University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School
1990
Black bears in the North Fork of the Flathead River Valley Montana
Harry Carriles The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y
Recommended Citation Carriles, Harry, "Black bears in the North Fork of the Flathead River Valley Montana" (1990). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 7366. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7366
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mike and Maureen MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author’s written consent. MUniversity ontana of
BLACK BEARS IN THE NORTH FORK OF THE
FLATHEAD RIVER VALLEY, MONTANA
By
Harry Carriles
B.S., University of Montana, 1980 B.A., University of Montana, 1980
Presented in partial fullfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
University of Montana
1990
Approved by
Chairman, Board of Examiners
Dean, Graduate School
./yC }> /' / V f / Date - UMI Number: EP38167
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI OissOTtation Pubtwhing
UMI EP38167 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
uesf
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Carriles, Harry, M.S., June 1990 Wildlife Biology
Black Bears in the North Fork of the Flathead River Valley, Montana (164 pp.)
Director; Charles Jonkel*
The home range, habitat use, food habits, and dens of black bears {Ursus americanus) were investigated using radio telemetry and observations of feeding bears. My study concentrated on two adult female bears and their cubs during 1980 and 1981. The results were to be compared with data collected on grizzly bears {U, arctos) in the same area. The ranges of two adult females overlapped during the berry-producing season in 1980. During 1981, an abundant food year, very little range overlap occurred. In 1981 both females had cubs, and their ranges were overlapped by several other collared females. The partial home ranges of the two adult males were larger, and they also overlapped those of all the collared females in 1981. Four collared bears were legally killed during the study; three were males; three were subadults. Black bear food habitats show a transition from leafy forage to berries by early July. Meat is used primarily in the spring; insects are used in the summer. The diet of the cubs closely followed that of their mothers, except that the cubs tended to use lower-growing shrubs during the berry season. Bears used the forested, shrubfield, habitat type more than its availability; they used cutting units, open sidehill parks, and talus/scree/rock components, less than their availability. Dens were located for all collared bears; most were ground dens under logs. A rock cave den and two tree dens were also located. Minimal food habits data on the grizzlies during 1981 show a close parallel with black bears habits, except for greater use of roots. My black bears were not found to dig roots, but used insects more extensively. Black and grizzly bears were observed in close proximity during the study, primarily in highly productive berry patches. The phenology of bear foods, cambium feeding, and tree denning are also presented for comparison with other areas. Ill
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT II TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF FIGURES V LIST OF TABLES vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. HOMERANGES, FOOD HABITS ANDHABITAT USE BY FEMALE BLACK BEARS 3 IN N.W. MONTANA STUDY AREA 4 METHODS 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10 Home Range 11 Food Habits 22 Feeding Behavior 30 Habitat Use 31 Black bear dens 35 Grizzly bears 36 3. PHENOLOGY OF SELECTEDBEAR FOODS, N. FK. FLATHEAD RIVER, 42 MONTANA STUDY AREA 44 METHODS 49 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 50 4. TREE DENNING BY A FEMALEBLACK BEAR IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, 62 MONTANA 5. CHEMICAL RESTRAINT OF BEARS WITH A BLOWGUN AND PLASTIC 68 DISPOSABLE SYRINGE DARTS METHODS 69 Blowpipe Construction 69 Dart Construction 70 Charging and use of the dart 72 Immobilization procedures 74 RESULTS 74 DISCUSSION 75 LITERATURE CITED 79 Appendix A. Plant and Animal Species List 89 Appendix B. Descriptive data on black bears captured during1980-82, North 92 Fork of the Flathead River. Appendix C. Visual observations of collared black bears. North Fork of the 94 Flathead River, 1980-82. Appendix D. Physical data collected from black bear dens. North Fork of the 96 Flathead River, 1980-82. Appendix E. Physical data collected from black bear beds. North Fork of the 98 Flathead River, 1980-81. Appendix F. Black bear scat analysis results, 1980-81, North Fork of the 100 Flathead River (n=363). Appendix G. Descriptions of phenology stages. 103 Appendix H. Phenology data for 22 permanent plots (1980-82), NorthFork of 106 the Flathead River. Appendix I. Descriptions of generalized habitat components. 137 Appendix J. CAMBIUM FEEDING BY A FEMALE BLACK BEAR IN 139 NORTHWESTERN MONTANA STUDY AREA 141 General Description 141 Stand description 141 METHODS 142 RESULTS 142 DISCUSSION 148 Appendix K. BIBLIOGRAPHY; BEAR USE OF CAMBIUM 155
IV List of Figures
Figure 2-1: North Fork of the Flathead River Study Area. 5 Figure 2-2: Seasonal and total home ranges of female black bears Nos. 12 82 and 364 during 1980. Figure 2-3: Seasonal and total home ranges of female black bears Nos. 13 82 and 364 during 1981. Figure 2-4: Incomplete home-ranges of three female black bears, 1981. 16 Figure 2-5: Home-ranges of all female black bears during 1981. 17 Figure 2-6: Hom e-ranges of all male black bears during 1981. 18 Figure 2-7: Locations of collared black bears killed during the study. 19 Figure 2-8: Percent volume of major black bear food items (1980-81). 23 Figure 2-9: Percent volume of major food items (1980-81). A. Female 24 No. 82. B. Two cubs (1981). Figure 2-10: Percent volume of major food items (1980-81). A. Female 25 No. 364. B. Three cubs (1981). Figure 2-11: General availability of bear foods in low (< 1300m) and 28 high ( > 1400m) elevation phenology plots during 1981. For species codes see Appendix A. Figure 2-12: Use of habitat components by black bears, 1980-81, in the 33 N. Fk. Flathead River study area. + = Used significantly more than available. - = Used significantly less than available (0.05 level of significance). See Appendix I for component codes. Figure 2-13: Percent volume of major grizzly bear food items (1981), 37 North Fork Flathead River. Data do not include scats analyzed in the field during 1981. Figure 3-1: Location of phenology plots within the North Fork of the 45 Flathead River study area. Figure 3-2: General phonological development of plant species in low 51 (< 1300m) and high (> 140 0 ) elevation phenology plots. For plant species codes see Appendix A. Figure 3—3: Incremental growth rates of cow parsnip in low (Nos. 4 and 57 8) and high (Nos. 18 and 19) elevation phenology plots, 1980-82 data combined. Figure 3-4: Growth rates of cow parsnip in low (Nos. 4 and 8) and high 58 (Nos. 4 and 19) elevation phenology plots, 1980-82. Figure 5-1: Dart construction. 73 Figure 5-2: Needle Preparation. 73
V Figure 5-3 Preparation of the charging needle. 73 Figure 5-4 Loading and charging the dart. 73 Figure J-1 Stand composition and beetle kill (%) of PICO by DBH 145 classes. Figure J-2; Trees fed on and killed {%) by bears by DBH classes. 145 Figure J-3; Bear use (%) of individual tree species by DBH classes. 146 Figure J-4: Distance between trees that were fed on by bears in 1981. 149 Figure J-5: Height of peeled bark on trees fed on in 1981. 149 Figure J-6: Percent circumference of stripped bark on trees fed on in 149 1981.
VI List of Tables
Table 3-1: Monthly, yearly and long-term average precipitation (cm) at 47 Polbridge, MT (compiled from Climatological Data Annual Summaries, Montana. NOAA National Climatic Data Center, AshviHe, N. Carolina). Table 3-2: Annual snow depth (cm) (1 March and 1 April) at Kishenehn 47 Patrol Cabin, Glacier National Park, Montana (calculated from Snow Survey Data, Soil Conservation Service, Bozeman, Montana). Table 3-3: Descriptive data on 22 phenology plots, N. Fk. Flathead River. 49 Table 5-1; Materials necessary to construct a single 5 ml dart. 70 Table J-1: Stand composition, beetle kill and bear use of a timber stand, 144 as determined by two data sets.
VII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to my major professor C. Jonkel and to the other members of my committee B. O'Gara and L Marcum for being friends as well as advisors to me through the years.
I thank the many Border Grizzly Project personnel, workstudy students and
volunteers who assisted me in the field and in the office. Among them were
B.Baze, D. Carney, A. Carriles, W. Carriles, M. Giger, A. Haig, D. Horning, L Hudak,
A. Humphrey, P. Kinnear, B. McClellan, S. McCorquodale, B. McIntosh, A. Peterson,
J. Polisar, S. Prodell, M. Smith, T. Thier, C. Weichler, and R. Yanishevsky. I thank
D. Pond for introducing me to the use of the blowgun for drugging captured bears.
To those whom I may have omitted, thank you for your efforts and support.
In addition I thank D. Call, R. Lasko and G Wilson of the Glacier View Ranger
District; R. Hensler of the Flathead National Forest; J. DeSanto and C. Martinka of
Glacier National Park; J. Cross, K. Greer, L. Kis, and R. Weckwerth of the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks; P. Stickney of the Forestry Sciences
Laboratory, Missoula; and the many faculty and graduate students at the University of Montana for helpful and stimulating discussions and lasting friendships.
My deep appreciation goes to the many residents, landowners and seasonal employees in the North Fork Valley whom I have come to know through the years.
They graciously allowed me access to their property and gave valuable information on bear observations. May they keep the North Fork from being over-developed in
VIII the name of progress. "Progress" would do well to stay out of the North Fork
Valley.
I am especially grateful to my parents for their support and encouragement throughout my lengthy academic career, and to my daughters Wendy and Amy for their patience and understanding through the years.
I thank the agencies and organizations that supported my study; the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service through the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, the
National Rifle Association, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Border Grizzly
Project of the University of Montana, the U.S. National Park Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the National
Hispanic Scholarship Fund.
To the Bear, both black and grizzly, I extend my deep respect and admiration;
without them Montana would be just another scenic western state rather than the
unique place it is today. I hope to continue to encounter them, on their own
terms, for many years to come.
IX Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Black bears {Ursus americanus) occupy approximately 101,000 km^ of
Montana (Greer 1979a, NPS 1981). Their distribution coincides closely with that of the coniferous forests of west-central and western Montana. Black bear densities are highest in the northwestern part of the state and decrease to the south and east Greer (1979b) considered the Montana population stable.
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) manages black bears as game animals. Seasons vary from spring and fall hunting in the northwest
(Region 1), to a spring-summer-fall hunt in the southwest and central parts of
Montana (MDFWP 1984). Cubs and females with cubs are protected. The running of bears with dogs, and baiting are illegal. A black bear permit is required, but hunters were not required to report their kill before 1985. As a result, the age and sex distribution of harvested bears from the various sub-populations in the State are unknown. In 1984, MDFWP requested that successful hunters submit a premolar tooth for aging purposes (MDFWP 1984). Tooth extraction was required from 1985 to 1987.
Black bear hunting is secondary to that of other big game species in
Montana, except during the spring bear season. Nonetheless, bears have been given a low priority in management and research. Detailed information on population densities, habitat use, productivity, dispersal and annual harvest rates
1 are thus lacking for the various populations in the State (Greer 1979b). Jonkel and
Cowan's (1971) study on Big Creek in the North Fork of the Flathead River drainage remains the only comprehensive black bear study to date in Montana. Aune and
Stivers (1981, 1982, etc.) and Kasworm (1984) have collected data on collared black
bears incidental to grizzly bear {U, arctos) studies on the East Front of the Rocky
Mountains and the Cabinet Mountains of Montana, respectively. The results have
only been partially reported at this time. Rosgaard and Simmons (1982) and
Swenson (in press) report some preliminary results of an ongoing black bear study
in the Big Timber area of west-central Montana.
In 1980 I began a black bear study in the North Fork of the Flathead River
Valley in cooperation with the Border Grizzly Project, University of Montana. The
data were to be compared with grizzly bear data gathered from the same study
area. This thesis contains the results of work done during the black bear phase of
the study. The individual chapters are written as separate papers, resulting in
some duplication. Chapter 2
HOMERANGES, FOOD HABITS AND HABITAT USE BY FEMALE
BLACK BEARS IN N.W. MONTANA
Black bears {Ursus americanus) inhabit most of the forested lands of North
America from Mexico north to Alaska and Canada (Burk 1979). In Montana, the
bear's distribution closely parallels that of the coniferous forests. Black bears
occupy approximately 98,420km^ (29%) of Montana, excluding the national parks
and Indian lands (Greer 1979a). Glacier National Park (GNP) contains an additional
2590km^ of occupied lands (NPS 1981).
