Email: [email protected]

Glen Contreras, a long-time IBA member and supporter of IBA’s Bear Conservation Fund, died on Saturday 14 December 2019, at home, surrounded by his family and his dogs after an almost 5 year battle with multiple myeloma. IBA has been successful because of the volunteers like Glen who work behind the scenes to support the programs and biologists of IBA. Glen was a big help to conference organizers with logistics, procuring sponsors, and conference planning. Glen Contreras was also a part of the first Experience and Exchange Grants Committee. In September of 2019, Glen and his wife Gail hosted a fun and successful fundraising party for the Bear Conservation Fund, which launched a new 5-year program for bear dogs in bear conservation. Glen Contreras was born in Oceanside, California in 1946, 1 of 7 children. He was drafted into the army in 1966 and spent his service time in Germany and France. In 1969 he moved to Reno, Nevada to attend the University of Nevada, graduating with a Bachelors in Renewable Natural Resources in 1972 and a Masters in Anadro- mous Fisheries in 1973. Glen worked for the Desert Research Institute at Nevada for 2 years before taking a biologist position with the USDA Forest Service in 1975 on the Shasta Trinity National Forest. In 1976 he moved to Ketchum, Idaho and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Glen met his wife, Gail, in Reno and they married in 1977. In 1980, brought a move to Ketchikan, Alaska, the Tongass National Forest and a son, James. Late 1983 found Glen on a ferry, moving his family south to the Region 4 office in Ogden, Utah and it was there that daughter Stephanie was born. In 1987 it was due east to Washington DC to work with threatened and endangered species. While in the DC office, he worked at the American Fisheries Society and helped with the beginnings of the World Fisheries Congress, the first being held in 1992 in Athens, Greece. He was president of the International Fisheries Society from 1995–1997 and again from 1999–2000. Glen retired from the Forest Service in 2008 to enjoy time with his family, his hobbies and his dogs. In 2012, Glen happily moved back to Reno and the mountains and in September of 2019, hosted a fundraising event for the Bear Conservation Fund. Glen is survived by his wife of 42 years, Gail. Gail has selected the Bear Conserva- tion Fund (https://www.bearbiology.org/bear-conservation-fund/) as a recipient charity for memorial donations made in Glen’s honor. We are doubly honored by his service to our organization and this legacy. Glen Contreras (1946-2019)

10 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Conservation Sun Bear Conservation Action Plan Implementation Update Brian Crudge Caroline Lees Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, and Bear Monitoring Expert Program Officer, IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Team, IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group Group (CPSG) Research Programme Manager, Free the Bears Co-convenor, CPSG Australasia Branch, IUCN SSC PO Box 015, Luang Prabang, Lao PDR Conservation Planning Specialist Group Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Dave Garshelis Matt Hunt Co-chair IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair, Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Specialist Group Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA Chief Executive, Free the Bears Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Sun Bears: Global Status Review and Conservation Action Plan was officially launched in June 2019. The plan was developed over a 2-year period following the 1st International Symposium on Sun Bear Conservation & Management. The plan describes 5 broad goals comprised of 20 objectives and 60 priority actions to be implemented during 2019–2028 for the long-term conservation of sun bears (Helarctos malayanus). Implementation of the actions is being tracked by an action plan implementation task force and reported annually to the IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group. Regular updates will be published in International Bear News, of which this is the second. (Previous update see: International Bear News 2018 27(3):33-34). The latest edition of the Sun Bear Action Plan is available to download here: http://bit.ly/ SunBearActionPlan_2_3

The implementation task force is comprised of Focal Points for each range state and each thematic goal. Contact details for these are published in the action plan. To enable tracking of the implementation of action points, and to ensure that those not being addressed can be identified, Focal Points are to keep in regular contact with organizations and government partners working on or planning to work on implementation of the plan or on other relevant sun bear projects. Any new projects or major achievements can be sent throughout the year to the Implementation Coordinator (Brian Crudge: brian@ freethebears.org). Progress is being made on several fronts.

Goal 1: Eliminate Illegal Exploitation of Sun Bears – This is the most advanced of the 5 goals, with projects currently underway in at least one range state addressing 89% of the actions under this goal. However, this measure does not take into account the scope of individual projects, and much work remains to be done.

Goal 2: Protect and Restore Sun Bear Habitats and Populations Across the Species’ Natural Range – This goal has the highest number of recommended actions (28), and in many ways will be the most challenging. Although almost 50% of the actions are being partially addressed by at least one ongoing project, many of the actions will require larger-scale and longer-term projects from representative habitats throughout the sun bear’s range.

Goal 3: Devise and Employ Methods to Reliably Monitor Trends in Sun Bear Populations – In November 2019 the IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group, partnering with the Taiwan Black Bear Conservation Association, conducted a 4-day workshop on Developing Population Monitoring Guidelines for Asian Bears (see article in this issue, p. 35-37). The focus was on 4 species of bears, and participants reviewed monitoring using interviews, sign surveys, camera trapping, and genetics. Participants are now preparing a series of publications and an easily readable handbook to summarize the recommendations from the workshop. This workshop showed that actions identified in the sun bear plan can be combined with work on other species.

Goal 4: Maximise the Contribution of Ex Situ Sun Bear Populations to Conservation – Significant progress has been made towards achieving Objective 15 under this goal: Improve the Quality and Quantity of Conservation- Directed Research Conducted Using Ex Situ Sun Bears. Throughout 2019, work was underway to review past and current ex situ sun bear research projects to provide a baseline from which to identify, assess the feasibil- ity, and prioritize conservation-directed research needs for ex situ sun bears. This work included an online form to solicit conservation research ideas, a workshop with key international experts, and a prioritization

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 11 Conservation

process. The next step in 2020 and onward will be to develop a formal network of institutions and captive care facilities willing to collaborate on applied research programmes to improve coopera- tion, reduce duplication, and address agreed-upon priorities.

Goal 5: Increase Cross-Sectoral Support and Collaboration for Sun Bear Conservation – Recognizing the role that industry has to play in bear conservation, Animals Asia has engaged with the Vietnamese Traditional Medicine Association and signed an agreement to phase out prescription of bear bile as medicine. In Malaysia, TRAF- FIC is collaborating with the Federation of Chinese Physicians and Medicine-Dealers Association of Malaysia to develop joint actions to reduce the use of bear parts and derivatives within the industry.

Developing National Plans – In September 2019, the Sabah Wildlife Depart- ment, Bornean Sun Bear Conservation Centre, and Danau Girang Field Centre hosted a 4-day workshop to develop the first Sun Bear Action Plan for Sabah, 2020-2029. The range-wide sun bear action plan was reviewed and adapted to the locally-specific situation

in Sabah. Six Sun Bear Action Plan Implementation Task Force Brian Crudge members were in attendance and used the opportunity to discuss Roth Vichet, setting a fly trap in Free the ways in which they can further engage those working with sun Bears’ Cambodia Bear Sanctuary as part of bears and relevant government agencies. In 2020 Free the Bears an international collaborative project, led by will engage stakeholders in Cambodia to develop a national action Angeliki Savvantoglou with partial funding plan there. To facilitate engagement of local stakeholders, a Khmer from an IBA Research & Conservation Grant, version of the abridged action plan document has been produced. to evaluate the use of invertebrate-derived DNA (iDNA) as an alternative method for Much work remains to be done across all goals, objectives and actions, monitoring the presence of tropical bear throughout all sun bear range states and ex situ sun bear populations around the species, contributing to Goal 3 of the Sun world if we are to achieve a long-term sustainable future for this species. However, Bear Conservation Action Plan. this is a promising beginning, less than 1 year into this 10-year plan of action.

We encourage all those working on sun bears to get in touch with the relevant Focal Points published in the plan. We thank all donors supporting sun bear research and conservation throughout Southeast Asia and the world. The National Geographic Society, in partnership with the IUCN SSC and Fondation Segré, seeks applications for funding to implement actions identified in species conservation plans. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/funding-opportunities/grants/ what-we-fund/species-recovery/ #SaveSunBears

12 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Conservation Update of Florida Bear Plan Documents Conservation Success

David Telesco Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bear Management Program Coordinator 620 South Meridian Street 6B Tallahassee, Florida 32399, USA Email: [email protected]

The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) is a subspecies of the American black bear (U. americanus) that ranges throughout Florida, southern Georgia, and eastern Alabama. Once numerous throughout their range, numbers in Florida were estimated to have declined to just a few hundred animals across only 17% of their historic range in the 1970’s (GFC 1993). The state listed the Florida black bear as a State-designated Threatened species in 1974, which triggered funding for research to determine the threats and needs of the subspecies and regulations and protections for bears and their habitats. In the early 2000’s, researchers estimated the statewide population had rebounded to approximately 2,600 bears (Simek et al. 2005). As bear numbers increased and range expanded, so did the number of people, with 15.9 million Florid- ians in 2000. These increases resulted in a 400% increase in the number of bear-related calls received by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) from 1990–2000. Following similar trends in bear and human population growth throughout the southeastern United States (Pelton 2001), the FWC recognized the need to transition from recovery to management in many parts of bear range. In order to document the conservation successes and formalize this transition, the FWC started drafting the first statewide Florida Black Bear Management Plan (Plan) in 2007. Staff exchanged multiple drafts of the Plan with members of the Statewide Bear Technical Assistance Group, which included representatives of over 20 different government and non-government organizations. These included Federal and State agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as non-profits, such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Florida Bear Hunters Association. In 2010, the FWC revisited the status of all State-designated listed species based on IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN 2012) and the Biological Status Review (FWC 2012a) of the Florida black bear showed it was no longer at high risk of extinction. However, before removing a species from the list, it must have a plan in place to ensure it is managed over the long term to avoid future extinction risks. The FWC incorporated this new development into the draft Plan and brought it to the FWC Commis- sioners, who approved it in 2012 (FWC 2012b). Since the initial Plan was approved, the FWC has been working on and completed several key research and management projects that have added to FWC’s knowledge about bears and people’s opinions about them. Some examples include completing a public opinion survey in 2016 (Responsive Management 2016), publishing population abundance research in 2017 (Humm et al. 2017, Murphy et al. 2017), which concluded there are over 4,000 bears in Florida, and updating the range analyses in 2019, which shows bear now occupy 49% of their historic range in Florida. Between 2012–2014, 5 people were moderately to seriously injured by bears, which doubled the number of people injured since the FWC started keeping records in 1976. The FWC made changes to the response to human-bear conflicts as a result of these incidents, including creating a more structured policy regarding bears showing signs of food conditioning and habituation. In 2015, the FWC changed the state rule prohibiting the feeding of bears as well as the associated penalties. Also in 2015, the FWC changed the Bear Conservation Rule to allow the public to scare bears with less-lethal methods and added a depredation permit program. Another change since the original Plan was approved was the substantial increase in FWC’s cost-sharing efforts (FWC 2016) to local governments to increase the availability of bear-resistant equipment, resulting in a total of almost $2.1 million provided since 2007. The FWC re-opened a regulated bear hunting season in 4 of the state’s 7 bear subpopulations in 2015 in an attempt to slow growth rates, which was the first bear hunt since 1994. The FWC scheduled the quota-based hunt for 1 week in Octo- ber, but closed the season after 2 days when quotas were met. While the FWC achieved its objective (FWC 2015) in 2 of the 4 subpopulations, there was strong negative backlash from the public about the hunt, and it was not approved to continue in 2016. In 2017, Commissioners requested FWC staff update the Plan to incorporate all the new information and events that had happened since the 2012 Plan was approved. In addition, Commissioners asked staff to include a comprehensive review of regulated hunting and other population management options, something that was not included in the original Plan. Com- missioners requested the updated Plan be brought to them in 2019. A team of FWC staff spent 2 years reviewing all 200+ pages of the original Plan to determine what needed to be updated. The team also researched and provided a critical review of the following potential population management options:

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 13 Conservation contracted shooting/trapping programs, fertility control, habitat manipulation, regulated hunting, and translocation. The team provided the Plan update for an internal review from agency staff involved in bear management, and then to agency leadership, before opening it up for public comment. Staff met with 60 members of the 7 Bear Stakeholder Groups and 21 members of the Statewide Bear Technical Assistance Group to answer their questions and collect their feedback. The FWC also held 2 public webinars where 128 people participated online or by phone. Staff collected over 3,000 comments using an online questionnaire, as well as over 300 comments by email, letter, or phone. Overall, the feedback received was supportive of the Plan’s objectives. However, the majority of the feedback was focused on bear hunting, even though there was no staff recommendation to re-open the season. Staff presented the Plan update to Commissioners on 11 December 2019. After the presentation, the Commissioners listened to 3 hours of public comments, and then decided to approve (FWC 2019a) the updated Plan (FWC 2019b), which will guide bear management and research efforts for the next 10 years.

Literature Cited Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2012a. Biological status reviews. Florida Fish and Wildlife Con- servation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/biological-status/. Accessed 17 January 2020. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2012b. Florida Black Bear Management Plan. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 215 p. https://myfwc.com/media/1918/bear-management- plan.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2020. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2015. 2015 Florida black bear hunt summary report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, 7 p. https://myfwc.com/media/1917/2015-florida-black- bear-hunt-report.pdf. Accessed 17 Janaury 2020. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2016. BearWise. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com- mission, Tallahassee, Florida. https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/bear/wise/. Accessed 17 January 2020. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCa). 2019. Bear management facts. Florida Fish and Wildlife Con- servation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. https://myfwc.com/news/all-news/bmp-1219/. Accessed 17 January 2020. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCb). 2019. Florida black bear management plan. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, 209 p. https://myfwc.com/media/21923/2019-florida-black- bear-management-plan.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2020. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC). 1993. Management of the Black Bear in Florida: A staff report to the Commissioners. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 63 pp. Humm, J. M., J. W. McCown, B. K. Scheick, and J. D. Clark. 2017. Spatially explicit population estimates for black bears based on cluster sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 81:1187–1201. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.21294. Accessed 17 January 2020. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2012. IUCN Red List categories and criteria. https://www. iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteria. Accessed 17 January 2020. Murphy, S. M., J. J. Cox, B. C. Augustine, J. T. Hast, J. M. Guthrie, J. Wright , J. McDermott, S. C. Maehr, and J. H. Plaxico. 2017. Characterizing recolonization by a reintroduced bear population using genetic spatial capture–recapture. Journal of Wildlife Management 80:1390–1407. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.21144. Accessed 17 January 2020. Pelton, M. R. 2001. American black bear. Pages 224–233 in J. C. Dickson, editor. Wildlife of Southern Forests: habitat and management. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington. Simek, S. L., S. A. Jonker, B. K. Scheick, M. J. Endries, and T. H. Eason. 2005. Statewide assessment of road impacts on bears in six study areas in Florida from May 2001 to September 2003. Final Report, Contract BC-972. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. 77 pp. Responsive Management. 2016. Florida residents’ opinions on black bears and black bear management. Report to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, 224 p. https://myfwc.com/media/20915/ flresidentsopinionsonblackbears_responsivemanagement_2016.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2020.