Within the last 20 years, bears, especially black bears, have gained increasing
recognition as an important big game species in Montana. Until 1967 one bear,
either black or grizzly {Ursus arctos), could be taken on a big game license. A grizzly bear hunting license was established in 1967 followed by a black bear license in 1971 (Greer 1979b). In 1976, a new non-resident big game license was
initiated. One black bear could be taken on this license as well as a deer
{Odocoileus spp.), elk {Cervus elaphus), birds and fish. However, the resident black
bear license requirement was not altered.
Hunting seasons have traditionally extended from April through November.
However, some districts in the extreme western part of the State have been closed to bear hunting during the summer months. In 1984 tooth extraction was requested of all successfull black bear hunters, but was not mandatory. In 1985 tooth extraction from harvested bears was made mandatory for a 3 year period. 3 The black bears historically low status as a big game animal has resulted in a lack of complete harvest data and a scarcity of research data on the State's bear populations. Management of bears has come into question in some areas of the
State, resulting in the initiation of additional research projects (Rosgaard and
Simmons 1982, Swenson In Press). Black bear data has also been collected during grizzly bear studies on the East Front and the Cabinet Mountains of Montana (Aune and Stivers 1981 and 1982, Kasworm 1984). Jonkel and Cowan (1971) remains the only comprehensive black bear study to date in the northwestern part of Montana.
This study was initiated in 1980 in the North Fork of the Flathead River
(NFFR) Valley of northwestern Montana and southeastern British Columbia (BC),
approximately 43 km north of the Big Creek study area of Jonkel and Cowen
(1971). The study area included the northwest corner of GNP. The study period
extended from 1980 to 1982, during which time data were gathered on a number
of bears but work was centered on two females.
STUDY AREA
The NFFR Valley (Fig. 2-1) consists of a broad floodplain and benchiand,
bordered by the Whitefish Range to the west and the Livingston Range to the east.
The River originates 43km north of the International Border in BC, Canada, and
flows southeastward to its junction with the Middle Fork near West Glacier,
Montana. In Montana, the River forms the west boundary of GNP, and was
designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1976 (USDA For. Serv. 1980).
The Valley is approximately 6 km wide at the Border, and the floodplain North Fork . Flothood ^ RIvor
• wrnhom 0««k
BRITISH COLUMBIA MONTANA Glocioiv National Po
CANADA
M I LES KILOMETERS MONTANA IDAHO
Figure 2-1: North Fork of the Flathead River Study Area. elevation at this point is 1214 m. Elevations on the study area range from 1158 m at the mouth of Trail Creek to over 1500 m in the adjacent foothills. Mountain peaks in the Whitefish Range exceed 2000 m, and many peaks in GNP exceed 3000 m in elevation.
Tertiary sedimentary deposits overlain by glacial deposits are characteristic of the NFFR Valley. Sharp, jagged peaks, high cirque basins and deep U-shaped valleys formed by Pleistocene glaciers shape the higher valleys and mountains, particularly in GNP. The large lakes on the west side of the Park were formed by glacial moraines as the glaciers retreated. For a more detailed description of the geology of the study area see Alt and Hyndman (1972).
The study area is primarily under a Pacific Maritime climatic influence, but continental polar air from east of the Continental Divide frequently influences the area during the winter. Mean temperatures vary from 16°C in July to -8°C in
January (Pfister et al. 1977), at Polebrigde, Montana, 35.5 km south of the Border.
Mean annual precipitation is 61.7 cm at Polebridge (1962-1982 data compiled from
Climatological Data Annual Summaries, Montana. NOAA National Climatic Data
Center, Asheville, N. Carolina). Most precipitation falls as snow, and snow can occur during any month but usually persists from November through April in the
Valley. Mean annual spring (1 April) snow depth is 76 cm at Kishenehn Patrol
Cabin, GNP (calculated from 1946-1983 Snow Survey Data, Soil Conservation
Service, Bozeman, Montana).
The vegetation of the NFFR Valley is dominated by the spruce-fir {Picea engelmannii/P, glauca - Abies lasiocarpa) forest type. Much of the study area consists of fire-induced serai plant communities dominated by lodgepole pine
(Pinus contorta) interspersed with western larch (Larix occidentalis). Mesic sites are characterized by spruce, trembling aspen {Populas tremuloides) and black cottonwood (P. trichocarpa). Understory plant species are varied and abundant on all sites except dense, young pine stands and mature, old age spruce stands. Open meadows and serai shrub communities occur on the river floodplain, higher elevation south aspects, ridgetops and avalanche chutes. For a thorough description of the vegetation of the NFFR Valley see Habeck (1970), Koterba and
Habeck (1971), Allen (1980) and Lee (1983).
Land ownerships in the Valley include the National Park Service, Forest
Service, State of Montana, private and BC Crown lands. Resource management
practices range from total protection in GNP, to intensive management of forest and mineral resources. Since the outbreak of a mountain pine beetle
{Dendroctonus ponderosae) epidemic in 1975 (USDA For. Serv. 1979), timber harvest
has increased dramatically on National Forest, private and particularly on Crown
lands. Mineral exploration is also increasing; seismic exploration occurred on the
study area during 1980-1982 in the US and during 1981-1982 in BC. Resource
development will undoubtedly continue to increase as greater demands are placed
on the nation's dwindling resourses. A general discussion of current and potential
management activities on the Glacier View Ranger District of the Flathead National
Forest and adjacent lands can be found in USDA For. Serv. (1981).
The core study area extends from Trail and Kintia Creeks north to Couldrey
Creek in BC. Field work was concentrated within this area, primarily in the Valley 8 and adjacent foothills. The overall study area, however, was determined by the movements of radio-collared black bears.
METHODS
Black bears were captured with Aldrich leg-hoid snares (Aldrich Animal Trap
Co., Clallam Bay, Wash.). Snares were set in cubby and/or trail sets (Flowers 1977)
with meat (road kills, butcher scraps, etc.) used for bait. Two subadults were
drugged in their dens during March 1981 and 1 adult female was treed and
drugged during July 1981.
Bears were immobilized with a combination of phencyclidine hydrochloride-
promazine hydrochloride (Sernylan-Sparine) or ketamine hydrochloride-zylazine
hydrochloride (Ketaset-Rompun). Drugs were administered by Palmer Cap-chur gun
(Palmer Chemical and Equipment Co., Douglasville, Georgia) or jab-stick during
1980, and by blowgun thereafter (Chapter 5).
Captured bears were measured and ear tagged. Apremolar tooth was
extracted from each bear for age determination by cementum annuli counts
(Matson's Audiovisual and Microscopic, Milltown, Montana). Telonics radio collars
(Telonics Inc., Mesa, Arizona) were fitted on all bears except cubs and yearlings.
Two subadults were fitted with expandable collars that had rubber innertubing as
the expandable section of the collar. Collars transmitted in the 164-165.000 MHz
frequency range. All bears were released at the capture site.
Radio-collared bears were located as often as possible throughout the field
season by triangulation and close range ground tracking. Close range tracking was done so as to minimize disturbance to the bears. Visual observations were made when possible. Night locations were taken by triangulation in order to locate bed sites.
Bear locations were plotted on 7.5 minute USGS topographic maps. Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were recorded for each location. Home range data were analysed on the University of Montana DEC-20 computer system using a program (Harestad 1980) based on the convex polygon method (Mohr
1947). The program will display any percentage of the total home range of a bear by eliminating the points that are most distant from the center of activity of that
bear (Harestad 1980). During this study I chose to use 90% to eliminate most outlying points, and 50% to show centers of intensive use.
The inadequacy of distinguishing bear scats by species has been discussed
by Hamer et al. (1981) and Shaffer (1971). Once a collared black bear left a
location site, the area was visited to collect scats, measure bed sites and record
habitat data. Radio location data, observations and field sign allowed almost
positive identification of black bear scats. With a few exceptions, involving direct observations of uncollared black bears, only scats from collared bears were
collected.
Food habits were determined through scat analysis. Scats were air dried during the field season to preserve them for later lab analysis. In the lab they were
re-hydrated overnight and washed through various fine mesh screens (Tisch 1961).
Visual estimates were made of the percent volume of each food component in the
scat. The data were recorded, coded and analysed using the Montana State 10
University computer system. Cambium feeding data were collected as described in
Appendix J.
Habitat use data were collected and recorded during visits to location sites.
The general habitat component of the site was determined and recorded following
Zager et al. (1980), with some modifications (Appendix I). Habitat availability was determined by the use of a grid of random points overlaying the study area on
USGS topographic maps (Marcum and Loftsgaarden 1980). The habitat component of each random point location was determined by the use of aerial photographs and knowledge of the study area. Data were analyzed using a Chi-square test of fit and Bonferroni's simultaneous confidence intervals (Miller 1966).
Circular 375m^ plots (Pfister et al. 1977) were established in various habitat components to include a variety of plants considered to be bear foods (Servheen and Wojciechowski 1978). Not all plant foods used by bears in this study were included in the phenology plots but a representative sample was included. Plots were monitored bi-weekly, and the phenological stage of development of each plant species was recorded throughout the field season (Chapter 3). Bear food habits, as determined by scat analysis, were compared to plant phenology and nutrient content, as determined from the available literature.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
Home Range
Fifteen individual black bears were captured during the study period
(Appendix B), and 6 were recaptured at least once. Ten bears were radio-collared for varying lengths of time during the study. Four bears were legally killed by hunters and one died as a result of capture.
Location data were obtained on all collared black bears on a daily basis if possible. However, efforts were concentrated on two females (Nos. 82 and 364) collared in 1980. Both bears had cubs in 1981. Figs. 2 -2 and 2 -3 show the
seasonal and total home ranges of these two females during 1980 and 1981. Both females dropped their collars in the den during the spring of 1982.
Bear No. 82 had a home range of 70.3 km^ (50%= 15.6 km^) during 1980 (15
July-denning). Bear No. 364 had a 1980 home range of 18.0 km^ (50%=3.1 km^)
(10 July-denning). The home ranges of these two females overlapped primarily
during the late summer berry producing season (Fig. 2-2). Whereas female No. 364
maintained her home range primarily in the foothills of the Whitefish Range, and she rarely used the area east of the North Fork Road, female No. 82 used the
benchlands and NFFR bottomlands extensively. Bear No. 82 apparently moved into the home range of female No. 364 to take advantage of the abundant berry crop,
primarily globe huckleberry {Vaccinium globulare), that was available on the higher elevation slopes west of the Road. At this time she stayed primarily on the ridge
between Ketchekan Creek and the NFFR, as did female No. 364. However, neither bear was found in close proximity to the other during this period. Mutual avoidance in the form of temporal separation was apparently in effect to facilitate the use of the available habitat by each bear. 12
CANADA aLAOCN M.P. MONTANA
IMO HOMCNANCCS 1SJULT-2 0 NOV N - 4 2 TOJKM^ 90N%«40J SO^siS.6 lOfUlT-ZOMOV N «4 X tAjOKW> »ONla*«/> SOAiy>sXl
•UHAICR NOMCRANeCS LSMN.V-ZDAUG««2 to MN.T-2 0 AUC # $
Dty rAU. MOWCflAMCCS
KRT-20NOV M «17 OS 7-3 KM^
FEMALE HO. <2 • female NO 3 « 4 I9«0-ai DEN O l' l 9A O '« t DCN
Figure 2-2: Seasonal and total home ranges of female black bears Nos. 82 and 364 during 1980. 13
ot' 1 #0 %. i7mtm-icocT n s im
HOMCKANCCS u>MA« «asitmc * » « • * ■ - a * *M««t
iMCiUMCCa ajuir-atMM an
F»*.l MOMCNAM6CS — iWPT-izmov n>42 ts.« -i*«PT-aoocT m,aa a * .(
- - rt «aaLt Mo aaa * a CWf 01 i M a - a t ocn o* i*a o -« i ecM 03 i*«t-aa MM oa l a a i - a a OCN
Figure 2-3: Seasonal and total home ranges of female black bears Nos. 82 and 364 during 1981. 14
Bear Nos. 82 and 364 both had cubs during 1981. Their 1981 home ranges, and areas of concentrated use, were similar in size, with very little overlap occurring throughout the year (Fig. 2-3). Bear No. 82 had a total home range of
44.1 km^ (50%=2.7 km^) and No. 364's home range was 44.2 km^ (50%=2.1 km^). In studies that have documented the home ranges of female black bears with and without cubs, it was found that females with cubs were more sedentary, especially during the spring, than were lone females (Garshelis et al. 1983, Rogers 1987).