14 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Conservation Possible Evidence for a Lack of Medicinal Efficacy in Sun Bear Bile?

Elizabeth Oneita Davis Giulia Mussoni Member: Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Istituto Oikos Specialist Group Myanmar Community Engagement Email: [email protected] San Diego Zoo Global San Diego, CA, USA Jenny Anne Glikman Email: [email protected] Steering Committee: IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict Task Force Lorenzo Gaffi Member: Human-Bear Conflict Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Specialist Group Group Community Engagement Istituto Oikos San Diego Zoo Global Myanmar San Diego, CA, USA Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Thet Zaw Istituto Oikos Myanmar Email: [email protected]

A growing body of evidence has illuminated the ubiquity of bear bile and bear gallbladder use across mainland Southeast Asia (Davis et al. 2016, 2019a,b). In Vietnam, the use of bear bile/gallbladder appears to be comparable to neighboring China, with ubiquitous farms in provinces across the country, the majority of which extract bile from Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) (Crudge et al. 2020). The consumption landscape in Cambodia and Laos, meanwhile, is very different, with bear bile/gallbladder generally appearing to be wild-sourced; however, consumers are unlikely to know whether the product is from a sympatric Asiatic black bear or a sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) (Free the Bears Research Programme Manager T. Lim, pers. comm.). In Cambodia, sun bears appear to be some- what more common in the wild (Steinmetz 2011, Steinmetz et al. 2013), so it is likely that many individuals who consume bear bile/gallbladder there are using products from this species. Whether sun bear bile holds the same effective medicinal properties as that of Asiatic black bear bile is currently unknown. Asiatic black bear bile has been a part of the Tradi- tional Chinese Medicine pharmacopeia since ancient times (Feng et al. 2009), whereas sun bear bile appears to be a recent addition, possibly only because it is indistinguishable once it is removed from the bear. Two hypotheses are that (1) sun bear bile is indeed medicinally effective, or (2) individuals who consumed sun bear bile have done so thinking it is just like Asiatic black bear bile, but it is not. In late 2019, San Diego Zoo Global and Istituto Oikos (hereafter Oikos) conducted bear bile/gallbladder consumption surveys through quantitative (n = 327) as well as qualita- tive interviews (n = 66) in villages throughout Rakhine State, Myanmar. This initiative was part of an on-going project of Oikos to assess the ecological status of sun bears in Rakhine, as well as to understand and address on-going threats to the sun bear population by localized poaching. Most of the people sampled were Rakhine ethnicity and Jenna Stacey-Dawes Surveys of local people to assess use of bear bile were con- Buddhist. The majority used both Western medicine and ducted in Rakhine State, Myanmar, in 2019. traditional Myanmar medicine, and most of the individuals

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 15 Conservation interviewed had used wildlife products for medicine (87.9%, n = 58/66). Surprisingly, this rarely included bear bile, despite the noted, persistent poaching of sun bears in Rakhine. From the quantitative surveys only 2 individuals (0.6%) directly admitted that they had consumed bear bile. When using a nominative technique (specialized questioning to reduce bias from deceit in answering sensitive questions), the prevalence of bear bile use rose to 3.2%, which is still significantly lower than in Cambodia (as high as 16% in some areas; Davis et al. 2019a), and Laos (as high as 22% in some areas; Davis et al., forthcoming). In light of the overall consumptive landscape, this result has intriguing implications that illuminate the need for further research. It is possible that individuals in Rakhine do not use sun bear bile because it is genuinely ineffective, and there has not been a medicinal driver for its use within the area. Moreover, Myanmar is historically relatively isolated compared to the rest of Southeast Asia (Cotterell 2014), which may have resulted in a corresponding lack of medicinal system influence from outside sources. Rakhine State is particularly so, being locked between the Indian Ocean to the west and the mountains of the Rakhine Yoma Range to the east. One missing piece of the puzzle that could help to answer this question is neighboring Thailand, which is closer to both China and Vietnam yet still comparatively removed, and with a similar landscape to Myanmar. It would also be useful to understand consumption, both historically and currently, in peninsular Malaysia and Indonesia, where only sun bears occur, and where historic influences are in turn highly variable, complex, and specific to each entity.

Literature Cited

Cotterell, A. 2014. A history of South East Asia. Marshall Cavendish Interna- tional Asia Pte Ltd. Singapore. Crudge, B., T. Nguyen, and T.T. Cao. 2020. The challenges and conservation implications of bear bile farming in Viet Nam. Oryx DOI: https://doi. org/10.1017/S0030605317001752. Davis, E.O., D. O’Connor, B. Crudge, A. Carignan, J. A. Glikman, C. Browne- Nuñez, and M. Hunt. 2016. Understanding public perceptions and mo- tivations around bear part use: A study in northern Laos of attitudes of Chinese tourists and Lao PDR nationals. Biological Conservation 203: 282–289. (top) A scene from lush and water-rich Rakhine State, Myanmar. (bottom) A Davis, E.O., B. Crudge, T. Lim, D. O’Connor., V. Roth, M. Hunt, and J. A. Glikman. member of the survey team conducting an 2019a. Understanding the prevalence of bear part consumption in Cambo- interview in Kyeintali Town, Rakhine State, dia: A comparison of specialised questioning techniques. PloS ONE 14(2): Myanmar. Credit: Elizabeth Davis e0211544. Davis, E.O., J. A. Glikman, B. Crudge, V. Dang, M. Willemsen, T. Nguyen, D. O’Connor, and T. Bendixsen. 2019b. Consumer demand and traditional medicine prescription of bear products in Vietnam. Biological Conservation 235: 119–127. Feng, Y., K. Siu, N. Wang, K-M. Ng, S-W. Tsao, T. Nagamatsu, and Y. Tong. 2009. Bear bile: dilemma of traditional medicinal use and animal protection. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 5: 2 doi:10.1186/1746-4269-5-2 Steinmetz, R. 2011. Ecology and distribution of sympatric Asiatic black bears and sun bears in the tropical dry forest ecosystem of Southeast Asia. Pages 249–273 in W. McShea, S. Davies, and N. Bhumpakphan, eds., Dry forests of Asia: conservation and ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 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 South- east Asia. Journal of Mammalogy 94: 1–18.

16 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Illegal Trade International Trade in Bear Products for Traditional Asian Medicine

Trang Nguyen Rob Ogden Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the Roslin School of Anthropology and Conservation Institute, Easter Bush Campus, University of Edinburgh, EH25 University of Kent, Marlowe Building 9RG, United Kingdom Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, UK and and TRACE Wildlife Forensics Network, 16 Corstorphine Hill WildAct Vietnam Avenue, Edinburgh EH12 6LE, United Kingdom TT26, Ha Dong Hanoi, Vietnam David L. Roberts Email: [email protected] Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Marlowe Brian Crudge Building, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, UK Free the Bears, Phnom Penh, Cambodia and Department of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health, University of Southeast Norway, NO-3800, Bø i Telemark, Norway

Traditional Asian Medicines (TAM) contain plant and animal compounds that may be derived from endangered species (Cheng et al. 2014; Coghlan et al. 2015). This is a cause for concern as the use of wild animal parts in TAM can put added pressure on populations of many threatened species. The use of wildlife products in TAM has spread beyond Asia, via the Asian diaspora, to other continents including North America (Petrossian et al. 2016), Australia (Coghlan et al. 2012), and Africa (Nguyen and Robert 2020). Coghlan et al. (2012) found DNA from Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in TAM products in Australia, and trade of Asian species, for TAM purposes was also recorded recently in South Africa (Nguyen and Robert 2020). The aim of the current pilot study was to investigate the animal species composition of TAM products seized in the United Kingdom (UK). Fourteen TAM products suspected to contain illegal wildlife that had been seized over the last 20 years from shops in London, were provided by the Wildlife Crime Unit of the London Metropolitan Police and subjected to DNA nucleotide sequence analysis for species identification. DNA from all samples was recovered using the QIAGEN DNeasy blood and tissue DNA extraction kit, following the manufacturer’s instructions. The mitochondrial DNA cytochrome b gene was targeted for sequence analysis, as it is known to enable diagnostic identification of multiple mammalian species. PCR amplification was first attempted using universal mcb primers (Verma and Singh 2003) and subsequently, for products advertised as containing bear bile, using bear-specific primers, ut172f and ut367r (Peppin et al. 2008). Positive and negative controls were used throughout. DNA sequence results were obtained for 2 of the 14 samples. For sample 07, a product labelled as powdered bear gall, manufactured by the Guizhentang Pharmaceutical Company in China, the sequence results identified DNA originating from the Asiatic black bear. However sample 08, labelled as bear gallbladder, and was identified as originating from a domestic pig (Sus domesticus). Unfortunately, the other products that were submitted for DNA analysis did not yield amplifiable DNA. Although we were only able to obtain sequence from 2 TAM products, this finding is evidence that some individuals have been engaged in international trade of bear bile from China for use as TAM products in the UK. The Guizhentang Pharma- ceutical Company, registered in Fujian, China, is known for extracting bile from farmed bears to produce TAM (Jian 2012). Although bear bile extraction and trade are permitted in China, all international cross-border import or export without proper permits is an infraction of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) trade regulations (Foley et al. 2011). It is noteworthy that bear products (confirmed with DNA analysis) found over the counter in Australia and bear products observed during market surveys in South Africa were also manufactured by this company (Coghlan et al. 2012; Nguyen and Roberts 2020). Among the 14 TAM products analyzed here, 8 were identified in a market survey in South Africa. Although it was not possible to obtain these products from South Africa for the purpose of this study, since the bear products match those from the Guizhentang Pharmaceutical Company, it is probable that bear products found in South Africa are also genuinely from U. thibetanus. The presence of dried pig gallbladder in this study demonstrates the use of fake products in the TAM trade, although it is not clear whether or not the seller was aware of its true identity. The practice of advertising gallbladder from other species

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 17 Illegal Trade

Fourteen TAM products suspected to contain illegal wildlife that had been seized over the last 20 years from shops in London, were subjected to DNA nucleotide sequence analysis for species identification. is not uncommon. Jabin et al. (2019), using genetic analysis, found that 3 gallbladders suspected to be U. thibetanus were actually Sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) and cattle (Bos indicus). The trade in fake products has been identified as a potential difficulty for regulation and enforcement (Foley et al. 2011). In the UK, simply advertising a product for sale as containing a CITES-listed species without the correct permits constitutes an offence under CITES regulations, regardless of whether or not its authenticity has been established. Some countries (e.g., Singapore) have extended legal restrictions to include fake specimens purported to be from CITES-listed species (Foley et al. 2011). Asiatic black bears and majority of other species products that were included in this study are listed on Appendix I of CITES. Therefore, international trade in TAM products containing these species is illegal and demand for them poses a serious threat to species survival (Graham-Rowe 2011). This study raises concerns over the scale of the TAM market for threatened species, outside of Asia. It is possible that Chinese migrants smuggle these products into other regions in order to satisfy the demand of Chinese diaspora communities. This demand can also impact wildlife populations outside of Asia: Research by Kennedy et al. (2018), highlighted the historical trade of brown bear (U. arctos) paws at Chinese diaspora sites in western North America, showing the impact of consumer demand on local wildlife populations. Overall demand for the parts of bears and other species may be increased greatly if consumption behaviours spread to the local non-Asian popu- lace and/or incorporate other wildlife species as substitutes (Nguyen and Roberts 2020; Nguyen et al. 2020). All 14 products analysed in this study claimed to include at least one protected species. Without scientific analysis it is impossible to know if manufactured TAM products contain endangered species or were falsely labelled (Newmaster et al. 2013). The trade in processed products represents a challenge to effective law enforcement. However, DNA analysis is not always effective at determining species presence. In the absence of consistent, robust methods of species identification for TAM, it is recommended that all CITES member states enact legislation that extends trade regulations to include all parts or products advertised or traded as containing endangered species, irrespective of their actual composition. Our findings contribute to the understanding of the TAM trade in threatened species, particularly of the bear bile/gallbladder trade, driven by the Chinese diaspora.

Literature Cited Cheng, X., X. Su, X. Chen, H. Zhao, C. Bo, J. Xu, H. Bai, and K. Ning. 2014. Biological ingredient analysis of traditional Chinese medicine preparation based on high-throughput sequencing: the story for Liuwei Dihuang Wan. Scientific Reports 4: 5147.

18 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Illegal Trade Coghlan, M.L., G. Maker, E. Crighton, J. Haile, D. C. Murray, N. E. White et al. 2015. Combined DNA, toxicological and heavy metal analyses provides an auditing toolkit to improve pharmacovigilance of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Scientific Reports 5: 17475 Coghlan, M.L., J. Haile, J. Houston, D. C. Murray, N. E. White, P. Moolhuijzen, M. I. Bellgard, and M. Bunce. 2012. Deep sequencing of plant and animal DNA contained within Traditional Chinese Medicines reveals legality issues and health safety concerns. PLOS https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002657. Foley, K. E.,C. J. Stengel and C. R. Shepherd. 2011. Pills, powders, vials and flakes: the bear bile trade in Asia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Selangor, Malaysia. Gomez, L. and C. R. Shepherd. 2018. Trade in bears in Lao PDR with observations from market surveys and seizure data. Global Ecology and Conservation 15, p.e00415. Graham-Rowe D. 2011. Biodiversity: endangered and in demand. Nature 480: S101–S103. Jabin, G., S. K. Singh, A. Ghosh, S. Basu, K. Chandra and M. Thakur. 2019. Illegal trade of obscured bear parts: a case study of identifying the suspected bear gall bladders. Forensic Science International: Reports. Jian, Y. 2012. Anger over bear bile company’s fundraising bid. People’s Daily Online. Access online on 14 July 2019: http:// en.people.cn/90882/7727130.html Kennedy, J.R., L. Rogers and F. A. Kaestle. 2018. Ancient DNA evidence for the regional trade of bear paws by Chinese diaspora communities in 19th-century western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 99: 135-142. Newmaster, S.G., M. Grguric, D. Shanmughanandhan, S. Ramalingam, S. Ragupathy. 2013. DNA barcoding detects con- tamination and substitution in North American herbal products. BMC Medicine 11: 222. Nguyen, T., and D. L. Roberts. 2020. Interviews with purveyors of endangered wildlife for Traditional Asian Medicine in South Africa and Vietnam. Submitted to Environmental Conservation. In Review Nguyen, T., A. Hughes, B. Crudge, D. L. Roberts. 2020. Growing demand for wild animal parts use in South Africa. Submit- ted to Biological Conservation. In Review. Petrossian, G.A., S. F. Pires and D. P. van Uhm. 2016. An overview of seized illegal wildlife entering the United States. Global Crime 17:181-201. Verma, S.K. and L. Singh. 2003. Novel universal primers establish identity of an enormous number of animal species for forensic application. Molecular Ecology Notes 3: 28-31.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 19 Biological Research What’s on the Menu for Brown Bears at Golestan Restaurant? Negin Samadzadeh Afshin Alizadeh Department of Environmental Engineering Department of Environmental Engineering Faculty of Natural Resources Faculty of Natural Resources University of Tehran, Iran University of Tehran, Iran Email: [email protected] Sohrab Ashrafi Ali Turk Qashqaei Department of Environmental Engineering Sahel square, Parsia complex, 5th Sarv bldg, PO14938–89881 Faculty of Natural Resources Tehran, Iran University of Tehran, Iran Studying the feeding ecology of species, such as brown bears (Ursus arctos), allows us to gain important insights: from estimating population density (Nielsen et al. 2016) to movement of the species, home range size, as well as knowledge on the vegetation cover of the area. In combination, all of this can better inform the direct conservation and management of protected areas. Scat analysis is one of the most used methods (Litvaitis 2000) to study the diet, as it is a non-invasive method. Brown bears are an opportunistic omnivore, which can shift their diet with change of resources and seasons. Therefore, it is important that we study the diet in different seasons to assess the temporal patterns. We chose Golestan National Park (GNP) for this purpose, as it has a relatively good number of brown bears. GNP is located in northeast part of Iran and is one of the biggest national parks in Iran (92,000 ha). It has 4 different ecosystems such as forest, steppe, hilly and Rocky Moun- tains and brown bears occupy the first 3 of them. We started our study in late September with monthly visits to the area and we have collected 90 scats; 55 of them have been analyzed to date. To find the scats we asked the rangers where the bears or their scats have been seen and we went to the location either by foot or by horse. We identified 15 items in the scats that were mostly plant-based. One of the interesting items we found was sunflower seeds, as the previous studies done in the area had shown (Khaleghizadeh et. al 2005). Bears also feed on wild apple and pear found in in the Park but they also come into conflict with humans outside of the Park. Local people reported that conflicts might be due to recent droughts and decrease in the availability of natural foods for brown bears in the area. The hypothesis that a decrease in natural foods increases human-bear conflict in the area requires testing which we hope to accomplish through further monitoring.