Both adult females had cubs with them during 1981 when virtually no overlap in home ranges occurred. The reasons for the change in movement patterns from
1980 by female No. 82 were not clear. The distribution and abundance of food, age, sex, social relationships and reproductive status of individual bears all probably influence the movements (Garshelis et al. 1983), and thus the intraspecific relationships of a given population. During 1981 the berry crop in the study area was the best it had been throughout the study period. In particular, buffaloberry
(Shepherdia canadensis) and wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) were very prolific. Both species were abundant within the low elevation home range of female No. 82. These two species, and kinnikinnik (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), dwarf huckleberry {Vaccinium caespitosum), Oregon grape {Berberis repens) and alder buckthorn {Rhamnus alnifolia) berries were most frequently used by this bear and her cubs. However, female No. 364 and her cubs used primarily globe huckleberries as she had in 1980. Had the berry crop been less abundant in the low elevation sites during 1981, female No. 82 may have moved once again into the range of female No. 364 to take advantage of the huckleberry crop within her range. 15
The use of exclusive home-ranges (territoriality) by female black bears has been discussed by Young and Ruff (1982) and more recently by Rogers (1987).
According to Rogers (1987) females in his Minnesota study area had the exclusive use of a territory and defended it from other females during the spring and early summer. Long distance movements out of the territory were common during the late summer and fall berry producing season. Data from this study were insufficient to confirm or deny territoriality In Montana bears. However, Jonkel and
Cowan (1971) discussed the exclusive use of homeranges by females in their Big
Creek study area. An extensive study of the movements and behavior of black
bears in Montana is needed in order to determine how females interact socially.
Although the home-ranges of Nos. 82 and 364 did not overlap in 1981, the
ranges of several other females that were collared for varying lengths of time did overlap both their ranges. One adult and two subadult females (Fig. 2-4) overlapped their ranges to varying degrees in 1981 (Fig. 2-5), but, their ranges were incomplete so that the extent of overlap is unknown. None of the females were located in close proximity to one another during the study.
The home-ranges of other collared females are incomplete due to
malfunctioning or dropped radio-collars (Fig. 2-4). Female No. 553 had a late
summer/fall 1981 home range of 75.4 km^. An extensive temporary movement
north into Canada during fall substantially increased the size of her range. She
had an unkown number of cubs in her den during spring 1982 but she dropped her
collar shortly after den emergence. Sub-adult female No. 459 had a spring/summer
1981 home range of 35.1 km^. Her signal was last heard south of her home range 16
l« « t MOMCRAMCCS rCMALC N0.5SS 11JULT-310CT N«44 75.4 «4*3 0 1 9 * 1 - * 2 OCN
FEMALE MO 459 I4MA9-1SAUG N*47 25.1 HM^ O’ I9«0-«l OEM
FEMALE MO 555 2.212JULV-4AUO MM* Nal7
MONTANA
Figure 2-4: Incomplete home-ranges of three female black bears, 1981 17
NO . > 3 NO . 3 6 4 N O . 4 S 9 NO. S S3 NO. SSS
MONTANA
Figure 2-5: Home-ranges of all female black bears duri ng 1981 18
1981 HOMCRANGCS M ALE NO. S S I ISIUNE - INOV Ness 79.8 O 1981 - 82 OCN
— MALE NO.SSS 30JULY - 7NOV N = 31 120.6 KM2 O' 1981-82 OCN
CANADA
MONTANA GLACIER N.R
Figure 2-6: Home-ranges of all male black bears during 1981. 19
1980 HOMERANGES M A IE NO. EG 17;*JLY - 13 AUG N »9 , 12.3 K M 2
— MALE N0.4S8 KILLEOr^28SEPT 40CT - 310CT N«12 4 8 . 3 lK M 4.1 X M ^ O 19S0 - 8 1 D E N A K IL L E D 1 2 S E P T 19 8 1
* FEMALE H0.4S6 23SEPT - 30SEPT N«3 9 XJLIED 30SEPT
1980 HOMERANGE ( r ED MEADOW CR.) M A L E NO. 3 9 8 30M A Y - 18 JULY N = 8 KILLED 19MAY1981
Figure 2-7: Locations of collared black bears killed during the study. 2 0 but an accurate location could not be determined. Apparently her collar malfunctioned and/or she dispersed from the area; she was never located again.
Sub-adult female No. 555 was located 17 times before she dropped her collar on 4
Aug.1981. Her mid-summer range was 2.2 km^ Fig. 2-5 shows female home- ranges, during 1981, superimposed on the study area. Sub-adult females are known to stay in and later occupy part of their natal homerange (Rogers 1987, Alt
1978). Thus, the young females captured during this study were probably residents that were residing in or near their natal home-range. However, the data collected on them were insufficient to determine their life histories.
Partial 1981 home-ranges for two adult male black bears are shown in Fig.
2-6. Bear No. 551 had a summer/fall home range of 79.8 km^ which included an extensive fall movement north into Canada, similar to that of female No. 553. He dropped his collar shortly before denning in Nov. 1981. Male No. 558 had a summer/fall home range of 120.6 km^, and dropped his collar at the den during spring 1982.
Several authors (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, LeCount 1980, Reynolds and
Beecham 1980, Garshelis and Pelton 1981, Young and Ruff 1982, Manville 1983,
Rogers 1987) found that the home-ranges of adult male black bears were significantly larger than and encompass several female ranges. The mating range of males in Rogers (1987) study included parts of 7 to 15 female territories. The limited data collected on collared males during this study agree with that finding.
The partial ranges of both males overlap all the female ranges to some extent.
Four black bears, three males and one female, were legally killed by hunters 21 during the study (Fig. 2-7). Only one bear was an adult; the other three were sub
adults. One male was killed during the spring hunting season; the other three
bears were taken during the fall. No known illegal kills of radio collared bears
occurred during the study. In 1980, sub-adult male No. 86 was killed 48.3 km
southeast of his last location, approximately 43 days after his collar malfunctioned.
Sub-adult female No. 456 dropped her collar two days after capture and was killed
five days later near the capture site.
Sub-adult male No. 458 and adult male No. 396 were collared for varying
lengths of time in 1980. No. 458 was killed on 12 Sept.1981 just north of the
Border in BC; he had dropped his collar in the den during spring 1981. Male No.
396 was collared in Red Meadow Creek in spring 1980. Due to a change in study
area to the NFFR Valley at the Canadian Border only 6 locations were obtained on
this bear before his collar malfunctioned during summer 1980. He was killed by a
hunter on 19 May 1981 in Hay Creek.
All four bears that were killed were shot within approximately 50 m of a
road. However, adult male No. 396 was shot by a hunter who was on foot while
the bear was walking down an old overgrown logging road. The three sub-adults
killed by hunters were shot in close proximity to well-traveled main or secondary
logging roads open to public vehicle use. Alt (1978) and Rogers (1987) have
documented the dispersal patterns of sub-adult male black bears; their relatively
high harvest rates may be attributed to these movements. Although female young
do not disperse from the natal home range (Alt 1978, Rogers 1987), after
separation of the family, the young may be more suseptable to hunting mortality 2 2 due to greater movements (males) and unfamiiiarity with the habitat (males and females). Males are especially suseptable during dispersal movements when they
may encounter numerous roads (Manville 1983). Although young females are
familiar with their natal home range, part of which they may acquire, males must
travel through totally unfamiliar habitat to find a vacant area in which to live. A
stable home range for these animals may not occur until full adult size is attained
if they live in stable, old-aged populations. Therefore, they may have to continue
to travel through and use marginal habitats that expose them to greater hunting
pressure.
Food Habits
Fig. 2-8 illustrates the seasonal food habits of black bears in the study area.
The data were collected primarily from females Nos. 82 and 364 and their cubs,
during 1980-1981; they had two and three cubs respectively duing spring 1981. All
five cubs survived to spring 1982. Figs, 2-9 and 2-10 illustrate the food habits of
Nos. 82 and 364 and their cubs. Although scat analysis generally reflects bear
food habits, some foods may be overlooked due to variations in digestability. This
fact was clearly demonstrated in this study by bear No. 364. In June 1981 she
frequently fed on tree cambium (Appendix J), however, scat analysis showed no
evidence of use of this food item (Appendix F). Other food items may be under
represented in scat data for similar reasons. However, I believe that this bias can
be overcome through close-range tracking of collared bears and close inspection
of feeding sites. The food habits data presented here, in my opinion, closely
represent what the bears were actually eating, with a few exceptions. 100
MAMMALS
EQUISETUM
SHRUBS
a m m
GRAMINOIDS
Figure 2-8: Percent volume of major black bear food items (1980-81), 24
SHRUBS
161
MAMMALS _ ▼ V _ .. Q5BQB
GRAMINOIDS
B MAMMALS
EQUISETUM
O >
u oc FORBSÎ
GRAMI
Figure 2-9: Percent volume of major food items (1980-81). A. Female No. 82. B. Two cubs (1981). 25
EQUISETUM MAMMALS
3 -j o SHRUBS > MINOIOS
INSECTS
GRAMINOIDS o N = 2
too B 90
80
70 SHRUBS MAMMALS s 3 60 O SO > EQUISETUM
40
w 30 FORBS C£ 20
10 IN S E C T s i^^__ O J A s o
N= 13 14 6 2
Figure 2-10: Percent volume of major food items (1980-81). A. Female No. 364. B. Three cubs (1981). 26
Plant phenology data (Fig. 2-11 and Appendix H) and scat data (Fig. 2-8) indicate primarily two feeding seasons, grass/forb and fruit, which were used to describe the seasonal food habits of black bears in this study. The availability, palatability and nutritional content of vegetation is determined by the seasonal development (phenology) of the plant. Plant phenology is influenced by climate and topography. Early snowmelt, southern exposures and warm temperatures advance plant development while heavy snow accumulations, late snowmelt, northern exposures and cool temperatures all tend to delay plant development during spring
(Chapter 3). Fig. 2-11 illustrates the general availability of bear foods in low
(<1300 m) and high (>1400 m) elevation phenology plots during 1981.
The grass/forb period, approximately den emergence to early July, is dominated by the use of graminoids, horsetails {Equisetum arvense) and forbs.
Sizemore (1980) and Eagle and Pelton (1983) indicate that herbaceous material is relatively high in protein but is also high in fiber content. Foods with high fiber contents are generally undigestible by bears and stable or decreasing weight ususlly occurs during the grass/forb feeding period (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, Eagle and Pelton 1983, Rogers 1987). Plants in the early stages of growth (pre-flowering) are higher in protein content and nutritional availability than are flowering plants.
Protein content drops, and fiber (cell wall content) increases with advanced phenological development (Sizemore 1980). Bears must therefore forage on lush, early growth of grasses and forbs in order to maximize their nutritional intake during the early grass/forb feeding period (Hamer et. al. 1977, Craighead et al.
1982) 27
The berries of shrubs and forbs dominate the fruit period, from early July to denning. Berries are relatively low in protein, moderate in fiber and high in carbohydrates (Sizemore 1980, Craighead et al. 1982, Eagle and Pelton 1983).
Absorption of the carbohydrates in berries by black bears is fairly substantial as indicated by the decreased carbohydrate content in food items and in scats of those food items (Eagle and Pelton 1983). The high level of available energy
(cabohydrates) in berries, especially huckleberries and buffaloberries, provide the
nutrition by which bears rapidly gain weight. Observations of both black and
grizzly bear scats indicate that they promptly switch to berries when they become
available. I found bear scats with unripened fruit in them during late June to early
July, before any of the fruit were ripe anywhere in the study area. Apparently,
bears were anticipating the ripening of the fruit and were tasting some of the
berries.