(left) Golestan National Park, (center) Brown bear`s scat (photos left and center by Negin Samadzadeh), (right) Collecting scats and putting them in the zip keeps (photo by Mr. Mamashti ranger of the park)

Acknowledgments We thank the University of Tehran for assisting us in our studies; we also thank the Department of Environment of Iran and Golestan National Park for granting us permits to enter the park. We would like to thank all the rangers of the park for accompanying us in the field trips specially Mr. Sadizade and Mr. Ebrahimi. And also many thanks to Danial Nayeri for sug- gesting to write this article and help with editing. Literature Cited Litvaitis JA. 2000. Investigating food habits of terrestrial vertebrates. In: Pearl MC, Boitani L, Fuller TK, editors. Research techniques in animal ecology controversies and consequences. NewYork (NY): Columbia University Press; p. 165–190. Nielsen, S.E., T.A. Larsen, G.B. Stenhouse and S.C.P. Coogan. 2016. Complementary food resources of carnivory and frugivory affect local abundance of an omnivorous carnivore. Oikos 126: 369–380. Abolghasem Khaleghizadeh & Soleiman Khormali (2005) The Brown Bear, Ursus arctos, feeding on sunflowers in the vicinity of Golestan National Park, Iran, Zoology in the Middle East, 34:1, 109-110. 20 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Biological Research Sign Surveys Reveal Andean Bear Habitat Use in Guaramacal National Park, Venezuelan Andes

Marcos Hidalgo Ramón Caracas Instituto Nacional de Parques Instituto Nacional de Parques Universidad de Los Andes, Núcleo Universitario “Rafael Trujillo, Venezuela Rangel” Trujillo, Venezuela Email: [email protected]

Andean bears (Tremarctos ornatus) leave readily identifiable sign of their presence and activity. We used sign surveys to document their presence and habitat use within the Guaramacal Branch, part of which is protected as the Guaramacal National Park (NP) on a surface of 215km2. The Guaramacal Branch is the most northern spur of the Merida Cordillera, Venezuelan Andes. Dominant habitats include cloud forest (1800-2800 m) and paramo (shrublands above treeline at 2800-3000 m). It has high relative humidity and high precipi- tation, reaching 3200 mm/year (Cuello and Cleef 2011). Its importance as habitat for the Andean bear has been previously documented (Yerena 1994, Goldstein 1999). During September 2016 - December 2019, we conducted sign surveys system- atically along field routes established in 26 quadrats of 16 km2 each. Our sampling effort was concentrated on ridges and water divides, since there is evidence that Andean bear signs are most frequently found in these topographic Sampling grids (4 x4 km) in Guaramacal National Park, Venezuelan Andes. features (Goldstein et al 2015). The routes

Bear activity signs in Guaramacal NP: (left) bear dropping in paramo; (center) tree with multiple sets of claw marks; (right) feeding sign on Bromeliad (Tillandsia sp.) on floor of cloud forest. Photos: Marcos Hidalgo.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 21 Biological Research are georeferenced, as well as the location of each sign, to guide setting camera-trap stations. We found bear sign in each of 12 studied quadrats to date. An especially large number of sign-associated feeding events were found in the paramo, even though the searched area along transect routes in this habitat was less than in the cloud forest. As reported by other authors, these signs were mostly related to consumption of the vegetative parts of the terrestrial bromeliads Puya aristeguietae and P. guaramacalana, the latter endemic to the Paramo de Guaramacal, and the frailejon (Ruilopezia jabo- nenesis), endemic to the Andes of Venezuela (Miguel Niño pers. comm.). We observed differences in the signs found in the cloud forest by season and altitude. Consumption of vegetative parts of bam- Marcos Hidalgo Marcos boo (Chusquea sp.) is the most evident sign above 2400 m; below Juvenile Andean bear captured by camera trap at the base this, more sign is associated with the consumption of vegetative of a fig tree in Guaramacal NP, Venezuela Andes. parts of epiphytic and terrestrial bromeliads and apical meristem and fruits of Wettinia praemorsa. The presence of bears seems Frequency of Andean bear to be influenced by the fruiting season of certain species, particularly in the portion of signs (total = 406) registered the cloud forest at lower altitudes, coinciding with the start of the rainy season. Here, star in surveys conducted apple (Chrysophyllum caimito) trees grow in clusters and their large fruit attracts bears. across Guaramacal Branch, The same is true for the mature fruits of the fig tree (Ficus nymphaeifolia). Venezuelan Andes, September Informed by the sign survey results, in 2019 we began installing camera traps, both in 2016-December 2019. Guaramacal NP and in an adjacent sector, which has been proposed for a possible expan- Sign Type No. % 2 sion (700 km ) of this protected area to secure structural connectivity with Sierra Nevada Feeding site 184 45 NP. This proposed extension includes cloud forests and paramos of the cordillera branches of Guaramacal and Calderas. This could be an important addition of protected habitat Trail 91 22 of Andean bears, as our work showed year-round presence of bears across all of this Climbed tree 29 7 extension. Track 36 9 Acknowledgements Dropping 18 4 Special thanks to Edgard Yerena and Shaenandhoa García Rangel for their scientific Marked tree 15 4 advice and for the translation of this report, and to Dorixa Monsalve, and Santos Miguel Bed 16 4 Niño for the logistics of this investigation, especially for lending their camera traps to Hair 7 2 this project. This work was possible thanks to Kenny Ure who provided us with advice on Rubbed tree 5 1 technical issues with camera traps and with support for field surveys. We are indebted to the personnel of Guaramacal National Park, especially to Amílcar Bencomo, the park´s Sighting 3 1 superintendent. Thanks to his unconditional support, this research is underway. Nest 2 <1

Literature Cited Cuello, N. and A. Cleef. 2011. Forests of the Andes of Venezuelan: Case: Guaramacal Branch. Pages 74–105 in Aymard, G., ed. Forests of Venezuelan: A tribute to Jean Pierre Veillon. Biollania. Special edition N° 10. UNELLEZ. Portuguesa, Venezuela. [In Spanish] Goldstein I. 1999. The Frontino Bear in the Guaramacal National Park. Pages 161–168 in Cuello N. ed. Guaramacal National Park. Universidad Nacional Experimental de los Llanos UNELLEZ Guanare – Fundación Polar. Portuguesa, Venezuela. [In Spanish] Goldstein, I., R. Márquez, and G. Bianchi. 2015. Guide to using camera traps: Andean Bear. Wildlife Conservation Society Colombia. Santiago de Cali, Colombia. [In Spanish] Márquez, R., G. Bianchi, E. Isasi-Catalá, V. Ruiz Gutiérrez, and I. Goldstein. 2017. Guide for Andean bear occupancy monitoring. Andean Bear Conservation Alliance and Wildlife Conservation. Colombia. [In Spanish] Yerena, E. 1994. Ecological corridors in the Andes of Venezuela. No. 4, National Parks and Environmental Conservation Series. Stephan and Thora Amend, ed. Fundación Polar. Editorial Torino, Caracas, Venezuela. [In Spanish]

22 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Biological Research First Photographic Evidence of Himalayan Brown Bear from Lippa- Asrang Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh, India

Ankita Bhattacharya Shivam Shrotriya Wildlife Institute of India Wildlife Institute of India Chandrabani, Dehradun- 248001 Chandrabani, Dehradun- 248001 India India

Nilanjan Chatterjee Bitapi C. Sinha Wildlife Institute of India Wildlife Institute of India Chandrabani, Dehradun- 248001 Chandrabani, Dehradun- 248001 India India

Kunal Angrish Bilal Habib Himachal Pradesh Forest Department Wildlife Institute of India Himachal Pradesh Chandrabani, Dehradun- 248001 India India Email: [email protected]

The Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) (henceforth HBB) is an elusive large carnivore harboring the Asian highlands, mainly the North-Western and Central Himalayas (Sharief et al. 2019). HBB is endangered as it occurs in small isolated populations in the remote montane areas of Asia (Servheen et al. 1999, Aryal et al. 2015). The species is mainly distributed across the high altitude open valleys and pastures of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and Bhutan (Nawaz et al.2014, Su et al. 2018, Sharief et al. 2019). HBB has been listed as Vulnerable under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and also listed in Ap- pendix II of the Convention on Interna- tional Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In India, HBB occurs in alpine meadows, scrub and sub-alpine forests of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand (Sathyakumar 2006) and probably in Sikkim (Chaudhary 2011) and has been listed as Schedule I under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (An- nonymous 1992). Recent studies have suggested that much of the brown bear distribution range is vulnerable due to habitat loss, anthropogenic disturbance and climate change and might reduce in future due to the impact of climate change (Shrestha et al. 2012, Su et al. 2018). Moreover, despite of its declining population trend in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) (Nawaz Location of Lippa-Asrang WLS, Himachal Pradesh. et al. 2014) as well as other parts of the (inset) Location of Himachal Pradesh, India

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 23 Biological Research Asian Highlands, the HBB is one of the least studied carnivore species in India because of its difficult and inaccessible habitat (Sharief et al. 2019). Since direct sightings of HBBs are rare, indirect methods like sign surveys, questionnaire surveys and camera trapping have been very popular and helpful to understand the species ecology. In this article, we report the first photographic evidence of HBB from Lippa-Asrang Wildlife Sanctuary in Himachal Pradesh (HP). Lippa-Asrang Potential distribution range of Himalayan Brown Bear (HBB) in India according to IUCN (McLellan et al. 2017) WLS is situated at with occurrences (published literature) and new record from Lippa-Asrang WLS, Himachal Pradesh. 31° 39’ 6.49” North and 78° 21’ 11.05” East in Kinnaur district, sharing the boundary with Spiti region. The sanctuary, characterized by the Trans Himalayan habitat is located between altitudes of 3,000 to 5,022m and covers an area of 31km2. The sanctuary includes forest types such as dry alpine scrub, dry coniferous forest, dwarf juniper scrub, western Himalayan temperate forest, dry broad leaved and coniferous forest. As part of the project “Assessment of biodiversity and evaluation of ecotourism potential in four protected areas of Himachal Pradesh”, camera trapping exercise was carried out for the first time in Lippa-Asrang WLS in May, 2018, as part of a reconnaissance survey in the area. Only 8 camera traps could be deployed because of inaccessibility due to exces- sive snow cover in most parts of the sanctuary for a session of 30 days (240 trap nights). Two individuals of HBB were

photocaptured on 6.5.2018 at 3:01a.m. Institute of India, Dehradun Wildlife at an altitude of 3,287m. The vegetation Photographic evidence of Himalayan Brown Bear of the area was interspersed with shrubs from Lippa-Asrang WLS, Himachal Pradesh.

24 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Biological Research of Juniper sp and Rumex sp. and there was a dried water source at the area. No other HBB images were obtained during the study. Other animals recorded in the camera were livestock (goat and sheep). We also did surveys looking for indirect signs of the carnivore species from the sanctuary and we recorded the presence of brown bear scat at multiple locations from the sanctuary. In HP, HBB are reported in 10 protected areas located in the Greater Himalayan as well as the Trans-Himalayan zones (Rathore and Chauhan 2014). However, the last assessment of the species in India was largely based on questionnaire survey (Sathyakumar 2006) and a total of 500–750 individuals were estimated nationally. Majority of the studies on HBB in India were conducted in Kugti WLS in HP covering few ecological aspects like feeding, habitat use and conflict (Rathore 2008, Rathore and Chauhan 2014). Our finding confirms the presence of HBB in Lippa Asrang WLS which is also a new record from Himachal Pradesh ascertaining newer areas of their habitation. Our record is an important information on their presence which was previously not confirmed in this 31km2 WLS. Our finding adds to the scanty scientific information available for the species across the IHR and prompts for immediate conservation measures and further studies. For comprehensive information from more unknown and remote potential habitat ranges of HBB, camera trapping through participatory intervention is required. These kind of records are important baseline information for further management strategies and monitoring species of conservation importance. Based on information like this, more protected areas should be established in the suitable HBB habitats in future to sustain viable populations in the IHR.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the World Bank for providing us with the camera traps. We are grateful to the officials and staff of the Himachal Pradesh state forest department for providing us with the necessary permissions and for being an active part of this camera trapping exercise. We would also like to thank the volunteers, local villagers and field assistants who provided immense support and help in this exercise. We are also thankful to Director, Dean and Research Coordinator, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for their support and encouragement.