Graminoids were important to black bears during early spring in the NFFR study area. Forbs and Equisetum increased in importance through June. During
July, berry producing shrubs and forbs became important, and insects, primarily ants, were used most extensively. During the grass/forb period cream-flowered
peavine {Lathyrus ochrolucus), dandelion {Taraxacum officianale) and cow parsnip
{Heracleum lanatum) were the important forbs used. Important berry producing
shrubs were buffaloberry, globe huckleberry and kinnikinnik. Wild strawberry was the most important berry producing forb used during the fruit period.
The general food habits presented in Fig. 2-8 are broken down by individual
bear in Figs. 2-9 and 2-10. Grasses and sedges were important foods during the 28
LOW
G r a m
CAREX
e q a r
TAOF HELA TRRE ANAR FRVI
LOUT LOIN VACA SHCA SARA AMAL RUIO RHAl ARUV
COST ROAC
HIGH GRAM CAREX EQAR CLLA HELA
LOIN LOUT VAGL VA SC AMAL RIBES SARA SOSC
T MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT Figure 2-11: General availability of bear foods in low (< 1300m) and high (> 1400m) elevation phenology plots during 1981. For species codes see Appendix A. 29 early spring (den emergence through May). During the grass/forb feeding period
bear No. 82 used cream-flowered peavine and dandelion extensively, while bear
No. 364 ate cow parsnip and to a lesser extent peavine. Female No. 82 also used
mammals (meat) more than female No. 364 during this period but No. 364 made
more use of horsetails.
During the fruit period female No. 364 ate primarilyglobe huckleberries with
buffaloberry, kinnikinnik and alder buckthorn taken to a lesser degree. However,
female No. 82 ate buffaloberries followed by dwarf huckleberry, alder buckthorn
and red-osier dogwood. The increased use of forbs by female No. 82 during the
late summer and fall is due to her use of an abundance of cream -flowered peavine
on the lower elevation benches that she inhabited in 1981.
The general food habits of the cubs of both females(Figs. 2-9 and 2-10) are
almost identical to those of their mothers. The cubs offemale No. 82, however,
preferred different species during the berry season, utilizing lower growing shrubs
such as kinnikinnik, and Oregon grape {Berberis repens) to a greater extent than
did their mother. The cubs of female No. 364 used essentially the same berry
producing shrubs as did their mother, with globe huckleberry being the dominant
berry in their diets. 30
Feeding Behavior
Bears in this study were strictly diurnal. They were active all day, from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. No locations indicated activity by any bear during the hours of darkness. With only two exceptions, none of the daytime locations indicated inactivity (i.e. bedded down) by any bear except for approximately two weeks following den emergence and proceeding den immergence. During 20 and 8 observations of females Nos. 82 and 364, respectively, (Appendix C), neither bear seemed to pay any attention to her cubs except to keep track of their whereabouts and to tree them when danger was imminent (primarily the presence of the researcher). Nearly all the observations involved feeding by the female and feeding and/or playing by the cubs. Even when the cubs tried to initiate play with the female, she virtually ignored them until they left her to continue feeding or playing on their own.n their own.
While feeding, the cubs seemed to pay close attention to what their mother was doing, sometimes attempting to grab the same grasses, forbs or berries she was eating. During observations of the females tearing up decayed logs and stumps, the cubs sometimes mimicked her behavior, attempting to tear at the same log and eat the ants that were inside. On two occasions, female No. 82 was seen feeding on berries of shrubs m in height (buffaloberry and red-osier dogwood). She sat up on her haunches and pulled the branches full of berries toward her with her paws. She ate the berries and then repeated the process until all the branches within her reach were depleated of berries. She then moved to a new location and repeated the process. The cubs could not reach the berries, but 31 during both episodes they attemped to stand on their hind legs and pull the branches toward them with their paws as their mother had done, usually with little success. They usually retreated to lower growing shrubs on which they could easily feed During an investigation of cambium feeding by female No. 364 in 1981
(Appendix J) evidence was found of cubs scraping the cambium at the base of the trunk and exposed roots. Fritz (1951) suggested that cambium feeding was learned behavior passed on by the mother to her cubs. The food habits data and feeding observations gathered during this study suggest that the selection of food species and methods of use may, to a certain extent, be learned behaviors in young black bears. The use of sweet vetch {Hedysarum sulphur esc ens) roots by grizzly bears is widespread in the NFFR valley (pers. obs.), but its use by black bears has not been documented. This may be an instance of black bears not learning to use a readily available food source or it may be a habitat niche preference. Sweet vetch grows primarily in open floodplain habitats where it occurs south of the Canadian border, and the lack of escape cover (trees) may discourage use of this plant species by black bears.
Habitat Use
Fig. 2-12 shows the use of 11 Habitat Components by black bears in the study area. Availability was determined by use of a random points grid as described earlier in this chapter. The hypothesis that bears used habitat components in proportion to their availability in the study area was rejected using a chi-square test (P<0.001, X^-100.5, f=10). The forested shrubfield type, primarily the ABLA/CLUN habitat type (Pfister et al. 1977), was the most used habitat 32 component and was the only component that bears used significantly more than its availability in this study. Cutting units, open sidehill parks and talus/scree/rock
Components were used significantly less than their availability. All other components were used in proportion to their availability within the study area.
Spring bear use of the timbered shrubfield habitat component was primarily due to the presence of numerous microsites containing lush grasses, sedges and forbs (pers. obs.). Many of these microsites were too small to distinguish on arial
photos and 7.5 minute quads. The mosaic of timber and small mesic microsites throughout the study area was ideal for black bears in that it allowed feeding
within close proximity to escape cover. Many of the bear locations that were
acquired duing the spring and early summer should have probably been classified
as falling within these microsites but they could not be varified during on-site
Inspection. They were lumped into the timbered shrubfield or timbered component
classifications, as a result.
The timbered shrubfield component was especially attractive to black bears
duing the late summer and fall, due to the abundance of berry producing shrubs
within this type. Buffaloberry was very abundant on the lower elevation slopes
and on the NFFR benchlands and bottomlands. On the higher slopes and ridges,
just west of the NFFR, globe huckleberry was the more abundant species of berry
producing shrub. Berry production was especially high in 1981 for both species.
The increased production was probably related to weather, but is being aided by
the extensive beetle killed lodgepole pine stands (Appendix J). The dead trees are
allowing the tree canopy to open, encouraging growth and production in
understory species that were previously shaded (Martin 1983). 33
40
i z a USE
i 1 AVAILABILITY
30 /
o o c 20
/. / / / 10 / I / / / / / / / / / i JZ 1 8 10 11
HABITAT COM PONENT
Figure 2-12: Use of habitat components by black bears, 1980-81, in the (M. Fk. Flathead River study area. + = Used significantly more than available. - = Used significantly less than available (0.05 level of significance). See Appendix I for component codes. 34
Although cutting units were used significantly less than their availability, they were used most frequently of the open habitat components. This appears to be an artifact of heavy use in a highly productive salvage cut by female No. 82 and her cubs in 1981. The area was on a flat bench just west of the NFFR. The lodgepole pine was removed from the unit in its entirety; no slash was left, and no burning or scarification was done to the area. Only large, old-age western larch, spruce and fir were left on the site. Removal of the lodgepole pine from the area opened the canopy, but did little damage to understory species. The result was that
grasses, forbs and shrubs responded with a high production of bear foods. The
availability of mature larch trees throughout the unit provided escape from
predators and Man for this bear and her cubs. She remained in or near this area
during most of July and August 1981. In comparison, an adjacent clearcut with
extensive mechanical scarification showed little use by this bear due to the low
productivity of bear foods and virtually no cover.
The use of open habitat components by black bears is limited by their inate
instinct to flee up trees when threatened with danger (Herrero 1972). During this
study, black bears were rarely seen crossing large expances of treeless terrain.
Bears that were located in open habitats were invariably on or near the edges; in
close proximity to trees. Bed sites (Appendix E) were always located within
approximately 1 m of a tree of at least 25 cm DBH. Female No. 82 was treed with
her cubs several times in succession during 1981. She was in the afore-mentioned
salvage cut but did not leave the area. She usually remained in the vicinity
throughout the rest of the day, and bedded down within 150 m of the location of 35 the treeing incident. Thus, escape cover (trees) may be as important as an abundant food supply is to black bears, especially females with cubs.
Black bear dens
Eight dens used by six different bears were located dusing this study. All dens were located during the winter, when the bear was occupying the site, and flagged so it could be found again in the spring. All dens except one were relocated and measured after the bears had vacated them in the spring (Appendix
D). Three attempts at relocating female No. 364's 1980-81 den in an extensive timbered shrubfield slope were unsuccessfull. All dens, except one, were on north to southeast facing slopes The tree den of female No. 82, during the winter of
1981-82, was on the floodplain of the NFFR (Chapter 4).
Six of the dens were on the ground, while two were tree dens with the cavity above the ground (Chapter 4). Of the ground dens, three were under the roots of large blown-down trees, one was under the trunks of several downed trees, one was in a slash/woodchip pile and one was in a natural rock cave. Six of the dens were in the timbered and timbered shrubfield habitat components, while two were in open types. All of the dens under blown-down trees had varying amounts of excavation done by the occupant, primarily to form a shallow depression in which to lay. Two dens had nesting materials that were brought in by the occupant; primarily grasses and forest floor debris that was scraped into the den from the surrounding area.
Sub-adult male No. 458 did the only extensive excavation of a den that was found during the study. He tunneled into a large slash/woodchip pile in the middle 36 of a clearcut. The den was located approximately 25-30 m from the nearest standing tree. The den had two entrances and two bed chambers which were interconnected. Nesting material consisted of approximately 10cm of woodchips covering the ground. Snowmobile tracks were found within 15m of the south entrance of this den, however the activity did not seem to disturb this bear during the Winter-
Female No. 364 denned in a natural rock cave duing winter 1981-82. The den was located in a rock outcrop on an east-facing, open sidehill park at approximately 1951 m in elevation. The dominant vegetation was beargrass
{Xerophyllum tenax), with low shrubs, primarily globe huckleberry, scattered throughout. The den was approximately 50 m from the nearest standing tree. The cave had a large chamber (Appendix D) with a small opening to the outside directly above it. No nest material was found in the den, the female and cubs lay directly on the rock and soil on the floor of the chamber. The den had been used previously by both black bears (possibly No. 364) and grizzly bears. Patches of old black bear and grizzly bear hair were found on the rock surrounding the entrance and the rock walls of the den chamber.
Grizzly bears
Black bears and grizzly bears are sympatric in the NFFR study area. Jonkel and Cowan (1971) proposed a theory of separation of the two species, especially during late summer and fall as grizzlies move to high elevation, open habitats.
Martinka (1972) concurred with this position. McClellan (pers. comm.), however, found that some grizzly bears, primarily females, remained in the low elevation 37
io o_
90
80 EQUISETUM
70
§
%
io->. q i(XMi N bips • * **. ;
N: 3
Figure 2-13; Percent volume of major grizzly bear food items (1981), North Fork Flathead River. Data do not include scats analyzed in the field during 1981. 38
NFFR floodplain throughout the year, at least during some years. Data on competition during seasons of joint occupancy of selected habitats and the extent to which it may affect bear population densities are lacking.
Competition results from the use of a limiting resource by an organism, thereby reducing the availability of that resource to others (Ricklefs 1979). It can
be manifested in two forms - interference and/or exploitation competition (Emmel
1976, Miller 1967). The results of competition include: 1) coexistence through niche
shifts or character displacement, 2) competitive exclusion resulting in the use of
adjacent habitats, or 3) extinction {Emmel 1976).
Interference competition involves the direct interaction of individuals for
space, within which lies the ultimate object of contention, a vital resource (Ricklefs
1979). Exploitation competition is the utilization and reduction of resources vital to
a competitor, without direct interaction. Competition must, however, involve the
contention for a limiting resource.
Herrero (1972 and 1979) discussed the evolutionary adaptations of black and
grizzly bears. Paramount among these adaptations are the methods of self defence
of these species. Black bears have evolved to escape danger by simply climbing a
tree, while grizzlies are much larger and have acquired a very aggressive nature
which allows them to defend themselves and their offspring in treeless habitats as
well as forested ones. Thus grizzly bears can potentially use all of the food
sources available in a given geographical area, while the black bear is more limited
to the use of forested areas, especially where large predators are present.
In the NFFR study area, grizzly bears have much larger homeranges than 39 black bears (McClellan and Jonkel 1980). Grizzly bear ranges (male and female) therefore overlap several black bear ranges. Rogers (1987) found seasonal territoriality to exist among female black bears In Minnesota, and Jonkel and
Cowan (1972) found limited evidence in Montana. I lack the data to make such a
conclusion concerning black bears in my study area, although it is probably safe to
say that grizzly bears do not exclude black bears from large expances of habitat through territoriality.
Both bear species eat a variety of succulent, high quality vegetation. Figure
2-13 illustrates the food habits of grizzly bears in the NFFR during 1981. The
primary difference that can be found when these results are compared to black
bear food habits (Fig. 2-8) are the use of sweetvetch {Hedysarum sulphur esc ens)
roots during the spring and early summer. Although the percentages vary
somewhat, as would be expected, the species of forbs and shrubs that were used
by both species were similar. Nagy and Russell (1978) found that both species use
and possibly compete for the same food items, and Lloyd (1979) considered the
food habits of both species to be identical. Lloyd and Fleck (1977) combined all
black and grizzly bear scats that they collected for food habits analysis in
southeastern British Columbia.
The patchy distribution of favored bear foods throughout the study area
probably prevents overuse and reduction of the resource to the detriment of
others (except during a total failure of fruit by all producing species, in which case
all bears would suffer) and the defense of those resources by individuals of either
species. A more plausible explanation of the distribution of animals throughout the 40 available habitat is that bears maintain a personal space within which they will not tolerate the intrusion of any bear of either species. This tolerance space fluctuates according to the species of bear, sex and age of the individual, food abundance, season and habitat in which the encounter occurs.
Personal observations of bears in highly productive huckleberry fields in the
NFFR study area indicate that black bears and grizzly bears can and do coexist in areas of resource abundance. Barnes and Bray (1967) documented the simultaineous use of highly productive, artificial feeding sites (garbage dumps and bait stations) in Yellowstone National Park by both species. The two species often tolerated each other, feeding to within 9 to 18m of each other, with no apparent agonistic behavior. Direct, interspecific interactions, such as chasing and fighting, did occur, but grizzly bears did not dominate black bears in all such encounters.
Submissiveness and dominance was believed to be related not to species, but to the aggressiveness of the individuals involved in the encounter. Miller (1985) described an encounter between a female black bear and a female grizzly bear, both with cubs. The encounter ended with the black bear chasing the grizzly for approximately 100m before breaking off the encounter.
The evolutionary adaptations of black bears to the forest habitat restricts their use of large expances of open areas, as discussed above. Range expansion by black bears into open habitats in response to a declining grizzly population was hypothesized by Jonkel and Miller (1970). Nagy and Russell (1978) attributed an increasing black bear population in the Swan Hills, Alberta, to a decrease in grizzly
bear numbers. I suspect that intra- rather than inter-specific factors regulate the 41 populations of both species where they coexist, and intra-specific relations are
probably heavily influenced by habitat quality. Due to the ability of grizzly bears to
use virtually all of the available habitat black bears probably have little effect on
grizzly populations. However, grizzly bears can and probably do control black bear
populations on the periphery of their preferred timbered habitats. Chapter 3
PHENOLOGY OF SELECTED BEAR FOODS,
N. FK. FLATHEAD RIVER, M O N TA N A
Plant phenology deals with the relationship of climate and topography to
plant development. The sequence of vegetative development remains constant
within a given species, however, the initiation, duration and termination of growth
are influenced by various factors. Microclimate, as influenced by topography,
vegetative cover and moisture, causes the majority of intra-specific variation of
phonological events through time (Jackson 1966). Various studies have recognized
the influence of temperature on plant development (Moss 1960, Vezina and
Grandtner 1965, Jackson 1966, Risser and Cottam 1967, Kimball et al. 1973, Reader
1975, Schenske et al. 1978, Erskine 1985). Foerste (1891), Kimball et al. (1973) and
Kimball and Salisbury (1974) investigated the development of various flora during
winter "dormancy", and Billings and Bliss (1959) and Fareed and Caldwell (1975)
described the effect of the duration of snow cover on plant development. Sauer
and Uresk (1976) related the phenology of steppe vegetation to soil moisture
content. It is probable that no single environmental factor determines plant
development, however, snowmelt is probably the dominant influence in the alpine, while moisture availability and temperature determine plant development in dry
environments.
Various authors have studied range phenology in relation to livestock use.
42 43
Costello and Price (1939) and others related phenology to grazing system design.
Clary and Kruse (1979) determined 2 forbs to be possible indicators of "range readiness", and Mueggler (1983) related the phenologicai development of mountain forbs and grasses to herbage production.
Wildlife studies have begun to include the phenology of important flora in the analysis of the food habits and habitat use of various wildlife species. Orme and Leege (1980) documented the phenology of 12 species of shrubs in Idaho to aid in the management of shrubfields for elk {Cervus elaphus) habitat. Hoefs (1979) correlated dall sheep (Ovis dalli) migrations with the altitudinal advance of plant development at Sheep Mountain, Yukon Territory, Canada. Parker (1977) described the flowering phenology of vascular plants on Melville Island, Northwest Territories,
Canada, during a study of caribou {Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and muskoxen
[Ovibos moschatus), Erskine (1985) recorded the flowering phenology of various plants in relation to the spring arrival of migrant bird species across Canada. Krebs
(1964) and Weeden (1968) recorded phenologicaievents incidental to faunal studies in Canada and Alaska, respectively.
Many of the aforementioned studies were concerned primarily with flowering phenology. This paper describes the phenologicai development (vegetative and flowering) of selected plant species used by bears in northwestern Montana. The phenology of many of the plant species included in this study have not been reported in the literature. General information on some of these species can be found in various reports, including Haroldson (1980), Schmidt and Lotan (1980),
Zager (1980) and Young (1984). Observations were made during a black bear 44
(Ursus americanus) study in the North Fork of the Flathead River (NFFR) drainage of
Montana and British Columbia (BC), Canada. The data were compared to the seasonal food preferences of black bears and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) (Chapter
1).
STUDY AREA
The NFFR valley (Fig. 3-1) is bordered by the Whitefish Range to the west and the Livingston Range to the east. The River originates in BC and flows southeastward into Montana to its confluence with the Middle Fork near West
Glacier. It forms a braided channel within a broad floodplain; extensive benchlands extend to the foothills of the mountain ranges. In Montana, the River forms the west boundary of Glacier National Park (GNP), and was designated a Wild and
Scenic river in 1976 (USDA For. Serv. 1980). Floodplain elevation at the
International Border is 1214 m and the valley is approximately 6 km wide atthis point. Mountain peaks in the Whitefish Range exceed 2000 m, and many peaks in
GNP exceed 3000 m in elevation.
The Valley is characterized by Tertiary sedimentary deposits, overlain by
Pleistocene glacial deposits. Sharp, jagged peaks, high cirque basins and deep U- shaped valleys formed by glaciers shape the higher valleys and mountains, particularly in the Livingston Range. Morainal deposits formed the large lakes within GNP as the glaciers retreated. For a more detailed description of the geology of the study area see Alt and Hyndman ( 1972).
The climate of the study area is primarily Pacific Maritime, with outbreaks of 45
CANADA
MONTANA Sage Cr GLACIER NATIONALPARK
12
Cr.
10
Cr
Whale
Cr
15 P0LE8RIDGE A 22
MILES KILOMETERS
18 1920 21 Figure 3-1: Location of phenology plots within the North Fork of the Flathead River study area. 46
continental polar air masses from east of the Continental Divide occuring frequently during the winter. Mean monthly temperatures are 16*C during July and
-8*^0 in January at Polebridge, Montana. 35.5 km south of the Border {Pfister et al.
1977). Mean annual precipitation at Polebridge is 61.66 cm (1962-1982 data
compiled from Climatological Data Annual Summaries, Montana. NOAA National
Climatic Data Center, Ashville, N. Carolina). Most precipitation falls as snow, and
snow can occur in any month, but usually persists from November through April in
the NFFR valley. Mean annual snowfall at Polebridge is 311 cm (Pfister et al. 1977),
and the mean annual spring (1 April) snow depth at Kishenehn Patrol Cabin, GNP is
76 cm (calculated from 1946-1983 Snow Survey Data, Soil Conservation Service,
Bozeman, Montana). Precipitation and snow depth data are summarized in Tables
3-1 and 3-2 below.
The NFFR valley is dominated by the spruce-fir {Picea engelmannii/P, glauca
- Abies lasiocarpa) forest type. Habeck and Weaver (1969) documented the
hybridization of Engelmann and white spruce within the study area. Fire induced
serai communities are widespread throughout the NFFR drainage. These
communities are dominated by stands of lodgepole pine {Pinus contorta)
interspersed with western larch {Larix occident alls) and occasionally Douglas fir
{Pseudotsuga menziesU). Recently, a severe outbreak of mountain pine beetle
{Dendroctonus ponderosae) has killed a large percentage of the lodgepole in the
study area (USDA For. Serv. 1979). In 1981, 84% of the lodgepole pine, 40% of the
total trees in a mixed species stand, were beetle-killed (Appendix I). Mesic sites
are dominated by spruce, aspen {Populus tremuloides), and black cottonwood (P. 47
Table 3-1: Monthly, yearly and long-term average precipitation (cm) at Polbridge, MT (compiled from Climatological Data Annual Summaries, Montana. NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Ashville, N. Carolina).
Month Year Long-Term Ave. 1980 1981 1982 1962-1982
January 2.21 10.16 8.12 February 4.17 4.24 9 68 5.25 March 3.58 1.93 6.17 4.13 April 1.83 4.50 5.74 3.29 May 9.73 7.72 1.07 5.03 June 9.42 9.86 10.46 6.89 July 3.33 3.43 3.56 3.59 August 3.15 1.68 1.68 3.87 September 3.15 1.96 3.78 3.38 October 0.86 1.55 2.49 3.89 November 7.47 5.16 6.12 6.17 December 14.45 6.93 8.13 8.05
Total 61.14 51.16 69.04 61.66 Monthly Ave. 5.56 4.27 5.77 5.14
Table 3 -2: Annual snow depth (cm) (1 March and 1 April) at Kishenehn Patrol Cabin, Glacier National Park, Montana (calculated from Snow Survey Data, Soil Conservation Service, Bozeman, Montana).
Month Year Long-Term Ave. 1980 1981 1982 1946-1983
March 48.26 50.80 83.82 87.16 April 58.42 20.32 83.82 75.93 48 trichocarpa). Graminoids, forbs and shrubs are abundant in virtually all community types.
Open serai communities occur at all elevations within the study area.
Avalanche chutes, sidehill parks and open ridgetops occur at the higher elevations.
Fire induced shrubfields are maintained for long periods of time in the subalpine
communities due to unfavorable conditions for forest regeneration and/or repeated
fire incidence (Zager et. al. 1983). Upper elevation sites are dominated by
graminoids, forbs such as biscuitroot {Lomatium spp.), claytonia {Claytonia
lanceolata), glacier lily {Erythronium grandiflorum), beargrass {Xerophylum tenax),
cow parsnip {Heracleum lanatum), false hellebore {Veratrum veride), etc., and
shrubs such as globe huckleberry (Vaccinium globulare), grouse whortleberry
(Vaccinium scoparium), alder {Alnus sinuata), mountain ash (Sorbus scopulina), etc.
The NFFR bottomlands contain open benches characterized by hedysarum
{Hedysarum sulphuresens), big sagebrush {Artemesia tridentata), and various forbs
and graminoids. Old-growth spruce stands occur throughout the river bottoms, and
aspen stands are distributed along the benches. Cottonwood dominates the more
mesic sites along the River. For a thorough description of the vegetation of the
NFFR Valley see Habeck (1970), Koterba and Habeck (1971), Key (1979), Allen (1980)
and Lee (1983). 49
METHODS
Nineteen phenology plots were established in 1980 and three were added in
1981 (Fig. 3-1). Plots were located in habitat components known to be used by bears, and most of the plant species were considered to be bear foods (Tisch
1961, Servheen and Wojciechowski 1978). Circular 375m^ plots (Pfister et al. 1977) were marked with a stake at the center and flagging on the perimeter. Descriptive data on the permanent phenology plots are given in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Descriptive data on 22 phenology plots, N. Fk. Flathead River.