Literature Cited Anonymous. 1992. Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun Aryal, A. 2012. Brown bear conservation action plan in Nepal: Efforts, challenges and achievements. World Journal of Zoology 7:75–78. Aryal, A., D. Brunton, and D. Raubenheimer. 2014. Impact of climate change on human-wildlife-ecosystem interactions in the Trans-Himalaya region of Nepal. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 115:517e529. Choudhury, A.U. 2011. Records of sloth bear and Malayan sun bear in north east India. Final report to International As- sociation for Bear Research and Management (IBA). The Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India, Guwahati, Assam, India. McLellan, B.N., M.F. Proctor, D. Huber, and S. Michel. 2017. Ursus arctos (amended version of 2017 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Nawaz, M.A., J. Martin, and J.E. Swenson. 2014. Identifying key habitats to conserve the threatened brown bear in the Himalaya. Biological Conservation 170:198-206. Rathore, B.C. 2008. Ecology of brown bear (Ursus arctos) with special reference to assessment of human-brown bear conflicts in Kugti Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh and Mitigation Strategies, Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, India. Rathore, B.C., and N.P.S. Chauhan. 2014. The food habits of the Himalayan Brown bear Ursus arctos (Mammalia: Carnivora: Ursidae) in Kugti wildlife sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6:6649e6658. Sathyakumar, S. 2006. The status of brown bears in India. Pages 7–11 in Understanding Asian bears to secure their future. Japan Bear Network, Ibaraki, Japan. Servheen, C., S. Herrero, and B. Peyton. 1999. Bears. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Sharief, A., B.D. Joshi, V. Kumar, M. Kumar, R. Dutta, C. Sharma, A. Thapa, H.S. Rana, T. Mukherjee, A. Singh, and M. Thakur. 2019. Identifying Himalayan brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) conservation areas in Lahaul Valley, Himachal Pradesh. Global Ecology and Conservation p.e00900. Su, J., A. Aryal, I.M. Hegab, U.B. Shrestha, S.C. Coogan, S. Sathyakumar, M. Dalannast, Z. Dou, Y. Suo, X. Dabu, and H. Fu. 2018. Decreasing brown bear (Ursus arctos) habitat due to climate change in Central Asia and the Asian Highlands. Ecology and Evolution 8(23):11887-11899.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 25 Biological Research Is Climate Change Allowing the Asiatic Black Bear to Inhabit a Trans- Himalayan Valley of Himachal Pradesh (India)?

Bheem Dutt Joshi, Harpreet Kaur, Manish Kumar, Mukesh Thakur, Lalit Kumar Sharma, Kailash Chandra All authors: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India 700053 Lalit Kumar Sharma Email: [email protected]

The Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) is distributed throughout all 10 Himalayan states of India, generally between 70 and 3,000 m (but ranging higher in northeast India; Sathyakumar and Choudhury 2007, Bashir et al. 2018). It occupies a variety of forested habitats ranging from tropical to temperate forest (Sathyakumar 2001, Sathyakumar et al. 2012). However, it has never been reported from any of the Trans-Himalayan provinces of India, which is climatically defined as a rain shadow region with sparse vegetation often dominated by alpine and subalpine scrubs. This region is located on the leeward side of the Himalaya, which block the monsoon winds, hence becoming a high altitude cold desert. In the Northwestern Himalayas Asiatic black bears undergo winter hibernation; however, in the Northeastern hill regions they are active throughout the year. A recent study by Sharma (2013) highlighted that in the Kashmir region of the North- western Himalayas their hibernation period has been reduced to just 45 days, due to increasing winter temperatures and shortened duration of snow cover. Several studies have indicated range shifts of species related to climate change (e.g., American black bears, U. americanus, moving northward in Canada; Garshelis et al. 2016). Some large mammals have actually shifted into areas where conditions are now milder, whereas in other cases existing small populations have increased (Ye et al. 2018). Here we report on possibly the beginnings of a range extension for Asiatic black bears into the Lahaul valley, situated in the district of Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh. This area is at the transition zone between the Great Himalayan (temperate) and Trans-Himalayan (high altitude arid zone), and possesses features of both. A very small stretch has sub-alpine and

Camera trapping locations and site of first camera capture of an Asiatic black bear in the Lahaul Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India, August – September, 2018.

26 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Biological Research

First camera trap image of an Asiatic black bear in the Lahaul Valley, Himachal Pradesh (left), compared to the more commonly occurring brown bear (right). temperate forest but most of this landscape is classified as arid and hyper-arid cold desert. The Lahaul valley is separated from the Great Himalayan region by a high altitude mountain range with a significant proportion that remains snow covered throughout the year. It is bounded on 3 sides by high mountain ranges (>4,500m); however on one side the valley is connected with the Pangi valley in the north. Nevertheless, the connection with Pangi valley is very rugged and intersected by the Chandrabhaga River. Considering its rugged terrain and extreme climatic condition, much of the landscape in this valley has not been explored, and even a baseline of faunal resources is not available. The varied topography of the region provides habitat for many species including snow leopard (Panthera uncia), musk deer (Moschus leucogaster), Himalayan thar (Hemitragus jamlahicus), ibex (Capra sibrica) and Himalayan brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinsus). The Zoological Survey of India, headquartered in Kolkata, initiated a long-term project to understand the populations of threatened vertebrates of the region under the National Mission on Himalayan Studies. As part of this project, we made an extensive camera trap survey in the Lahaul valley aimed at vertebrate population assessment and establishing a baseline for future monitoring. About 40 camera traps were deployed across 10 x 10 km grid cells, representing all habitats (except permafrost and cold desert) and topographic variability, for 45 days in August–September 2018. In each grid cell, at least 2 cameras were deployed at a minimum separation of 2–4 km. This initial camera trapping effort resulted in an unexpected photograph of an Asiatic black bear in forested habitat close to Tindi Village (32° 45’ 29.23” N 76° 26’ 56.51”E; altitude 2,598 m) within Tindi Forest Range (Lahaul Valley). We photo- graphed brown bears (n = 32) more commonly in this region (and also found many brown bear scats, from which we identified 6 individuals by DNA). The appearance of a black bear in the Lahaul Valley was surprising, as this landscape possesses little forested habitat. The rolling meadows that predominate the valley are devoid of forest cover and are very dry. During our project, we are also conducting questionnaire surveys with the local communities of the region. Local people reported recent sightings of black bears, and indicated that this species was not present earlier in their locality. They also informed the research team that Himalayan brown bears are widespread and causing crop damage, such as lettuce (Lactuca sativa), cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata), and broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica). It would be premature to conclude that our observation and reports from local people are evidence of a range extension of the Asiatic black bear because we lack adequate baseline data (except what locals told us). It is possible that just a few vagrants inhabit the area. We know this species can move long distances, and will migrate seasonally, and could be attracted by crops. On the other hand, climate change projection models suggest that some species are moving towards the high altitude (Moreno et al. 2007), while at the same time some mammalian species in the semi-arid Chinese Altai Mountains are likely to lose much of their ranges due to climate change (Ye et al. 2018). We will be conducting more intense camera trapping and field surveys in this region to better understand the changing dynamics of this region. We are pursuing climate change modeling along with identifying potential biological corridors that may explain increased use of this area by Asiatic black bears.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Dr. G. Maheswaran, Head of Office and Dr. Basudev Tripathy, O/C, Technical Section, Zoological Survey

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 27 Biological Research of India, Kolkata for their consistent support and encouragement for the work. We thank Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Department Himachal Pradesh, Government of Himachal Pradesh for granting the necessary permission to carry out the research work. We acknowledge the National Mission for Himalayan Studies, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for the funding support under the Grant No. NMHS/2017-18/LG09/02.

Literature Cited Bashir, T., T. Bhattacharya, and K. Poudyal. 2018. Understanding patterns of distribution and space-use by Ursus thibetanus in Khangchendzonga, India: Initiative towards conservation. Mammalian Biology 92: 11–20. doi:10.1016/j. mambio.2018.04.004. Garshelis, D.L., B.K. Scheick, D.L. Doan-Crider, J.J. Beecham, and M.E. Obbard. 2016. Ursus americanus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: T41687A114251609. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T41687A45034604. en. Moreno, C.E., G. Sanchez-Rojas, E. Pineda, and F. Escobar. 2007. Shortcuts for biodiversity evaluation: a review of termi- nology and recommendations for the use of target groups, bioindicators and surrogates. International Journal of Environment & Health 1: 71–86. Sathyakumar, S. 2001. Status and management of Asiatic black bear and Himalayan brown bear in India. Ursus 12: 21–30. Sathyakumar, S., and A. Choudhry. 2007. Distribution and status of Asiatic black bear in India, 2005. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 104(3): 316-323. Sathyakumar, S., R. Kaul, N.V. Ashraf, A. Mookerjee, and V. Menon. 2012. National bear conservation and welfare action plan. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Wildlife Institute of India and Wildlife Trust of India. Sharma, L.K. 2013. Ranging patterns of Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) with reference to food availability in Dachigam National Park, Kashmir. PhD Thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India. Ye, X., X. Yu, C. Yu, A. Tayibazhaer, F. Xu, A.K. Skidmore, and T. Wang. 2018. Impacts of future climate and land cover changes on threatened mammals in the semi-arid Chinese Altai Mountains. Science of the Total Environment 612: 775–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.191.

28 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Biological Research Attempts to Find Three Bear Species in Meghalaya, India

Thomas Sharp Karine Pigeon Member: Sloth Bear Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Member: Sloth Bear Expert Team, Group IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group Wildlife SOS Postdoctoral Fellow, UNBC & Y2Y Salt Lake City, UT, USA 84105 Canmore, AB, Canada Email: [email protected] Nilmani Rabha Nishith Dharaiya Assam, India Co-chair Sloth Bear Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group David Garshelis HNG University Co-chair IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group Patan, Gujarat, India Grand Rapids, MN, USA

Arzoo Malik HNG University Patan, Gujarat, India

The distribution of Asiatic black bears (hereafter ABB; Ursus thibetanus), sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) and sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) intersect in northeast (NE) India (Choudhury 2011, 2013). All 3 species were once recorded in Meghalaya, Assam, and Nagaland. Previously, we conducted workshops in these 3 states (Sharp et al. 2017), and developed particularly strong ties with Meghalaya, prompting us to do more focused work there. We aimed to determine which species were present (now and historically), where they lived, and if they might be competing for diminishing habitat. Here we present brief results (see Sharp et al. [2019] for more details).

Study Site and Methods We were directed toward Balpakram National Park (BNP), in the Garo Hills region of southwestern Meghalaya, as a site where all 3 species might still occur. The 220-km2 park (est. 1987) is sacred to the local Garo people. Due to poor road access, heavy monsoon rains, and local tribal customs and mythology, the forests have been relatively undisturbed, and seemed like rich habitat for bears. We attempted to determine bear presence through sign surveys, camera trapping, and interviews. During November 2018 – February 2019, we conducted surveys in a variety of habitats in different areas in and outside the park. We used the width of hind foot claw marks from bears climbing trees to distinguish ABBs from sun bears, following Steinmetz and Garshelis (2008). We searched for termite mounds in the hopes of finding sloth bear digging. We set camera traps in places that seemed promising to photograph a bear, based on local knowledge, accessibility, travelways, and trees with existing bear marks. We were not permitted to use bait or lure. Cameras were operational for 10–98 days, December–March (dry season).

Balpakram National Park and the adjacent Siju Wildlife Sanctuary, in the South Garo Hills of Meghalaya, Northeast India, contains the westernmost record of a sun bear (1980s). We were only able to document presence of Asiatic black bears there in 2018–2019. Credit: A. Malik

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 29 Biological Research We interviewed villagers, forest officers, and other researchers about bears in the area. Interviews with local people required a double translation, from English to Hindi, then Hindi to Garo, and back, likely producing some misinformation.

Sign, Photos, Interviews We measured 94 sets of bear claw marks on 35 trees. We observed several sets of marks (17%) that were sun bear size, but in all such cases, they were accompanied by a set of ABB-sized marks on the same tree. We interpreted this to mean that the smaller marks were actually ABB cubs with their mother. The enigma is that this represented 31% of the climbed trees — an abnormally high proportion of females with cubs. We located no termite mounds, so we found no digging sign that we could definitively attribute to sloth bears. Moreover, without this key food source, we felt it was unlikely that sloth bears were present. We set camera-traps at 12 locations for 577 trap-nights, and captured 1,990 images, but no photos of bears. Whereas we were told that local people did not use the park for illegal activities such as hunting, we obtained 32 independent photos of people, 9 (28%) of which included people with weapons. Some local people said they had seen 2 different species of bears, and some claimed there used to be 3; they also correctly described these species. Further, we learned that the Garo names matched logical descriptions of sloth (mugbol serang = long-haired bear) and sun bear (mugbol merang = bear with orange sun on chest).

Interpretations Asiatic black bears are clearly the most prevalent, if not the only bear in BNP. After just a few days on site, it became apparent that we were searching for evidence of 1 or 2 rare bear species in an area occupied by a much more common one. Given difficulties of local people and park staff in distinguishing these species, we treated all second-hand evidence with skepticism, but we attempted to pursue promising leads (e.g., investigated an area where sun bear sign was reported by previous researchers). We had hoped to use claw marks to confirm the presence of sun bears, but using our criteria that sun bear presence was confirmed only if, on the same tree, there were no claw marks of ABB size, none of the trees had definitive sun bear marks. Even historically, there is just a single confirmed record (dead specimen in 1980s) of a sun bear in this area (Choudhury 2011). We searched for habitats that seemed suitable for sloth bears, but found no evidence of termite mounds or sloth bear digging. We also investigated large trees with honeycombs, since sloth bears are also known to consume this food (e.g., Gosatkar et al. 2018), but the only climbed ones that we saw had marks that we categorized as ABB. We concluded that it was unlikely that sloth bears lived in this park. We measured hind foot claw marks on Conclusions trees (top) to distinguish Asiatic black We could not discount the possibility that sun bears still lived in a remote area bears and sun bears. We created a paper of this park (which would be their westernmost range limit), but we concluded template of several sets of marks on each that we could not detect this with sign surveys, because distinguishing this species tree (center), from which we measured from an ABB based on claw marks involves too much uncertainty. We also conclud- the span between 3, 4, and 5 toes. We observed 1 tree with sliding marks (bottom), ed that whereas local people provided intriguing stories about bears, we could not that appeared like those made by a sloth confidently distinguish reliable sources from non-reliable sources of either present bear, but the local person who saw 2 bears or historical occurrence, or current threats (e.g., poaching). Camera traps would be in this tree a month earlier described them the only way of definitively documenting presence of sun or sloth bears, but an as black bears (which hurried down after extensive and prolonged camera trapping effort would be needed to detect them being disturbed). Credit: D. Garshelis

30 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Biological Research (especially without lure). Previous researchers investigating faunal biodiversity in BNP during 2012–2015 employed a large camera trapping effort yet obtained only 3 ABB photos. Importantly, any investigations of this sort require close collaboration with the park staff, which we were fortunate to have.

Acknowledgements We appreciate funding from the IBA, and logistical support from the Meghalaya Forests & Environment Department, India. We thank BNP wildlife staff, especially Tushar Sangma, and Chief Wildlife Warden of Meghalaya, Mr. Harish Chaudhary, for help and support. Additionally, we thank Kashmira Kakati and Shikha Srisant for sharing their data on bears in BNP.

Literature Cited Choudhury, A. U. 2011. Records of sloth bear and Malayan sun bear in north east India. Final report to International As- sociation for Bear Research and Management. Choudhury, A. U. 2013. Records of Asiatic black bear in North East India. Final report to International Association for Bear Research and Management. Gosatkar, O., S. Rathod, and N. Singh. 2018. Observations of a sloth bear feeding on a honeycomb in a tree in Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, India. International Bear News 27 (3): 59–60. Sharp, T., N. Dharaiya, A. Malik, and D. Garshelis. 2017. First steps in preventing the disappearance of sloth bears and sun bears from Northeast India. Year 1 Report Submitted to IBA. Sharp, T., N. Dhariaya, A. Malik, K. Pigeon, N. Rabdi and D. Garshelis. 2019. Preventing the disappearance of sloth bears and sun bears from Northeast India: investigation of a site where three bear species once reportedly co-occurred. Final Report to International Association for Bear Research and Management. Steinmetz, R., and D. L. Garshelis. 2008. Distinguishing Asiatic black bears from sun bears by claw marks on climbed trees. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 814–821.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 31 Manager’s Corner Foot-Snaring Bears Near Population Centers

Stephen Bethune Alaska Department of Fish and Game Email: [email protected]

Sitka, Alaska, nestled between the sea and the rugged peaks of Baranof Island in Southeast Alaska is the kind of town you see featured in magazine articles titled “Top 10 West Coast Small Towns,” and the like. With about 8,500 residents, this gem within the Tongass National Forest has a lot going for it. Something else it has a lot of is brown bears (Ursus arctos). Some of the highest brown bear densities in North America occur right outside Sitka’s back door. It is not uncommon for bears to roam residential areas on the outskirts of town. Local attitudes about bears vary in extreme, but in general, Sitkans and the local bears coexist peaceably. The bears get a lot of credit for this. Using the cover of night, the many greenbelts, riparian corridors, parks and adjacent forest, bears can slink about town largely unnoticed. Despite that, most years the Alaska De- partment of Fish and Game (ADF&G) kills at least 1 bear that has become conditioned to human food sources and is deemed a public safety threat. In years with poor salmon returns or failed berry crops more bears are attracted to town in search of unsecured trash and small livestock, which results in elevated levels of human-bear conflict. As the Sitka Wildlife Biologist for ADF&G, I am tasked with mitigating these human-bear conflicts. Public safety is priority number 1 and if a bear is deemed a legitimate threat it should be removed. However, ADF&G recognizes that killing bears without addressing the root of the problem is a short-term solution. Educating the public about avoiding conflicts goes a long way. Every year I conduct seminars throughout the community on ways to avoid human-bear conflicts. I do media interviews as well as coach individuals 1 on 1 on how to stay safe in bear country. It’s a fine balancing act keeping both people and bears safe. For the most part ADF&G and the people of Alaska excel in this endeavor. During the summer of 2019 bear calls to the Sitka ADF&G office were well below average, likely due to a bumper berry crop and average salmon returns. However, as fall approached, bear activity began to spike. I had little sympathy for lazy garbage handling practices and held the hard line that if you own livestock in bear country it is your responsibility to protect them with an electric fence. Bears were rarely seen in daylight and not showing any aggression toward people. I chose not to take any immediate action (except encouraging the police department to write tickets for violations of the city’s garbage ordinance), and anticipated bears would den up soon. But as fall transitioned to winter, the poultry count mounted, deer were being stolen from hunter’s sheds, and finally 2 pet dogs were killed and eaten. Evidence suggested 1 bear was respon- sible and by mid-December it showed no sign of denning. For a variety of reasons, including prior lack of success with culvert traps, I attempted to capture this bear with Aldrich foot snares, with the intent to dispatch it. To my knowledge, prior to this attempt ADF&G had not tried this method for capturing brown bears around communities. The choice to use a foot snare to trap a brown bear near neighborhoods requires careful evaluation and planning. As biologists we are constantly weighing our options and debating the potential risks of our actions. In this case I felt the ongoing threat to property, pets, and potentially to people outweighed the potential risks of snaring, which I felt could be mitigated. These were my considerations going into this project: 1) I discussed the decision to capture this bear with the police department and Alaska Wildlife Troopers (AWT). All agreed and were authorized to kill the bear if they encountered it. 2) Other methods were attempted first including waiting at a cached kill for several hours, 3 nights of culvert trapping, and unsuccessful attempts by the police department to locate the bear during night patrols. 3) My personal experience capturing research bears in remote locations with foot snares made me confident I could conduct this safely. 4) The bear was establishing a pattern of killing pets, which could bring it into close proximity to people. 5) I was able to locate suitable trap sites that were far enough away from areas of high public use to adequately reduce the likelihood of people encountering a snared bear. 6) We could mark the area using surveyor’s tape and warn the public by posting signs at the main ingress and egress points. 7) I was able to gain permission from the landowner after articulating the possible risks (catching dogs, damage to vegetation within the catch circle, public coming upon a snared bear, safety of agency personnel). 8) I had buy-in from the local AWT who agreed to help monitor traps and provide back-up firearms assistance if a bear was captured. 9) I had trap transmitters to monitor sets remotely several times a day in addition to a daily visual inspection. 10) After internal discussions, I received permission from supervisors and had an approved ACUC plan that included Aldrich snares as a capture method for conflict bears.

32 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Manager’s Corner I monitored the traps for 3 weeks as bear activity dwindled. Then winter finally hit with 15” of snow and temperatures in the single digits. All bear reports and activity abruptly ended. Doing this kind of trapping required a constant state of readiness with tools at hand and that personnel remain available to respond on short notice. I was unsuccessful at capturing this bear, but this pilot effort using Aldrich foot snares was still instructive. It demonstrated that in the proper situation and with careful consideration of safety, foot snares can be used to capture brown bears adjacent to communities.

American Black Bear Dispersal into Iowa and Indiana

Bradford Westrich Vince Evelsizer Nongame Mammalogist Furbearer & Wetland Biologist Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 5596 East State Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1203 North Shore Dr, Road 46, Bloomington, IN 47401 Clear Lake, IA 50428 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

The colonization and development of North America by European settlers negatively affected certain guilds of wildlife, particularly large carnivores. In the case of black bears (Ursus americanus), entire populations were extirpated throughout much of the Midwest. However, a shift in wildlife and forestry practices has enabled remnant populations of black bear to recolonize much of their historic geographic range. As these populations expand into Midwestern States biologists face the challenges of educating the public, preparing procedures for response policies, and monitoring dispersal events. Two Midwestern states, Indiana and Iowa, are on the edge of currently expanding black bear populations; Indiana has confirmed 3 black bears since 2015, while Iowa has monitored 38 confirmed black bears since 2002.

Indiana: There was much excitement among the citizens of Indiana in 2015 when the first black bear in 144 years was confirmed roaming northern urban habitats. Perhaps the novelty combined with an atrophied understanding of how to coexist with large carnivores exposed this bear to food-source attractants near human domiciles. The bear of 2015 was documented foraging on bird and pet food, searching unsecured garbage containers, and even eating food left out by citizens. Regret- tably, these associations were either reinforced or learned during the few months the bear explored northern Indiana. After over-wintering in Michigan this bear was euthanized after it displayed aggressive behaviors towards humans and attempted to gain entry to human dwellings in a search for food. In reviewing the events surrounding the bear of 2015 it was apparent that a more active role by the DNR was needed to prepare Indiana’s citizens for the next bear dispersal event. Therefore, Indiana DNR improved their ability to respond to a dispersing black bear, prepared educational materials for communities, acquired equipment and training needed in the event of a bear capture, and established relationships with neighboring states whose DNR regularly work with black bears. The next bear dispersed into southern Indiana in 2016 and the DNR was quick to distribute information through the press and social media directly to the communities most likely to encounter the bear. In southern Indiana factors such as greater forest coverage and a lower human density likely reduced the number of opportunities for this bear to encounter humans. Finally, in 2018, a third black bear entered southern Indiana and was struck by a vehicle. The bear was confirmed 5 days later having moved nearly 20 kilometers north. No reliable reports were received after this and it is assumed that the bear succumbed to its injuries. Although drawing conclusions from a small sample size (n=3) can lead to great error in interpretation, there were a few key elements Indiana DNR learned from these events. Foremost, by educating citizenry on living with bears, DNR is providing the public with the knowledge to coexist with bears locally and abroad. Second, the public’s use of a pre-existing online large mammal report form was exceptionally valuable for tracking bear locations and behaviors. These reports were received and transmitted in real-time to regional biologists who then could inform communities prior to the arrival of the bear. Finally, the novelty of bears in the state will remain, therefore managing the perception of bears among Indiana’s citizens is a priority.

Iowa: Black bears were native to Iowa, but were fully extirpated by 1876. Like Indiana, bears haven’t been present in Iowa for

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 33 Manager’s Corner

Confirmed locations of black bears in Iowa 1965 – 2019. (1876 Last Historical Sighting, Dickinson County), map created (8/05/19).

over 100 years. Since 2002, a total of 38 black bear sightings have been confirmed in Iowa. From 2002 – 2014 the number of confirmed sightings varied annually, from zero to 3 – 5. Sightings for the past 5 years (2015 – 2019) suggest a more consistent trend, with 3 – 5 bears confirmed annually. The timing of all sightings suggests most of these bears are dispersing into Iowa annually, with only a few suspected bears having over-wintered in the state in recent years. Confirmed sightings have been most common from late-May through mid-July; sightings may be attributed to increased bear activity prior to the breeding season and improved visibility on the landscape due to short agricultural crops. Many of the black bear sightings were located in the northeast quarter of the state, with a few confirmed sightings of bears in the southern part of the state. It is likely the black bears confirmed in northeast Iowa are visitors from southeast Minnesota or southwest Wisconsin. Known as the Driftless Region (unglaciated), the habitat in the northeast quadrant of Iowa is primarily a mixture of hard- wood timber, rivers, cold-water streams, and agricultural crops (e.g., alfalfa, corn, and soybeans). Small, family dairy farms are most common in this part of the state. However, with the roads, small towns, and family farms found throughout this region, it is debatable whether a breeding population of bears will take hold or not. We believe it is likely for a breeding population to develop, but the success of that will largely be dependent upon the social acceptance residents have for them. In Iowa, it is imperative for the DNR to educate its citizens about bears, continue monitoring the population, and prepare natural resources staff for handling human-bear conflicts. Those efforts are underway at this time and will continue. Public perception of safety in Iowa and Indiana may be judged by the ability of the respective DNRs to educate the public and establish clear bear response policies. As both states are on the leading edge of black bear colonization it is only a matter of when, not if, the next bear dispersal event occurs.

Literature Cited Westrich, B. J., E. B. McCallen, and A. Geriann. 2018. Black bears recolonizing historic ranges: Indi- ana human-bear interactions. Human–Wildlife Interactions 123: Article 11. DOI: https://doi. org/10.26077/y89k-b463 Available at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi/vol12/iss3/11.

34 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Workshop Reports A Step Toward Developing Population Monitoring Guidelines for Asian Bears

Dave Garshelis Co-chair IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group Grand Rapids, MN, USA Email: [email protected]

Dana Morin Member: Population Monitoring Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group Mississippi State University, MS, USA Email: [email protected]

Mei-hsiu Hwang Member: Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team, IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group President Taiwan Black Bear Conservation Association National Pingtung University of Science & Technology Institute of Wildlife Conservation, Taiwan Email: [email protected]

Successful conservation requires population status assessments and monitoring to identify areas most in need of conservation actions, and to evaluate the effectiveness of those actions. Among the 6 bear species in Asia, monitoring methods for giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are unique, and reasonably well-established. Population assessments for brown bears (U. arctos), Asiatic black bears (U. thibetanus), sun bears (Helarctos malayanus), and sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) have taken various forms with greatly varying degrees of rigor. Often, assessments (including that for the Red List) have been little more than “best guesses”, couched as “expert opinions”. Although some empirical assessments have been conducted, methods are not standardized and assumptions are often neglected resulting in question- able information and hindering spatial or temporal comparisons. In response, the IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group, partnering with the Taiwan Black Bear Conservation Association, and the National Pingtung University of Science & Technology, Institute of Wildlife Conservation, held a workshop on “Developing Population Monitoring Guidelines for Asian Bears,” in Taipei, Taiwan, November 4-7, 2019. All 25 participants had advanced expertise in various methods of field surveys and population monitoring, primarily with bears or other elusive carnivores. The workshop focused on 4 noninvasive sampling methods potentially useful for Asian bears: interviews, sign surveys, camera trapping, and genetic sampling. Workshop participants detailed methodologies and delved into the pros and cons with respect to 3 broad monitoring objectives: (1) mapping and measuring range expansion or contraction (via presence data), (2) estimating occupancy as a means of assessing population change, and (3) estimating abundance or density. The workshop included prepared informational case studies with equal time devoted to open, structured discussion. Presently, most population surveys in Asia involve a combination of interviews and sign surveys due to relative ease of Hsieh-Ai Ling Hsieh-Ai Ling Hsieh-Ai The monitoring workshop involved equal time for case study presentations and for group discussion (left). Participants got to know each other through continual interactions, and by introducing aspects of their personal lives with “Two truths and a lie” (right).