Plot No. Elevation Slope Aspect
1 1215 Flat 2 1219 Flat - 3 1250 Flat - 4 1256 Flat - 5 1256 Flat - 6 1256 14%(8°) 70° 7 1231 55%(29°) 170° 8 1183 Flat - 9 1183 Flat - 10 1128 Flat - 11 1216 Flat - 12 1274 Flat - 13 2073 38%(21°) 140° 14 2012 Flat - 15 2012 27%(15°) 39° 16 1707 59%(30°) 167° 17 1646 537o(28®) 181° 18 1701 27?&(15°) 185° 19 1695 9%(5°) 145° 20 1692 Flat - 21 1689 Flat - 22 1439 Flat
Plots were monitored bi-weekly from May through October of each year 50
(1980-82). The date on which data collection began on each plot was determined by spring access to the site and snow depth at the site. The phenologicai stages of each plant species and the average height of particular species in the plot
(grasses and forbs) was determined and recorded. Visual estimations of the percent of the plants in a given phenologicai stage were made and recorded to the nearest 10%. Estimates of <5% in any phenologicai stage were recorded as a trace (1%). Various phenologicai stages, as shown in Appendix G, were grouped
into three major stages for discussion in this paper. The peaks of vegetative
growth, flowering and fruiting, were arbitrarily chosen as the point at which ^50%
of the plants in the plot had reached that stage. Although plant development is
not a linear relationship, due to the two week intervals between visits to the plots,
the peaks of the three growth stages mentioned above were estimated from a
graph of time (days) versus percent. The day on which the line crossed 50% was
recorded as the peak of that stage. All species sampled in each plot were plotted
on a bar graph showing the beginning and ending dates and peak of development
for each of the three major phenologicai stages (Appendix H).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The timing of phenologicai events within a given species varied between
plots, between years, and between elevations. Figure 3-2 illustrates the
phenologicai development of grasses, forbs and shrubs during the study period.
Plots were broken down by elevation. The first and last dates for vegetative
growth, floral development and fruit development were used for each species that
occurred in low (< 1 3 0 0 m) and high (> 1 4 0 0 m) elevation plots. 51
LOW
g r a m 80 81 82
EQAR 80 - VEGETATIVE r -I FLOWERING ______FRUIT/SEED C LIA 80 8 I 82
ERGR 80 81 82
TAOF 81 82
HELA 80 81 82
HESU 80 8 I 82
SETR 81 82
ALLIUM 80 81 82
TRRE 80 8 I 82
ANAR 80 81 82
FRVI 80 X 81 _ -X 82
CAREX 80 8 I 82 -cx:
SEDGE 80 81 82
MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
Figure 3-2: General phenologicai development of plant species in low (< 1300m) and high (>1400) elevation phenology plots. For plant species codes see Appendix A. 52
LOW
SALIX 80 — — — —I — ----
8 2 — __ ■ T
LOUT 8 1 ------I-----— I— —
LOIN 8 0 ------— — J- _ _ 81 I — — —I- _ 82 -7- . — — -
VAC A 80 . r • ■ — ——— -t- — — — — 8 1 ______I— - — — — — — - 82 I— — — -1— — —
SHCA 80 ...... — ^ ___^ ^ — 81 — — — — — — — - 82 — 1 — - ^—
SARA 80 ______81 ______— — — I - 82 I — — I — -
AMAL 8 0 ______----- — — — - 81 ______—I — _—. - 8 2 » ■ — —
RUID 81 82
RHAL 80 8 ( 82
ARUV 80 81 82
COST 81 82
ROAC 80 81 82
RIBES 81 82
m a y JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
Figure 3-2 (Continued) 53
HIGH G r a m eo 81 82
CAREX 81 82
SEDGE SO 81 82
EQAR 81 82
CLLA 80 81 82
ERGR 80 81 82
HELA 80 81 82
SETR 80 81 82
ALLIUM 60 31 82
vevi $0 31 82
LOIN 80 81
LOUT 60 31 82
VAGL GO 81 62
VA SC 50 61 82
AM A L 80 61 82
RIBES 80 81 82
SARA 80 81 82
SOSC 30 cz 61 ------82
------1------1------1 I M A Y JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
Figure 3-2 (Continued] 54
In general, plants had their earliest development in 1980, and plant development was delayed the most during 1982. During 1982, winter and spring precipitation was above normal (Table 3-1), except for May, and snow depth on 1
May was above normal (Table 3-2). Precipitation and snow depth was generally below normal during the winter and spring of 1980 and 1981. In the NFFR area, snow depth during the late spring determines the initiation of plant growth and is responsible for the temporal variation in phenology from year to year within a given species in the same plot. However, during years of early snow melt ambient and/or soil temperature and possibly photoperiod determine the initiation of plant growth. Soil moisture is commonly abundant during the spring and appears not to be a determining factor in this study. The high elevation plots had delayed initiation of growth due to deep snow and perhaps the colder temperatures common to higher altitudes.
Several forbs, including glacier lily (Erythronium grandiflorum), claytonia
(Claytonia lanceolata) and cow parsnip were found to have begun growth under as much as 0.5 m of snow cover. In some cases the spring ephemerals, glacier lily and claytonia, were found to have fully developed floral buds while still under several centimeters of snow, and flowered shortly after release from the snow cover. These observations agree with those of Kimball et al. (1973) and Kimball and Salisbury (1974). During the summer months, these species appear as the snowbanks retreat. In 1981 globe huckleberry plants on two high elevation plots
(Nos. 13 and 15) were found to be initiating growth (breaking leaf buds) under as much as 0.5 m of snow cover. Grouse wortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium) also 55 initiated growth under approximately 20 cm of snow in plot No. 13 in 1981.
Apparently many species of forbs and shrubs, especially those in harsh high elevation habitats, may begin growth under snow cover in order to get an early start on the shorter growing seasons inherent to these habitats.
The general chronology of phenologicai events occurs as follows. As soon as snows melt on the low elevation sites, approximately 1 May, graminoids, horsetails
{Equisetum spp.) and forbs such as cow parsnip, claytonia, glacier lily, dandelion
{Taraxacum officianale), arrowleaf groundsel {Senecio triangularis), clover
{Trifolium repens) and wild strawberry {Fragaria virginiana) begin vegetative growth. Most shrubs also begin leaf and twig growth by 1 May. However,
buffaloberry and kinnikinnik {Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) flower at or before the
initiation of vegetative growth. By the end of May through the end of June most species intiate flowering, and most flowering was completed by the beginning of
August Except for the spring ephemerals, most species produced ripe fruit or seeds during July and August.
Growth of some species on the high elevation sites was delayed for up to a month or more in some years, as compared to low elevation sites with similar species. Growth began, in most cases, from late May through mid June. High elevation, south-facing, open slopes were usually the most phenologically advanced habitat components due to early snow melt and relatively warm soil temperatures. Most species had initiated flowering by the middle of June to the middle of July; ripe fruit and seed were produced in late July and August. The relatively short growing season at the higher elevations apparently caused most 56 species to curtail their vegetative growth to some extent in order to produce flowers and seed or fruit before the onset of unfavorable conditions in the fall.
Cow parsnip is a perennial, umbelliferous forb that is used by bears primarily during the spring and early summer, when it is succulant and rapidly growing. It occurs in mesic and riparian habitats throughout the altitudinal extremes of the study area. Typically it initiates growth from the root crown as soon as the snow cover has melted. However, in the spring of 1980 it was found growing up to 3 cm tall while still under up to 0.5 m of snow cover (Plot No. 4). This also occurred in several other plots throughout the study period. Risser and Cottam (1967), Kimball et al. (1973) and Kimball and Salisbury (1974) discussed the relationship of temperature and snow depth to the growth of spring ephemerals during winter
"dormancy".
Cow parsnip was sampled in four plots during the study (1980-82). Two were low elevation plots (Nos. 4 and 8) and two were high elevation (Nos. 18 and 19).
Figure 3-3 illustrates the general growth patterns of cow parsnip in the low and high elevation plots. All three years of data were combined. Incremental growth in the low elevation plots increased to a maximum during early July after which it decreased through the end of August when growth ceased. The irregularity of the curve for the low elevation plots is due to the late snow cover that delayed plant development in the spring of 1982 (Fig. 3-4). Generally, growth rates declined as soon as plants began to put energy into floral development. All growth usually ceased by the time seed production was under way in August. However, a flush of new growth was observed on some plots in some years during the late summer 57
20 -
HIGH
I5-]
10-
5 -
MAY JUNE JULY AUG
Figure 3-3: Incremental growth rates of cow parsnip in low {Nos. 4 and 8) and high (Nos. 18 and 19) elevation phenology plots, 1980-82 data combined. 58 100-1 1982
5 0 -
I —
100
1981
X
9 o 5 0 < o z
10 0 1980
PLOT 5 0 PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
O.l
MAY JUNE JULY AUG
Figure 3-4: Growth rates of cow parsnip in low (Nos. 4 and 8) and high (Nos. 4 and 19) elevation phenology plots, 1980-82. 59 and early fall period. The new growth occured when the plant was almost completely desiccated and consisted of a rosette of three leaves growing from the basal root crown. These leaves soon dried out after only a few weeks (Appendix
H).
Cow parsnip plants on high elevation plots began growth from two weeks to over a month after those on the low elevation plots (Fig. 3-4). Peak incremental growth occurred two weeks later (Fig. 3-3) than the low elevation plants, and declined with the increase in floral development. High elevation plants averaged only 79% as tall as low elevaton plants. Flowers were initiated in late June (1980) through late July (1982) and lasted through early September in 1982. Seed production was initiated from the end of July through early August. Apparently plants at the higher elevations forego some vegetative growth in order to initiate floral and seed development during favorable climatic conditions.
On several occasions, flowers and/or seed and fruit were damaged, destroyed or prevented from forming altogether (Appendix H) due to various factors. In 1980 the elderberry {Sambucus racemosa) plants in plot No. 4 produced no flowers or fruit. Observations indicated that insects had eaten the majority of the plant's foliage, thus preventing the initiation of floral development and fruit production. In 1981, false hellebore plants in all plots sampled (Nos 15, 18 and 21) produced no flowers due to massive insect herbivory. In all cases the plants were virtually defoliated.
Hard frost during floral and/or fruit production was suspected of reducing or eliminating fruit production on several plots throughout the study. In 1980, a hard 60 frost during the flowering stage apparently prevented the development of fruit of
dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium caespitosum) in plot No 9. Buffaloberry fruit did not
ripen due to frost in plot No. 2 in the same year, and in 1982 the fruit of elderberry
(Plot No. 19) also did not ripen due to frost. In those instances, most berries
withered on the shrub while they were still green. However, in July 1981 the fruit
of globe huckleberry on 2 high elevation plots (Nos. 13 and 15) were hit by snow
and cold temperatures. These plots were in open shrubfields in old burns with no
tree overstory. Well over 50% of the fruit did not survive and within 2 weeks the
damaged fruit looked white and was very hard to the touch, while still clinging to
the shrub. Surviving fruit in many cases were deformed and berry size appeared to
be smaller than normal. Virtually all of the affected plants also showed extensive
browning of the leaves, especially along the edges. Huckleberry plants, under a
tree canopy, in plot No. 17, approximately 400 m downslope from the other two
plots, suffered no observable damage although it also snowed on this plot.
Apparently, the thermal protection afforded these plants by the tree overstory kept
the fruit from being damaged on this plot. Fruit production was consistently lower
on this plot than on the other two plots, however it was more consistant from
year to year.
The progression of plant development on an elevational gradient allows
bears, both black and grizzly bears, to use grasses and forbs during the initial rapid
vegetative growth period when the plants are succulent and can best be digested
by the animals (Hamer et. al. 1977, Reynolds and Beechum 1980, Sizemore 1980,
Craighead et al. 1982, Young 1984). As low elevation shrubs begin producing ripe 61 fruit in the late summer, bears can switch from succulent forbs found in mesic
habitats throughout the area, to the fruit on which they heavily depend for rapid
weight gain prior to den immergence in the fall. Chapter 4
TREE DENNING BY A FEMALE BLACK BEAR IN
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, MONTANA
Black bears {Ursus americanus) hibernate in various types of dens throughout
their range. In Montana, Jonkel and Cowan (1971) described the use of a variety of
den sites; most often on the ground in the base of hollow trees, followed by rock
caves, hollows under fallen logs, and under a cabin. In the eastern US, the use of
above ground tree cavities as dens has been reported in Michigan (Switzenberg
1955), New York (O'Pezio pers. comm), Tennessee (Johnson and Pelton 1981,
Pelton et al. 1980), West Virginia (Carney pers. comm ). North Carolina (Hamilton
and Marchinton 1980), Georgia (Lentz et al. 1983), and Louisiana (Taylor 1971:67).