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 35 Workshop Reports implementation — however, limitations exist for monitoring trends. We considered multiple, corroborative interview responses potentially useful for indicating contemporary or historical presence (mainly at large scales), and occupancy. Interview data can also provide insights regarding threats affecting population trends. However, perceptions of abundance or trends derived from interviews were considered unreliable. Errors and bi- ases arise from misidentification of bear species, perceptions being linked to changes in habitat and human–bear conflicts, loss of local knowledge over time, and variable skill of interviewers. Similarly, sign surveys are useful for confirming presence and estimating occupancy. However, we agreed that high variation in deposition and decay rates, detection, and bear activity make sign an unreliable indicator of abundance, population change, or population differences across areas (except in rare circumstances). Camera trapping is now one of the most commonly employed methods to gain information about Asian bears. Photos of bears may come from targeted surveys or as by-catch from other surveys (thousands of camera traps have been deployed for general biodiversity surveys or Logo of BSG Asian bear monitoring workshop, surveys targeted at other species and accumulated on archival camera showing (left to right) the brown bear, Asiatic trap data platforms). Species misidentification from photos is uncom- black bear, sloth bear and sun bear. mon, so photos are reliable for confirming bear presence and estimating occupancy. But for many of the same reasons that limit sign as a useful index of abundance, we concluded that raw encounter rates from camera trapping data (e.g., independent photos/100 trap-nights) are not reliable indicators of abundance. Abundance estimates are possible for species with identifying marks; but mark–recapture requires extensive effort, including multiple cameras and lure to entice bears to stand up to reveal chest markings for reliable identification. New models yield- ing density estimates from unmarked animals is the frontier of camera trapping, which would be a sea change for monitoring Asian bears. Identifying individuals from DNA is a reliable method to estimate abundance. Hair trapping, which is common in North America and Europe, is uncommon in Asia for several reasons including expense of analysis, logistics (must be targeted to bears), issues with lures, and general dearth of rub trees. However, when densities are sufficient, hair trapping could work (although no practical method has yet been devised for sun bears). Genetic identification of sloth bears (and to a lesser extent brown bears) via fecal matter, which degrades slowly in some environments, has been very successful. Scats can be found by surveying transects or using detection dogs. Future research should enhance the use of genetic techniques in Asia, especially for monitoring populations at specific locations such as protected areas. Broad-scale mapping might also eventually employ environmental and insect DNA (eDNA, iDNA) to detect bears. We concluded that whereas abundance (density) estimation provides the best information, it may be unnecessary or unachievable in many cases. Detection/non- detection data for various forms of occupancy estimation may suffice for monitoring at large scales, provided the data are reliable and unit of change is coarse (distribution, not trends in abundance). One notable constraint in occupancy monitoring is that cell size (spacing of detectors) needs to be sufficiently large to represent an individual home range so as to satisfy the assumption of closure and reflect changes in population status, and is therefore not applicable

for the small forest patches and protected Ling Hsieh-Ai areas common in Asia. Pooling occupancy data across many reserves or patches would Monitoring workshop participants and volunteers enjoyed a field trip to Dasyueshan National Forest and Recreation Area following the workshop. overcome this problem.

36 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Workshop Reports The outcome of the workshop will be a series of publications and an easily-readable manual for practitioners aiming to monitor Asian bears. We hope that doing so prompts more rigorous monitoring of these species, allows conservation initiatives to be evaluated, and spurs more evidence-based actions. A secondary, but important objective was to create a core group of professionals that can serve as a resource for future monitoring efforts. In that vein, workshop participants were invited to become members of a new Population Monitoring Expert Team in the Bear Specialist Group.

Acknowledgments We are immensely thankful to the following organizations for support of this workshop: Forestry Bureau, Yushan National Park Headquarters, Taipei Zoo, Ministry of Interior/Construction and Planning Agency (Co-organizers); and E. SUN Bank, Everest Textile Co., LTD (Sponsors). We are grateful to the Taipei Zoo for providing a delightful venue for the meeting. We especially thank Georny Liu and Vina Liu for their extraordinary logistical arrangements and making it all a perfect experience for everyone.

Conference Announcement

27th International Conference On Bear Research & Management September 21 – 25, 2020, Kalispell, Montana, United States

Due to uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the IBA and Kalispell conference organizers have decided to postpone the 27th IBA Conference originally planned for 21-25 September 2020. Plans to reschedule the conference are on hold until more information on potential longer-term impacts of the outbreak become available. A list of accepted abstracts was finalized and corresponding authors for all submitted abstracts have been notified.

More information will be provided as the situation develops via email and any news will be posted on the IBA (https://www.bearbiology.org/event-list/27th-iba-conference/) and Kalispell conference websites (https://iba2020mt.com/).

If you have specific questions regarding your registration or hotel reservation, please contact Lori Roberts (LRoberts@ mt.gov), IBA Kalispell Conference Organizer.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 37 Workshop Announcements Human-Bear Conflict Conference October 4-7, 2021, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States

Carl Lackey Chair - IBA Management Committee Game Biologist, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Minden, Nevada Email: [email protected]

Save the Date! The next Human-Bear Conflict (HBC) Conference will be October 4-7, 2021 at Harrah’s Resort, Lake Tahoe, Nevada. The conference will be hosted by the Nevada Department of Wildlife. More information will be posted at a later date.

25th Eastern Black Bear Workshop 2021. Wisconsin, United States

Save the Date! Wisconsin will be hosting the 25th Eastern Black Bear Workshop in 2021. Details will be posted at www.easternblackbearworkshop.org as they become available.

The 3rd International Symposium on Sun Bear Conservation and Management March 23-24, 2021, Hanoi, Vietnam

The 3rd International Symposium on Sun Bear Conservation and Management will be held by Animals Asia in Hanoi, Vietnam March 23-24, 2021.

Student Forum 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 information so we can all get to know you. Facebook Signup Instructions - Visit: https://facebook.com/groups/IBA.Conference/

38 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Publications Recent Bear Literature Agnieszka Sergiel Email: [email protected]

If you have an article recently published please email the citation for inclusion in the next issue of Recent Bear Literature. We appreciate direct contact with you. The deadlines for the next issues are: • Summer Issue: 5 June: Agnes Pelletier: [email protected] • Fall Issue: 5 October: Marion Schneider: [email protected] • Spring Issue: 5 February: Agnieszka Sergiel: [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 Al-Naji, A., Y. Tao, I. Smith, and J. Chahl. 2019. A pilot study for estimating the cardiopulmonary signals of diverse exotic animals using a digital camera. Sensors 19:5445. DOI: 10.3390/S19245445. Email: [email protected] Anijalg, P., J. Remm, E. Tammeleht, M. Keis, H. Valdmann, and U. Saarma. 2020. Ongoing recovery of a brown bear population from a century-old severe bottleneck: insights from population genetic and spatially explicit analyses. Conservation Genetics 21:27–40. DOI: 10.1007/S10592-019-01229-6. Email: [email protected] Arfat, Y., A. Rani, W. Jingping, and C. H. Hocart. 2020. Calcium homeostasis during hibernation and in mechanical environments disrupting calcium homeostasis. Journal of Comparative Physiology B: Biochemical, Systemic, and Environmental Physiology 190:1–16. DOI: 10.1007/S00360-019-01255-3. Email: [email protected] Balseiro, A., L. J. Royo, E. Gayo, and J. F. Garcia Marin. 2020. Cholangiocarcinoma in a free-ranging Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) from Northern Spain. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 56:251–254. DOI: 10.7589/2019-03-054. Email: [email protected] Bard, S. M., and J. W. Cain III. 2020. Investigation of bed and den site selection by American black bears (Ursus americanus) in a landscape impacted by forest restoration treatments and wildfires. Forest Ecology and Management 460:117904. DOI: 10.1016/J. FORECO.2020.117904. Email: [email protected] Bartareau, T. M. 2019. Growth rate and body size at maturity of Florida black bears. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 10:458–467. DOI: 10.3996/082018-JFWM-076. Email: [email protected] Bica, I., M. Solomonovich, K. Deutscher, A. Garrett, K. Burak, and H. Peacock. 2019. Ursus arctos horribilis: dynamic modeling of Ca- nadian population. Theoretical and Applied Ecology 4:45–54. DOI: 10.25750/1995-4301-2019-4-045-054. Email: bicai@macewan. ca, [email protected] Bisi, F., G. Cremonesi, L. Gaffi, F. Zibordi, A. Gagliardi, L. Gueli, A. Martinoli, and D. G. Preatoni. 2019. Watching a movie or going for a walk? Testing different sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) occupancy monitoring schemes. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy: Online first. DOI: 10.4404/HYSTRIX–00246-2019. Email: [email protected] Blair, C. D., L. I. Muller, J. D. Clark, and W. H. Stiver. 2020. Survival and conflict behavior of American black bears after rehabilitation. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:75–84. DOI: 10.1002/JWMG.21783. Email: [email protected] Bonin, M., C. Dussault, and S. D. Côtéa. 2020. Increased trophic position of black bear (Ursus americanus) at the northern fringe of its distribution range. Canadian Journal of Zoology 98:127–133. DOI: 10.1139/CJZ-2019-0062. Email: [email protected] Böszörményi, K. P., I. I. Podgorski, M. Z. Vidovszky, E. Sós, M. Benkő, and B. Harrach. 2020. Full genome sequence analysis of a novel adenovirus from a captive polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Virus Research 277:197846. DOI: 10.1016/J.VIRUSRES.2019.197846. Email: [email protected] Bourque, J., T. C. Atwood, G. J. Divoky, C. Stewart, and M. A. McKinney. 2020. Fatty acid‐based diet estimates suggest ringed seal remain the main prey of southern Beaufort Sea polar bears despite recent use of onshore food resources. Ecology and Evolution 00:1–11. DOI: 10.1002/ECE3.6043. Email: [email protected] Burova, V. V., and E. D. Nikulina. 2019. Archaeozoology of the Holocene multilayered site Ruchei Akimov (NW cis-Baikal Region, Russia). Russian Journal of Theriology 18:91–98. DOI: 10.15298/RUSJTHERIOL.18.2.03. Email: [email protected] Buyaskas, M., B. E. Evans, and A. Mortelliti. 2020. Assessing the effectiveness of attractants to increase camera trap detections of North American mammals. Mammalian Biology: First online. DOI: 10.1007/S42991-020-00011-3. Email: alessio.mortelliti@maine. edu Charlton, B. D., M. A. Owen, X. Zhou, H. Zhang, and R. R. Swaisgood. 2019. Influence of season and social context on male giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) vocal behaviour. PLoS ONE 14:e0225772. DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0225772. Email: [email protected] Collins, A. C., M. Böhm, and B. Collen. 2020. Choice of baseline affects historical population trends in hunted mammals of North America. Biological Conservation 242:108421. DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOCON.2020.108421. Email: [email protected] Dai, Y., C. E. Hacker, Y. Zhang, W. Li, J. Li, Y. Zhang, G. Bona, H. Liu, Y. Li, Y. Xue, and D. Li. 2019. Identifying the risk regions of house break-ins caused by Tibetan brown bears (Ursus arctos pruinosus) in the Sanjiangyuan region, China. Ecology and Evolution

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 39 Publications 9:13979–13990. DOI: 10.1002/ECE3.5835. Email: [email protected] Dalerum, F., L. O. K. Selby, and C. W. W. Pirk. 2020. Relationships between livestock damages and large carnivore densities in Swe- den. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:507. DOI: 10.3389/FEVO.2019.00507. Email: [email protected] Demircioğlu, İ., G. Kirbaş Doğan, F. Aksünger Karaavci, İ. Gürbüz, and Y. Demiraslan. 2019. Three-dimensional modeling and morphometric investigation of computed tomography images of brown bear’s (Ursus arctos) ossa cruris (Zeugopodium). Folia Morphologica: First online. DOI: 10.5603/FM.A2019.0125. Email: [email protected] Di Salvo, A. R., and B. B. Chomel. 2019. Zoonoses and potential zoonoses of bears. Zoonoses and Public Health 67:3–13. DOI: 10.1111/ ZPH.12674. Email: [email protected] DiVincenti, L., M. Garner, B. Thomas, and A. Birkenheuer. 2019. Babesia sp. infection in a zoo-housed polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports 18:100350. DOI: 10.1016/J.VPRSR.2019.100350. Email: louisdivincenti@ monroecounty.gov Elfadl, A. K., S. Y. Park, H. M. Arif Ullah, S.-H. Youn, M.-J. Chung, J.-Y. Son, J.-Y. Lee, S.-W. Lee, A.-R. Lee, S.-M. Baek, S.-G. Jeon, E.-J. Lee, I.-H. Hong, J.-K. Park, and K.-S. Jeong. 2019. Sertoli cell tumor (SCT) in a captive black bear (Ursus americanus). Veterinary Sciences 6:77. DOI: 10.3390/VETSCI6040077. Email: [email protected] Estraviz-Lopez, D., and O. Mateus. 2019. Tracks and multiple skeletons of brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Algar do Vale da Pena, Portu- gal. Zubia. Revista de Ciencias 31:77–82. Email: [email protected] Frenette, J., F. Pelletier, and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2020. Linking habitat, predators and alternative prey to explain recruitment variations of an endangered caribou population. Global Ecology and Conservation 22:e00920. DOI: 10.1016/J.GECCO.2020.E00920. Email: [email protected] Furusaka, S., K. Tochigi, K. Yamazaki, T. Naganuma, A. Inagaki, and S. Koike. 2019. Estimating the seasonal energy balance in Asian black bears and associated factors. Ecosphere 10:e02891. DOI: 10.1002/ECS2.2891. Email: [email protected] Gámez-Brunswick, C., and O. Rojas-Soto. 2019. The effect of seasonal variation on the activity patterns of the American black bear: an ecological niche modeling approach. Mammalia: First online. DOI: 10.1515/MAMMALIA-2019-0017. Email: octavio.rojas@inecol. mx Gomez, L., and C. R. Shepherd. 2019. Bearly on the radar – an analysis of seizures of bears in Indonesia. European Journal of Wildlife Research 65:89. DOI: 10.1007/S10344-019-1323-1. Email: [email protected] Gottschalk, A., A. C. Linder, H. Lyhne, M. G. Langbak, T. Hammer, and C. Pertoldi. 2019. Investigating personality in polar bears using the concept of behavioral instability. Preprints Online. DOI: 10.20944/PREPRINTS201912.0244.V1. Email: [email protected] Gouda, S., N. S. Chauhan, J. Sethy, and H. K. Sahu. 2020. Daily activity pattern of Malayan sun bear in Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity: In Press. DOI: 10.22120/JWB.2020.117400.1103. Email: [email protected] Gregório, I., T. Barros, D. Pando, J. Morante, C. Fonseca, and E. Ferreira. 2020. Paths for colonization or exodus? New insights from the brown bear (Ursus arctos) population of the Cantabrian Mountains. PLoS ONE 15:e0227302. DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL. PONE.0227302. Email: [email protected] Hadžiomerović, N., R. Avdić, S. Kovačević, F. Tandir, and P. Bejdić. 2019. Spondyloarthropathy in a captive female brown bear (Ursus arctos). Journal of Advances in VetBio Science and Techniques 4:130–133. DOI: 10.31797/VETBIO.571424. Email: nedzad.hadzi- [email protected] Hestvik, G., H. Uhlhorn, M. Koene, S. Åkerström, A. Malmsten, F. Dahl, P. A. Åhlén, A. M. Dalin, and D. Gavier-Widén. 2019. Francisella tularensis in Swedish predators and scavengers. Epidemiology and Infection 147:1–7. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268819001808. Email: [email protected] Hou, J., Y. He, H. Yang, T. Connor, J. Gao, Y. Wang, Y. Zeng, J. Zhang, J. Huang, B. Zheng, and S. Zhou. 2020. Identification of animal individuals using deep learning: A case study of giant panda. Biological Conservation 242:108414. DOI: 10.1016/J.BIO- CON.2020.108414. Email: [email protected] Hwang, J.-H., K. Kannan, T. J. Evans, H. Iwata, and E.-Y. Kim. 2020. Assessment of risks of dioxins for aryl hydrocarbon receptor- mediated effects in polar bear (Ursus maritimus) by in vitro and in silico approaches. Environmental Science and Technology 54:1770–1781. DOI: 10.1021/ACS.EST.9B05941. Email: [email protected] Inagaki, A., M. L. Allen, T. Maruyama, K. Yamazaki, K. Tochigi, T. Naganuma, and S. Koike. 2020. Vertebrate scavenger guild composition and utilization of carrion in an East Asian temperate forest. Ecology and Evolution:ece3.5976. DOI: 10.1002/ECE3.5976. Email: [email protected] Jackson, K. M., A. M. Young, and J. E. Ayala. 2019. Social interactions and the role of kin recognition within juveniles of a solitary species, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research 7:179–185. Email: [email protected] Johansson, M., L. Hallgren, A. Flykt, O. G. Støen, L. Thelin, and J. Frank. 2019. Communication interventions and fear of brown bears: considerations of content and format. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:475. DOI: 10.3389/FEVO.2019.00475. Email: maria. [email protected] Joiris, C. R. 2019. Very low biodiversity of top predators — seabirds and marine mammals — in the high Arctic Ocean. Advances in Polar Science 30:375–381. DOI: 10.13679/J.ADVPS.2019.0022. Email: [email protected] Jørgensen, P. G., A. Evans, J. Kindberg, L. H. Olsen, S. Galatius, and O. Fröbert. 2020. Cardiac adaptation in hibernating, free-ranging Scandinavian Brown Bears (Ursus arctos). Scientific Reports 10:247. DOI: 10.1038/S41598-019-57126-Y. Email: petergodsk@gmail. com

40 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Publications Joshi, B. D., A. Sharief, V. Kumar, M. Kumar, R. Dutta, R. Devi, A. Singh, M. Thakur, L. K. Sharma, and K. Chandra. 2020. Field testing of different methods for monitoring mammals in Trans-Himalayas: A case study from Lahaul and Spiti. Global Ecology and Conser- vation 21:e00824. DOI: 10.1016/J.GECCO.2019.E00824. Email: [email protected] Kalita, P. C., T. S. Singh, O. P. Choudhary, S. Debroy, A. Kalita, and P. J. Doley. 2019. Morphological and applied anatomical studies on the head region of Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus). Journal of Animal Research 9:753–758. DOI: 10.30954/2277- 940X.05.2019.19. Email: [email protected] Kang, D., Z. Zhao, X. Chen, Y. Lin, X. Wang, and J. Li. 2020. Evaluating the effects of roads on giant panda habitat at two scales in a typical nature reserve. Science of The Total Environment 710:136351. DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.136351. Email: kangdw@bjfu. edu.cn Kearney, S. P., N. C. Coops, S. Sethi, and G. B. Stenhouse. 2020. Maintaining accurate, current, rural road network data: an extraction and updating routine using RapidEye, participatory GIS and deep learning. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 87:102031. DOI: 10.1016/J.JAG.2019.102031. Email: [email protected] Kendall, K. C., T. A. Graves, J. A. Royle, A. C. Macleod, K. S. McKelvey, J. Boulanger, and J. S. Waller. 2019. Using bear rub data and spatial capture-recapture models to estimate trend in a brown bear population. Scientific Reports 9:16804. DOI: 10.1038/S41598- 019-52783-5. Email: [email protected] Kim, M., D. Jeong, and S. Yeon. 2020. Hibernation behaviour and ethogram of captive Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus). Veter- inární Medicína 65:1–7. DOI: 10.17221/135/2019-VETMED. Email: [email protected] Kinka, D., and J. K. Young. 2019. The tail wagging the dog: positive attitude towards livestock guarding dogs do not mitigate pasto- ralists’ opinions of wolves or grizzly bears. Palgrave Communications 5:117. DOI: 10.1057/S41599-019-0325-7. Email: julie.k.young@ usda.gov Kudrenko, S., A. Ordiz, S. L. Barysheva, L. Baskin, and J. E. Swenson. 2020. Human injuries and fatalities caused by brown bears in Russia, 1932–2017. Wildlife Biology 2020:00611. DOI: 10.2981/WLB.00611. Email: [email protected] Laidre, K. L., S. Atkinson, E. V. Regehr, H. L. Stern, E. W. Born, Ø. Wiig, N. J. Lunn, and M. Dyck. 2020. Interrelated ecological impacts of climate change on an apex predator. Ecological Applications:e02071. DOI: 10.1002/EAP.2071. Email: [email protected] Lazarus, M., T. Orct, A. Sergiel, L. Vranković, V. Filipović Marijić, D. Rašić, S. Reljić, J. Aladrović, T. Zwijacz-Kozica, F. Zięba, J. Jurasović, M. Erk, R. Maślak, N. Selva, and Đ. Huber. 2020. Metal(loid) exposure assessment and biomarker responses in captive and free- ranging European brown bear (Ursus arctos). Environmental Research 183:109166. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENVRES.2020.109166. Email: [email protected] Lewis, J. H., M. W. Alldredge, B. P. Dreher, J. L. George, S. Wait, B. Petch, and J. P. Runge. 2019. Summarizing Colorado’s black bear two‐strike directive 30 years after inception. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43:599–607. DOI: 10.1002/WSB.1032. Email: mat.alldredge@ state.co.us Li, P., and K. K. Smith. 2020. Comparative skeletal anatomy of neonatal ursids and the extreme altriciality of the giant panda. Journal of Anatomy: Early View. DOI: 10.1111/JOA.13127. Email: [email protected] Li, T., P. Luo, C. Luo, H. Yang, Y. Li, D. Zuo, Q. Xiong, L. Mo, C. Mu, X. Gu, S. Zhou, J. Huang, H. Li, S. Wu, W. Cao, Y. Zhang, M. Wang, J. Li, Y. Liu, P. Gou, Z. Zhu, D. Wang, Y. Liang, S. Bai, and Y. Zou. 2020. Long-term empirical monitoring indicates the tolerance of the giant panda habitat to climate change under contemporary conservation policies. Ecological Indicators 110:105886. DOI: 10.1016/J. ECOLIND.2019.105886. Email: [email protected] Liang, H., W. Liao, Y. Yao, C. J. Bae, and W. Wang. 2019. A late Middle Pleistocene mammalian fauna recovered in northeast Guangxi, southern China: Implications for regional biogeography. Quaternary International: In Press. DOI: 10.1016/J.QUAINT.2019.12.013. Email: [email protected] Lincoln, A. E., R. Hilborn, A. J. Wirsing, and T. P. Quinn. 2019. Managing salmon for wildlife: do fisheries limit salmon consumption by bears in small Alaskan streams? Ecological Applications: Early View. DOI: 10.1002/EAP.2061. Email: [email protected] López González, C. A., M. G. Camargo-Aguilera, K. U. Saucedo, and N. E. Lara Díaz. 2019. A wandering black bear (Ursus americanus, Pallas 1780) in the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve, Queretaro. The American Midland Naturalist 182:252–259. DOI: 10.1674/0003-0031-182.2.252. Luna‐Aranguré, C., J. Soberón, and E. Vázquez‐Domínguez. 2019. A tale of four bears: Environmental signal on the phylogeographi- cal patterns within the extant Ursus species. Journal of Biogeography 47:472–486. DOI: 10.1111/JBI.13752. Email: evazquez@ ecologia.unam.mx Luu, B. E., E. Lefai, S. Giroud, J. E. Swenson, B. Chazarin, G. Gauquelin-Koch, J. M. Arnemo, A. L. Evans, F. Bertile, and K. B. Storey. 2020. MicroRNAs facilitate skeletal muscle maintenance and metabolic suppression in hibernating brown bears. Journal of Cellular Physiology 235:3984–3993. DOI: 10.1002/JCP.29294. Email: [email protected] Mahjoub, H. A., N. Murphy, P.-M. Mather, S. J. Greenwood, and G. A. Conboy. 2020. Clinical crenosomosis in a black bear (Ursus americanus). Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports: In Press. DOI: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2020.100380. Email: hmahjoub@ upei.ca Marciszak, A., A. Sobczyk, M. Kasprzak, W. Gornig, U. Ratajczak, A. Wiśniewski, and K. Stefaniak. 2019. Taphonomic and paleoeco- logical aspects of large mammals from Sudety Mts (Silesia, SW Poland), with particular interest to the carnivores. Quaternary International: In Press. DOI: 10.1016/J.QUAINT.2019.11.009. Email: [email protected] Mariela, G., C. Laura, and J. L. Belant. 2020. Planning for carnivore recolonization by mapping sex-specific landscape connectivity.

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 41 Publications Global Ecology and Conservation 21:e00869. DOI: 10.1016/J.GECCO.2019.E00869. Email: [email protected] Meredith, E. P., J. K. Adkins, and J. A. Rodzen. 2020. UrsaPlex: an STR multiplex for forensic identification of North American black bear (Ursus americanus). Forensic Science International: Genetics 44:102161. DOI: 10.1016/J.FSIGEN.2019.102161. Email: erin. [email protected] Miller, S., N. Whelan, K. Hope, M. G. Nogueira Marmolejo, F. Knightly, M. Sutherland-Smith, and S. Rivera. 2020. Survey of clinical ophthalmic disease in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) among North American zoological institutions. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 50:837–844. DOI: 10.1638/2018-0192. Mizumachi, K., N. Spassov, D. Kostov, E. G. Raichev, S. Peeva, D. Hirata, Y. Nishita, Y. Kaneko, and M. Ryuichi. 2020. Mitochondrial hap- logrouping of the ancient brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Bulgaria, revealed by the APLP method. Mammal Research: Published online. DOI: 10.1007/S13364-020-00482-2. Email: [email protected] Monchot, H., M. Mashkour, F. Biglari, and K. Abdi. 2019. The upper pleistocene brown bear (Carnivora, Ursidae) in the Zagros: evidence from Wezmeh Cave, Kermanshah, Iran. Annales de Paléontologie: In Press. DOI: 10.1016/J.ANNPAL.2019.102381. Email: [email protected] Montgomery, R. A., M. Carr, C. R. Booher, A. M. Pointer, B. M. Mitchell, N. Smith, K. Calnan, G. M. Montgomery, M. Ogada, and D. B. Kramer. 2020. Characteristics that make trophy hunting of giant pandas inconceivable. Conservation Biology:13458. DOI: 10.1111/ COBI.13458. Email: [email protected] Morales-González, A., H. Ruiz-Villar, A. Ordiz, and V. Penteriani. 2020. Large carnivores living alongside humans: brown bears in human-modified landscapes. Global Ecology and Conservation 22:e00937. DOI: 10.1016/J.GECCO.2020.E00937. Email: ana. [email protected] Morelli, J., A. Briganti, B. Fuchs, Ð. Huber, A. L. Evans, S. Reljić, and J. M. Arnemo. 2020. Comparison of two non-invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring techniques in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Veterinary and Animal Science 9:100094. DOI: 10.1016/J. VAS.2020.100094. Email: [email protected] Naing, H., S. Htun, J. F. Kamler, D. Burnham, and D. W. Macdonald. 2020. Large carnivores as potential predators of sun bears. Ursus 30: e4. DOI: 10.2192/URSU-D-18-0022.2. Email: [email protected] Nawaz, M. A., A. Valentini, N. K. Khan, C. Miquel, P. Taberlet, and J. E. Swenson. 2019. Diet of the brown bear in Himalaya: combining classical and molecular genetic techniques. PLoS ONE 14:e0225698. DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0225698. Email: nawazma@ gmail.com Niedringhaus, K. D., J. D. Brown, M. A. Ternent, C. A. Cleveland, and M. J. Yabsley. 2019. A serosurvey of multiple pathogens in American black bears (Ursus americanus) in Pennsylvania, USA indicates a lack of association with sarcoptic mange. Veterinary Sciences 6:75. DOI: 10.3390/VETSCI6040075. Email: [email protected] Nunny, L. 2020. Animal Welfare in Predator Control: Lessons from land and sea. How the management of terrestrial and marine mammals impacts wild animal welfare in human–wildlife conflict scenarios in Europe. Animals 10:218. DOI: 10.3390/ ANI10020218. Email: [email protected] O’Hara, K. L., L. Narayan, and L. P. Leonard. 2020. Interactions between thinning and bear damage complicate restoration in coast redwood forests. iForest 13:1–8. DOI: 10.3832/IFOR3135-012. Email: [email protected] Owen, M. A., A. M. Pagano, W. Sheyna, and A. Bowles. 2019. Estimating propagation and audibility of industrial noise in subnivean polar bear dens. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 146:2823. DOI: 10.1121/1.5136780. Email: [email protected] Pagano, A. M., T. C. Atwood, G. M. Durner, and T. M. Williams. 2019. The seasonal energetic landscape of an apex marine carnivore, the polar bear. Ecology:e02959. DOI: 10.1002/ECY.2959. Email: [email protected] Parsons, C., Y. Chen, J. Niedermeyer, K. Hernandez, and S. Kathariou. 2019. Draft genome sequence of multidrug-resistant Listeria in- nocua strain UAM003-1A, isolated from a wild black bear (Ursus americanus). Microbiology Resource Announcements 8:e01281- 19. DOI: 10.1128/ MRA.01281-19. Email: [email protected] Penteriani, V., A. Zarzo-Arias, M. D. M. Delgado, F. Dalerum, E. Gurarie, P. Peón Torre, T. Sánchez Corominas, V. M. Vázquez, P. Vázquez García, and A. Ordiz. 2020. Females brown bear use areas with infanticide risk in a spatially confined population. Ursus 31:e2. DOI: 10.2192/URSUS-D-18-00019R4. Email: [email protected] Proctor, M. F., W. F. Kasworm, J. E. Teisberg, C. Servheen, T. G. Radandt, C. T. Lamb, K. C. Kendall, R. D. Mace, D. Paetkau, and M. S. Boyce. 2020. American black bear population fragmentation detected with pedigrees in the transborder Canada – United States region. Ursus 31:e1. DOI: 10.2192/URSUS-D-18-00003R2. Email: [email protected] Proctor, M. F., B. N. McLellan, G. B. Stenhouse, G. Mowat, C. T. Lamb, and M. S. Boyce. 2019. Effects of roads and motorized human access on grizzly bear populations in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. Ursus 30:e2. DOI: 10.2192/URSUS-D-18-00016.2. Email: [email protected] Puckett, E. E., and Lori S. Eggert. 2020. Using genetics in the conservation management of the American black bear (Ursus americanus) in Missouri. Pages 217–228 in J. Ortega and J. E. Maldonado, editors. Conservation Genetics in Mammals. Springer, Cham. Email: [email protected] Ruiz-García, M., J. Y. A. Vásquez, A. Castellanos, L. Kolter, and J. M. Shostell. 2020. Molecular evolution (mitochondrial and nuclear microsatellites markers) in the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus; Ursidae, Carnivora): How Many ESUs are there? Pages 165–194 in J. Ortega and J. Maldonado, editors. Conservation Genetics in Mammals. Springer, Cham. Email: [email protected] Sergiel, A., M. Cattet, L. Kapronczai, D. M. Janz, N. Selva, K. A. Bartoń, J. E. Swenson, and A. Zedrosser. 2020. Do follicles matter?