In the west, the use of trees by black bears has been observed only in Washington
(Lindzey and Meslow 1976), and Idaho (Beecham 1980:93, pers. com m ). Both
western observations involved the temporary use of the dens by females. This
paper reports on the use of tree dens by an adult female black bear with two cubs
in Glacier National Park (GNP), Montana.
In 1980 a black bear study was initiated in the North Fork of the Flathead
River (NFFR) Valley. The study area includes part of GNP, the Flathead National
Forest (FNF), and SE British Columbia (BC), Canada. The NFFR originates in the
MacDonald and Livingston ranges of BC, and flows south into Montana forming the western boundary of GNP. Floodplain elevation at the International Border is 1214
6 2 63 m. The area is dominated by spruce-fir (Picea engelmannii/P. glauca-Abies lasiocarpa) forest; extensive stands of lodgepole pine (Pinas contorta) occur as a result of past wildfire. Moist sites are dominated by tremuloides), and black cottonwoode dominated by (P. trichocarpa) is common along the River. Pacific Maritime weather influences the climate of the area. Snow can occur in any month, but usually persists from November through April in the Valley. Mean annual snowfall at Polebridge, Montana, 35.5 km south of the Border, is 311 cm (Pfister et al. 1977). Spring snow depth (1 April) averages 76 cm/yr at Kishenehn Patrol Cabin, GNP (calculated from 1946-1983 Snow Survey Data, Soil Conservation Service, Bozeman, Montana). On 14 July 1980, a 16.5 year old female black bear (No.82) weighing approximately 54 kg was captured on the FNF, 1.5 km west of GNP. She was radio collared and released at the site. In early November, she denned in a live western larch (Larix occidentalis) in GNP, 21.3 m above ground. The cavity was 85.1 cm deep, and measured 71.1 cm by 76.2 cm at the base. The top was open and the only protection offered by this den was an extention of the main trunk on its north and west aspects. Bedding material consisted of wood chips scraped from the wall of the cavity. In April 1981, she emerged and was later observed at the den site with tw o cubs. The family group became inactive on 28 October 1981; presumably in a state of hibernation (Nelson and Beck 1984) or predenning lethergy. They were located in a log jam west of the main channel of the NFFR. Between 1 and 4 November they left this site due to human disturbance and moved across the River into GNP. 64 They remained active and in the general vicinity of the log jam until 7 November when they denned in a live black cottonwood, 14.8 m above ground. The cavity was formed at a fork of the trunk after a main branch had fallen. New growth formed around the cavity, creating a long, narrow, southeast-facing entrance 22.9 cm by 76.2 cm long. The bed chamber measured 71.1 cm by 78.7 cm and was 27.9 cm below the lip of the entrance. The cavity was closed at the top, and was 109.2 cm high. Wood chips, scraped from the wall of the cavity, were the only bedding material in the den. On 21 March 1982 the family group was observed in the den. They emerged in April and were found approximately 1 km from the den site on 7 May. On 17 May, their activity ceased and the functioning collar was recovered on 21 May, in the den. A bed constructed of bark, twigs, conifer needles, and miscellaneous debris, was found at the base of the den tree. The pile of material was 114.3 cm by 147.3 cm by 25.4 cm deep; the actual nest measured 40.6 cm by 63.5 cm by 15.2 cm deep. Apparently the bears had used the den and the bed interchangeably during the few weeks after emergence. The advantages of selecting tree dens versus ground dens in a relatively snow-free area of the southeast have been discussed by various authors. Johnson et al. (1978) predicted a 15.5% savings in energy production for bears in tree dens versus ground dens. Lentz et al. (1983) determined that tree dens with low bed chambers, thick walls surrounding the chambers, and lateral entrances had high heat retention values. From these data, it appears that the open-top den used in 1980-81 would constitute an energy drain on its occupant, as compared to her 1 9 8 1 -8 2 den and conventional ground dens. However, this den was protected from 65 prevailing winds, and snow probably accumulated directly on the hibernating bears during the coldest winter months (Morse 1937, Svihia and Bowman 1954), sealing the cavity and significantly reducing convective heat loss. Moen and Rogers (1985) predicted that snow would accumulate on the back of a black bear when ambient temperatures decreased below -8*C. Svihia and Bowman's (1954) data concur with this prediction. Insulation is probably not a likely cue for tree-denning in the NFFR. Heavy snow accumulations common to the study area, may negate much of the thermal advantage of tree dens due to its insulative qualities (Craighead et al. 1971, Pearson 1975, Pruitt 1957). Although the extent of tree denning in the western states is unknown, the advantage of such behavior in the NFFR Valley may simply be the avoidance of disturbance or possible predation. Bear No. 82 and her cubs apparently moved from a log jam along the NFFR, where she was inactive and may have initiated denning, to a tree den. The tracks of a man and dog were found at the site. Rogers and Mech (1981) and Horejsi et al. (1984) reported the killing of denned females with cubs by wolves {Canis lupus) in Minnesota and Alberta, respectively. Three cases of wolves killing denned black bears in Manitoba were described by Paquet and Carbyn (1986). Dogs were found to have killed a denned female and cubs in western Montana (Hugie pers. comm), and Boyer (1949) reported the killing of a yearling by coyotes (C. latrans). A denned female with cubs was killed and consumed by a larger black bear in Pennsylvania (Alt and Gruttadauria 1984), and Tietje and Ruff (1980) and Tietje et al. (1986) reported cannibalism by black bears in Alberta. Mundy and Flook (1973:17, Table 9) reported 6 6 an apparent grizzly (U. arctos) kill of a black bear. Pearson (1975) found a female grizzly that had been dug out of her den and killed by a large male grizzly. The many documented cases of inter and intra-specific predation, especially on denned black bears, suggests an increase in fitness to tree denning bears, especially females with cubs. In Montana, an area with a diverse and relatively dense population of large predators, black bears may also use trees as secure resting places. Wright (1910:60) states that . . where the grizzly and black bear are both found, the black bear spends much of his leasure among the branches and often has special trees that he uses as sleeping quarters/' Although observations of this behavior are rare, on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, east of GNP, Almack (pers. comm.) observed a female black bear, on 13 July 1981, apparently asleep 10m up in a conifer. A cow carcass was nearby and grizzly bear sign was found in the area when she was captured the next day. No nest was apparent; she laid against the tree trunk in the crotch of several branches. Herrero (1983) observed female black bears with cubs sleeping in trees for up to several hours at the Jasper Townsite dump in Jasper National Park, Alberta. Bears resting in trees were free from danger and lost much of the alertness they exhibited while on the ground. Subadults and females with cubs were the only bears observed using trees for any reason during the study (Herrero 1983). I have received two additional reliable reports of western black bears denning in trees. A female with two cubs was observed leaving a cavity in a western redcedar {Thuja plicata) in western Montana and a bear of unknown sex 67 denned in a tree in western Alberta. Several large trees have been located in northwest Montana that are probable den sites. Thier (pers. comm.) located a den cavity 10.0 m up in a western white pine (Pinus monticola) in the Cabinet Mountains of Montana. The abundance of claw marks and possible den cavities on many large, damaged trees in the NFFR study area, may be indicative of more extensive use of trees as dens and possibly bedsites. Their use for denning would certainly be advantageous to a reproductive female. Chapter 5 CHEMICAL RESTRAINT OF BEARS WITH A BLOWGUN AND PLASTIC DISPOSABLE SYRINGE DARTS Modern wildlife research and management techniques routinely rely on the capture and chemical restraint of wild animals. Remote injection should be accomplished with a minimum of stress and trauma to the animal, and an acceptable safety margin for field personnel. In the past, these requirements were met by CO^ and powder charged weapons shooting an automatic, powder charged syringe (Fowler 1982). The resurrection of the ancient blowgun for the remote delivery of medication and immobilizing drugs, has proven equally effective in many field applications. Several commercially produced systems are now available (Nielsen 1982). Much recent progress has been reported, however, in the development of blowgun darts made from disposable plastic syringes (Brockelman and Kobayashi 1971, Dewey and Rudnick 1973, Bubenik and Bubenik 1976, Haigh 1976, Haigh and Hopf 1976, DeVos 1979, Warren et al. 1979, Barnard and Dobbs 1980, Lochmiller and Grant 1983). The various systems use springs, weights, compressed air, butane or sodium bicarbonate-acid reactions to effect drug injection upon impact. This paper describes the construction and use of a blowgun dart developed by Haigh and Hopf (1976) for the immobilization of bears. A few minor modifications to the original design have improved performance and reliability. 6 8 69 The blowgun was used under a wide variety of conditions. Black bears {Ursus americanus) and grizzly bears ((/. arctos) were immobilized from 1981 through 1985 in five different areas. The initial use of the blowgun on snared bears occurred in the North Fork of the Flathead River drainage of northwestern Montana in 1981 and 1982. Snared bears were also drugged with the blowgun in October 1982 while the author was working in the Mission Mountains on the Flathead Indian Reservation. During 1984 and 1985 bears were drugged in the Cabinet Mountains of northwestern Montana. Caged and culvert-trapped bears were drugged at Fort Missoula, Montana from 1982 through 1983 during a repellent/deterrent study. Snared and culvert-trapped bears were drugged at Sparwood and Elkford, British Columbia. METHODS Blowpipe Construction The blowpipe can be constructed from any suitable metal, plastic, or fiberglass tubing with a smooth Interior wall, and of the appropriate inside diameter (ID). For 5 ml darts I use seamless aluminum electrical conduit that is available in 183 cm lengths (16.5 mm ID). For easy transport it is cut into 3 sections, each 61 cm long, with a tubing cutter. The lip created on the inside of the tubing at the cut must be filed and sanded smooth to eliminate obstructions to the dart as it is propelled through the pipe. Machined UHMW polyethylene sleeves, 7.6 cm long, join the sections to minimize air leakage at the joints. Seamless aluminum conduit is also available in suitable ID s for use with 1, 3 and 10 ml 70 darts. The various pipes nest within one another for easy transport if more than 1 size dart is needed in the field. Dart Construction The materials needed to construct a single 5 ml dart are listed in Table 5-1. The procedures for constructing 1, 3 and 10 ml darts are similar to those described below. Table 5-1: Materials necessary to construct a single 5 ml dart. d a r t 1 sterile 5 ml plastic disposable syringe (Luer-lok). 1 5 ml syringe (need not be sterile). 2 21 gauge hypodermic needles. 5-6 strands of colored acrylic knitting yarn (approx. 6 cm long), glycerine NEEDLE 1 16 gauge hypodermic needle (3.7 cm long). Tygon microbore tubing (5-6 mm long) Epoxy glue. Super glue. CHARGING UNIT Butane gas canister with red adapter. 1 21 gauge hypodermic needle. Epoxy glue. Withdraw the handle of a sterile syringe until only the front of the rubber plunger remains in the barrel. Cut the handle off directly behind the plunger with a sharp knife (Fig. 5-1a) and apply a few drops of glycerine to the plunger (Bubenik and Bubenik 1976) before reinserting it fully into the syringe. Now, cut the finger flange off of the syringe barrel with a knife (Fig. 5-1b) as close to the flange as 71 possible to avoid excessive shortening of the barrel. A second plunger with the handle removed is used for the tailpiece. Insert 5 to 6 doubled strands of brightly colored acrylic knitting yarn into the rear of the plunger with a pencil and trim the ends (Fig. 5-1c). Take 5 to 6 turns around your index and middle fingers to get the proper length of yarn. Coat the outside surface of the tailpiece with epoxy glue and insert it into the rear of the syringe. Insert a 21 guage needle through the syringe wall into the plunger and out the opposite wall (Fig. 5 -Id). A second needle is inserted perpendicular to the first (Fig. 5-1e). Cut the protruding ends of the needles off and file flush with the barrel of the dart. Prepare a 16 guage needle (Fig. 5-2a) by drilling 2 lateral holes in the shaft, 2 mm apart, the first approximately 7 mm from the tip (Fig. 5-2b). A Dremel Tool (Dremel Mfg. Div., Emerson Electric Co., Racine, Wisconsin) mounted on a drill press with a No. 110 grinding bit is used to drill the holes. A single bit will drill approximately 20 holes (10 needles). A No. 2 carbide bur dental bit will also work. Seal the end of the needle with epoxy and place a drop of Super glue (Loctite Corp., Cleveland, Ohio) over the dried epoxy to plug any pinhole leaks that may persist (Fig. 5-2b). Slip a 5 to 6 mm length of Tygon tubing (Norion Plastics and Synthetics Division, Akron, Ohio) over the holes to seal the needle for use (Fig. 5-2c). 