42 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 Publications Testing the effect of follicles on hair cortisol levels. Conservation Physiology 8:coaa003. DOI: 10.1093/CONPHYS/COAA003. Email: [email protected] Sharief, A., B. D. Joshi, V. Kumar, M. Kumar, R. Dutta, C. M. Sharma, A. Thapa, H. S. Rana, T. Mukherjee, A. Singh, M. Thakur, L. K. Sharma, and K. Chandra. 2020. Identifying Himalayan brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) conservation areas in Lahaul Valley, Himachal Pradesh. Global Ecology and Conservation 21:e00900. DOI: 10.1016/J.GECCO.2019.E00900. Email: [email protected] Shimozuru, M., Y. Shirane, M. Jimbo, M. Yamanaka, M. Nakanishi, T. Ishinazaka, S. Kasai, T. Nose, Y. Fujimoto, H. Tsuruga, T. Mano, and T. Tsubota. 2019. Male reproductive input, breeding tenure, and turnover in high-density brown bear populations on the Shiretoko Peninsula, Hokkaido, Japan. Canadian Journal of Zoology: Published online. DOI: 10.1139/CJZ-2019-0061. Solmundson, K., J. Bowman, E. Adey, J. E. Baici, R. M. Dillon, A. E. Dupuis, R. R. Marrotte, S. J. Morin, S. L. Newar, P. P. O’Brien, and L. M. Scott. 2020. The currency of conservation: how is landscape extent applied in conservation planning? Current Landscape Ecology Reports 5:1–11. DOI: 10.1007/S40823-019-00048-2. Email: [email protected] Sorum, M. S., K. Joly, and M. D. Cameron. 2019. Use of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) by brown bears (Ursus arctos) in an Arctic, interior, montane environment. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 133:151–155. DOI: 10.22621/CFN.V133I2.2114. Email: mathew_sorum@ nps.gov Souliere, C. M., S. C. P. Coogan, G. B. Stenhouse, and S. E. Nielsen. 2020. Harvested forests as a surrogate to wildfires in relation to grizzly bear food-supply in west-central Alberta. Forest Ecology and Management 456:117685. DOI: 10.1016/J.FORE- CO.2019.117685. Email: [email protected] Soyumert, A., A. Ertürk, and Ç. Tavşanoğlu. 2020. Fire-created habitats support large mammal community in a Mediterranean landscape. Mammal Research: Published online. DOI: 10.1007/S13364-019-00473-Y. Email: [email protected] Stăncioiu, P. T., I. Dutcă, M. C. Bălăcescu, and Ștefan V. Ungurean. 2019. Coexistence with bears in Romania: a local community perspective. Sustainability 11:7167. DOI: 10.3390/SU11247167. Email: [email protected] Stirling, I., K. L. Laidre, A. E. Derocher, and R. Van Meurs. 2019. The ecological and behavioral significance of short-term food caching in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Arctic Science 00:1–12. DOI: 10.1139/AS-2019-0008. Email: [email protected] Su, J., L. Li, Y. Wang, X. Ma, Z. Ma, M. P. Peppelenbosch, Q. Pan, and X. Bai. 2020. Seasonal analysis of the gut microbiota in adult and young captive Asian black bears in northeast China. Animal Biology 70:109–119. DOI: 10.1163/15707563-20191054. Tabellario, S., M. A. Babitz, E. B. Bauer, and M. Brown-Palsgrove. 2020. Picture recognition of food by sloth bears (Melursus ursinus). Animal Cognition 23:227–231. DOI: 10.1007/S10071-019-01314-W. Email: [email protected] Tattersall, E. R., J. M. Burgar, J. T. Fisher, and A. C. Burton. 2020. Boreal predator co-occurrences reveal shared use of seismic lines in a working landscape. Ecology and Evolution 00:1–14. DOI: 10.1002/ECE3.6028. Email: [email protected] Tang, J., C. Wang, H. Zhang, J. Zhao, W. Guo, S. Mishra, F. Kong, B. Zeng, R. Ning, D. Li, J. Yang, M. Yang, M. Zhang, Q. Ni, Y. Li, and Y. Li. 2020. Gut microbiota in reintroduction of giant panda. Ecology and Evolution 10:1012–1028. DOI: 10.1002/ECE3.5963. Email: [email protected] Tattersall, E. R., J. M. Burgar, J. T. Fisher, and A. C. Burton. 2020. Mammal seismic line use varies with restoration: applying habitat restoration to species at risk conservation in a working landscape. Biological Conservation 241:108295. DOI: 10.1016/J.BIO- CON.2019.108295. Email: [email protected] Teunissen van Manen, J., C. W. Lackey, J. P. Beckmann, L. I. Muller, and Z.-H. Li. 2019. Assimilated diet patterns of American black bears in the Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin, Nevada, USA. Ursus 30:e3. DOI: 10.2192/URSUS-D-17-00031.2. Email: jennpa- [email protected] Tian, Z., X. Liu, W. Sun, A. Ashraf, Y. Zhang, X. Jin, X. He, and B. He. 2020. Characteristics of heavy metal concentrations and risk assessment for giant pandas and their habitat in the Qinling Mountains, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:1569–1584. DOI: 10.1007/S11356-019-06769-5. Email: [email protected] Tomita, K., and T. Hiura. 2020. Brown bear digging for cicada nymphs. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 101:e01633. DOI: 10.1002/BES2.1633. Tshering, L., and C. Wangmo. 2019. Assessment of human bear conflict in Phrumsengla National Park. International Journal of Environment and Biodiversity 10:126–133. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Urashima, T., M. Umewaki, E. Taufik, T. Ohshima, K. Fukuda, T. Saito, K. Whitehouse-Tedd, J. A. Budd, and O. T. Oftedal. 2020. Chemi- cal structures of oligosaccharides in milks of the American black bear (Ursus americanus americanus) and cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Glycoconjugate Journal 37:57–76. DOI: 10.1007/S10719-019-09899-7. Email: [email protected] Van de Walle, J., M. Leclerc, S. M. J. G. Steyaert, A. Zedrosser, J. E. Swenson, and F. Pelletier. 2019. Proximity to humans is associated with longer maternal care in brown bears. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 73:158. DOI: 10.1007/S00265-019-2764-Y. Email: [email protected] Van de Walle, J., A. Zedrosser, J. E. Swenson, and F. Pelletier. 2020. Trade-off between offspring mass and number; the lightest offspring bear the costs. Biology Letters 16:20190707. DOI: 10.1098/RSBL.2019.0707. Email: [email protected], [email protected] van Manen, F. T., M. R. Ebinger, D. D. Gustine, M. A. Haroldson, K. R. Wilmot, and C. L. Whitman. 2019. Primarily resident grizzly bears respond to late-season elk harvest. Ursus 30(1):1-15. DOI: 10.2192/URSUS-D-18-00018R2. Email: [email protected] Vella, C. A., O. L. Nelson, H. T. Jansen, C. T. Robbins, A. E. Jensen, S. Constantinescu, M. J. Abbott, and L. P. Turcotte. 2020. Regulation of metabolism during hibernation in brown bears (Ursus arctos): involvement of cortisol, PGC-1α and AMPK in adipose tissue

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 43 Publications and skeletal muscle. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology-Part A: Molecular and Integrative Physiology 240:110591. DOI: 10.1016/J.CBPA.2019.110591. Email: [email protected] Volkmann, L. A., J. Hutchen, and K. E. Hodges. 2020. Trends in carnivore and ungulate fire ecology research in North American conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 458:117691. DOI: 10.1016/J.FORECO.2019.117691. Email: [email protected] Ware, J. V., K. D. Rode, C. T. Robbins, T. Leise, C. R. Weil, and H. T. Jansen. 2020. The clock keeps ticking: circadian rhythms of free- ranging polar bear. Journal of Biological Rhythms: Published online. DOI: 10.1177/0748730419900877. Email: [email protected] Wei, F., H. Fan, and Y. Hu. 2020. Ailuropoda melanoleuca (Giant Panda). Trends in Genetics 36:68–69. DOI: 10.1016/J.TIG.2019.09.009. Wilson, A. E., D. L. Sparks, K. K. Knott, S. Willard, and A. Brown. 2020. Simultaneous choice bioassays accompanied by physiological changes identify civetone and decanoic acid as pheromone candidates for giant pandas. Zoo Biology: Early View. DOI: 10.1002/ ZOO.21532. Email: [email protected] Wilson, R. R., and G. M. Durner. 2020. Seismic survey design and effects on maternal polar bear dens. Journal of Wildlife Manage- ment 84:201–212. DOI: 10.1002/JWMG.21800. Email: [email protected] Wirsing, A. J., T. P. Quinn, J. R. Adams, and L. P. Waits. 2020. Optimizing selection of brown bear hair for noninvasive genetic analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin:1–7. DOI: 10.1002/WSB.1057. Email: [email protected] Yan, X., J. R. Owens, Y. Wen, X. Su, Z. Wang, S. Liu, D. Zhang, R. Callan, B. Wenlei, D. Qi, J. R. Spotila, R. Hou, and Z. Zhang. 2020. Dogs and disease threats to giant pandas in China. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:268–276. DOI: 10.1002/JWMG.21786. Email: [email protected] Ye, X., X. Yu, and T. Wang. 2020. Investigating spatial non-stationary environmental effects on the distribution of giant pandas in the Qinling Mountains, China. Global Ecology and Conservation 21:e00894. DOI: 10.1016/J.GECCO.2019.E00894. Email: t.wang@ utwente.nl Yung, D. T. C., R. Jani, R. Azizi, M. N. Ramli, Y. Haidi, A. N. Zainudin, A. H. Samsuddin, N. H. Hashim, M. N. Afiq Ramlee, M. A. Zahidin, M. A. Mohd Raffi, M. S. Lola, and M. T. Abdullah. 2020. Data on diet and growth by giant panda in zoo Negara, Malaysia. Data in Brief 29:105082. DOI: 10.1016/J.DIB.2019.105082. Email: [email protected] Yurkowski, D., E. Richardson, N. J. Lunn, D. C. G. Muir, A. C. Johnson, A. E. Derocher, A. D. Ehrman, M. Houde, B. G. Young, C. D. Debets, L. Sciullo, G. W. Thiemann, and S. Ferguson. 2020. Contrasting temporal patterns of mercury, niche dynamics, and body fat indices of polar bears and ringed seals in a melting icescape. Environmental Science and Technology:9b06656. DOI: 10.1021/ ACS.EST.9B06656. Zhu, C., L. Laghi, Z. Zhang, Y. He, D. Wu, H. Zhang, Y. Huang, C. Li, and L. Zou. 2020. First steps toward the giant panda metabolome database: untargeted metabolomisc of feces, urine, serum, and saliva by 1H NMR. Journal of Proteome Research:9b00564. DOI: 10.1021/ACS.JPROTEOME.9B00564.

44 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 IBA Officers & Council

Executive Council

President Past-President John Hechtel (United States of America) Andreas Zedrosser (Norway) Retired – Alaska Department of Fish and Game University of Southeast Norway +1.907.457.2032 [email protected] +47.3595.2765 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2023 Term Ends: 09.January.2023

Vice President Eurasia Vice President Americas Mei-Hsui Hwang (Taiwan) Karyn Rode (United States of America) National Pingtung University of Science & Technology [email protected] +886.8.7740416 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2023 Term Ends: 09.January.2021

Secretary Treasurer Alexander Kopatz (Norway) Jennifer Fortin-Noreus (United States) Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) +1.406.243.4994 [email protected] +47.4513.2514 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2023 Term Ends: 09.January.2021

Councillors

Marta DeBarba (France) Agnieszka Sergiel (Poland) Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine (LECA) Institute of Nature Conservation of Polish Academy of Sciences +33.778574551 [email protected] +48.12.370.35.64 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2021 Term Ends: 09.January.2021

Gordon Stenhouse (Canada) Anne Hertel (Germany) fRI Research Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F) +1.780.865.8388 [email protected] +49.177.6733016 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2021 Term Ends: 09.January.2023

Karine Pigeon (Canada) Konstantin Tirronen (Russia) University of Northern British Columbia & Yellowstone to Yukon Institute of Biology Karelian Research Centre of Russian Academy Conservation Initiative of Sciences +1.780.223.7317 [email protected] +79.004.462.3440 [email protected] Term Ends: 09.January.2023 Term Ends: 09.January.2023

International Bear News Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 45 IBA Officers & Council

Ex-Officio Council

International Bear News Managing Editor Mark Edwards (Canada) Royal Alberta Museum/University of Alberta +1.825.468.6177 [email protected]

Ursus Managing Editor Jon Swenson (Norway) Norwegian University of Life Sciences +47.9074.4468 [email protected]

Executive Director Christopher Kelley (United States of America) International Association for Bear Research and Management +1.415.902.8115 [email protected]

Director of Transition Jennapher Teunissen van Manen (United States of America) International Association for Bear Research and Management +1.530.379.5476 [email protected]

Webmaster Nadine Bechstein (Germany) Univesity of Leipzig +49.176.82169126 [email protected]

Bear Conservation Fund Chair Julia Bevins (United States of America) +1.907.223.3483 [email protected]

Student Representative Amy MacLeod (Canada) University of Alberta +1.780.707.0891 [email protected]

IUCN Red List Authority Focal Point Bruce McLellan (Canada) +1.604.452.3233 [email protected]

IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair Dave Garshelis (United States of America) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources +1.218.327.4146 [email protected]

IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair Rob Steinmetz (Thailand) World Wildlife Fund – Thailand +662.941.7691 [email protected]

IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair Dag Vongraven (Norway) Norwegian Polar Institute +47.7775.0638 [email protected]

46 International Bear News Spring 2020, vol. 29 no. 1 BSG Expert Team Chairs BSG Co-Chairs Dave Garshelis Email: [email protected] Rob Steinmetz Email: [email protected]

BSG Deputy Chair 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 John Beecham 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 Spring 2020 vol. 29 no. 1 47 International Bear News Distribution c/o International Association for Bear Research and Management Jennapher Teunissen van Manen 907 Jessie Way Bozeman 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 professional 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 translation 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 funding, knowledge of geographical areas, or expertise in scientific or non-scientific sectors.

Deadline for the Summer 2020 issue is 5 Jun 2020