72 Charging and use of the dart The dart is charged with butane from commercially available canisters that are used primarily to refill cigarette lighters. Attach a 21 guage needle to the red adapter supplied with the butane dispenser by trimming the end (Fig. 5-3a) so that the needle fits over it. Coat the adapter with epoxy and attach the needle (Fig. 5-3b). Using a large capacity syringe (^10 ml) adjust the movable plunger to the desired drug volume by increasing or decreasing air pressure within the charging chamber. Holding the dart upright, load the drugs with a sterile syringe, through the needle attachment flange (Fig. 5-4a). Attach a prepared needle. Invert the dart (needle down) and insert the charging needle through the tailpiece. Charge the dart by pushing back on the valve to inject liquid butane into the charging chamber (Fig. 5-4b) and quickly pull the needle out of the tailpiece. A drop or two of liquid butane will be visible between the plunger and the tailpiece. Figure 5-4c illustrates a charged dart ready for use. Upon impact, the Tygon sleeve is pushed back by the animals hide exposing the holes in the needle. The release of pressure allows the butane to expand, pushing the movable plunger forward. Drug injection occurs within 1 to 2 seconds of impact, depending on the volume and viscosity of the particular drug being used. 73 GLYCCRINC HANDLE FINGER FLANGE. ' PLUNGER YARN 21 GA. NEEDLE — TAIL PIE C E yFILE SMOOTH PLUNGER 5-1 16 G A. NEEDLE S U P E R GLUE .LATERAL MOLES EPOXY TYGON SLEEVE c 5-2 21 GA. NEEDLE RED ADAPTER LIQUID BUTANE CHARGING CHAMBER- LIQUID BUTANE DRUGS DRUG CHAMBER RT DART 5-4 Figure 5 — !• Dart construction, 2, Needle preparation. 3. Preparation of charging needle. 4. Loading and charging the dart. 74 Immobilization procedures Bears were immobilized after capture in Aldrich leg-hold snares, culvert traps, or while being held captive in the University of Montana holding facilities at Fort Missoula. Three black bears v/ere drugged free-ranging. A variety of drugs were used, including mixtures of ketamine hydrochloride-xylazine hydrochloride (Ketaset-Rompun), phencyclidine hydrochloride-promazine hydrochloride (Sernylan- Sparine) and tiletamine hydrochloride-zolazepam hydrochloride (Telazol). The drugs were delivered by blowpipe using 3, 5 and 10 ml plastic disposable syringe darts. Darts were fired at distances ranging from <1 m to approximately 10 m. The majority of bears were shot in the neck and shoulder region allowing rapid drug absorption and faster immobilization than the hind quarter area. RESULTS Ninety five black bears and 16 grizzlies were successfully immobilized with the blowgun and plastic disposable syringe darts. A grizzly with three cubs was missed twice. She became overly aggressive and a Palmer "Cap-chur" (Palmer Chemical and Equipment Co., Douglasville, Georgia) gun was subsequently used for added safety. The first blowdart flew erratically and the second one hit her old collar and dropped to the ground without injecting the drug A total of 177 darts were shot at bears, five (2.8%) of which completely missed the animal. Twenty five (14.3%) of the darts that did hit bears did not inject the drug for various reasons which will be discussed later. 75 DISCUSSION The use of the blowgun and plastic disposable syringe darts for the immobilization of bears has certain advantages over other types of equipment. The pole-mounted syringe (jab stick) and the Palmer Cap-chur gun are the most common drugging equipment used on bears in North America today. The blowguns main advantage over the jab stick is that it is effective up to 15 m, depending on the size of the dart and the proficiency of the operator. The jab stick must be used at close range, leaving a minimal safety margin for the operator if a bear should break loose (Hofstra 1982). Although the blowgun does not have the range capabilities of the commercial powder charged systems it has several advantages over those systems. The blowgun is accurate, easy to use, lightweight, and portable, and it requires little maintenance. It is inexpensive and easy to construct; a single 5 ml dart costs approximately 50 cents to make and it can be reused a number of times. The blowgun is quiet, the dart causes little trauma at the injection site, and the clear plastic body of the dart allows confimation that the drug has injected while the dart is still in the bear. The barbless needle allows the dart to passively drop from the animal's hide, avoiding further injury or the need to cut the hide to remove the needle. The operator can become acceptably accurate with the blowgun in a day by practicing with water-filled darts. Practice should include the various size darts over the full range of distances that they can be effectively shot. Aiming is instinctive and improves with practice, however, the amount of air used to propel 76 the dart should be consistent with every shot. A short, hard blast of air should be expelled without any head or arm movement. Any movement of the upper body will move the end of the pipe, throwing the dart off target. Darts should be shot perpendicular to the intended impact area to insure penetration of the hide. Most bears captured in snares can be safely drugged with a blowgun. It is well suited to the immobilization of all but the most aggressive bears, or those not caught firmly by the wrist (e.g., caught by the toes). In such situations the powder charged equipment gives the operator a greater safety margin. Jab sticks should not be used on snared animals because of the high risk to the operator. Hofstra (1982) described an incident in which an escaping bear injured a biologist who was attempting to drug it with a jab stick. Caged, culvert-trapped and denned bears are easily drugged with the blowgun and it should be the method of choice in these situations. All missed shots, except one that flew erratically, were caused by movement of the animal when the dart was fired. Most darts were recovered fully charged and reused after replacing the needle with a sterile one Malfunctioning darts included those that hit the target but did not inject the drug, and those that broke on impact. Darts that did not inject on impact were either not fired with enough velocity to penetrate the hide, or they hit the hide at such an angle that they glanced off. Shots should be taken as close to perpendicular to the hide as possible, to avoid glancing darts. The use of a single section of pipe (61 cm) can also result in some darts failing to penetrate the hide. The dart does not gain enough velocity before it leaves the end of the pipe. In 77 one instance, two darts fired at a captive black bear penetrated the hide but the drug did not inject. Several minutes later the moveable plunger of one of the darts was observed as it injected the drug into the bear. The plunger took almost a minute to travel the length of the dart. This dart had been used several times before and malfunctioned during the winter when temperatures were near 0*C. Later, at room temperature, the dart functioned properly, but the plunger moved slower than normal. This problem has not occurred since I began coating the plunger with glycerine (Bubenik and Bubenik 1976) during construction of the dart. Darts usually break when they hit large bones. The force of impact breaks the dart at the needle attachment (Luer-lok). Darts that have been reused a number of times may weaken at this point and break with normal use. Fletcher (1980) described a me: lod for reinforcing the needle attachment flange. Cut the tip off of a 3 ml syringe (without Luer-lok). Then cut the syringe at the 1.1 ml mark with a razor blade. Slide the needle of the dart through the center hole and fit the barrel of the cut 3ml syringe snuggly over the Luer-lok of the dart. This method distributes the force of impact over the barrel of the dart and away from the needle attachment. The modification increases dart life by preventing the needle attachment from weakening excessively during normal use. Large darts, particularly the 10 ml size, tend to weaken at this point due to the weight of the increased volume of drug. The blowgun is almost silent and hits with minor impact, which reduces stress and virtually eliminates trauma to the animal being drugged. The depth to which the needle penetrates the hide can be regulated by varying the length of the 78 Tygon sleeve (Haigh and Hopf 1976). Shots that would normally be injurious or fatal to an animal when using powder charged equipment cause little concern when using a blowgun. Two snare-captured bears that were accidentally shot in the ribs with the blowgun barely reacted to the plastic dart; immobilization occurred without complications. Increased aggression induced by excessive noise, movement, and pain during injection causes increased drug induction time and decreases the safety margin for the operator and the bear. The blowgun virtually eliminated these problems in the majority of immobilization attempts in which it was used. LITERATURE CITED Allen, H.L. 1980. Floodplain plant communities of the North Fork, Flathead River, Montana. Glacier Nat. Park. Res./Manage. Rep. Ser. No. 1. 71pp. Alt. D.D. and D.W. Hyndman. 1972. Roadside geology of the northern Rockies. Mountain Press Publ. Co., Missoula, Montana. 280pp. Alt, G.L. 1978. Dispersal patterns of black bears in northeastern Pennsylvania - A priliminary report, pp. 186-199. In. R.D. Hugie (ed.) Fourth Eastern Black Bear Workshop. Greenville, Maine. 409pp. Alt, G.L. and J.M. Gruttadauria. 1984. Reuse of black bear dens in northeastern Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(l);236-239. Aune, K. and T. Stivers. 1981. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks. 68pp. Aune, K. and T. Stivers. 1982. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks. 143pp. Barnard, S.M. and J S. Dobbs. 1980. A homemade blowgun dart: its preparation and application in a zoological park. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 177(9):951-954. Barnes, V.G. and O.E. Bray. 1967. Population characteristics and activities of black bears in Yellowstone National Park - Final report. Colorado Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Colo. St. Univ., Ft. Collins. 199pp. Beecham, J.J. 1980. Population characteristics, denning, and growth patterns of black bears in Idaho. Ph.D. dissert., Univ. Montana, Missoula. 101pp. Billings, W.D. and LC. Bliss. 1959. An alpine snowbank environment and its effect on vegetation, plant development and productivity. Ecology 40(3):388-397. Boyer, R.H. 1948. Mountain coyotes kill yearling black bear in Sequoia National Park. J. Mamm. 30(1):75. Brockelman, W.Y. and N.K. Kobayashi. 1971. Live capture of free-ranging primates with a blowgun, J. Wildl. Manage. 35(4}:852-855. 79 80 Bubenik, A.B. and G.A. Bubenik. 1976. New, non-traumatic, disposable, automatic injection dart. Can. Assoc. Lab. Animal Sci./ A.C.T.A.L. Proc. pp.48-53. Burk, D. 1979. The black bear in modern North America. Boone and Crockett Club - The Atwell Press. 299pp. Clary, W.P. and W.H. Kruse. 1979. Phenology and rate of height growth of some forbs in the southwestern ponderosa pine type. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM -376. 8pp. Costello, D.F. and R. Price. 1939. W eather and plant development data as determinants of grazing periods on mountain range. USDA Tech. Bull. 686. 31pp. Craighead, J.J., F.C. Craighead, Jr., J R. Varney and C E. Cole. 1971. Satellite monitoring of black bear. BioScience 21(24):1206-1212. Craighead, J.J , J.S. Sumner and G.B. Skaggs. 1982. A definitive system for analysis of grizzly bear habitat and other wilderness resources. Univ. Montana Foundation, Missoula. Wild life-Wildlands Institute Monogr. No. 1. 279pp. DeVos, V. 1979. Do-it-yourself remote chemical immobilization equipment. Koedoe 22:177-186. Dewey, R.N. and A. Rudnick. 1973. An Orang Asli blowpipe with a syringe- type dart for the live capture of wild primates in Malaysia. S.E. Asian J. Trop. Med. and Public Health. 4(2) 285. Eagle, T.C. and M R. Pelton. 1983. Seasonal nutrition of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. pp. 94-101. In: E C. Meslow (ed ). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 5. 328pp. Emmel, T.C. 1976. Population Biology. Harper and Row, New York. 371pp. Erskine, A.J. 1985. Some phenological observations across Canada's boreal regions. Can. Field-Nat. 99(2): 188-195. Fareed, M. and M.M. Caldwell. 1975. Phenological patterns of two alpine tundra plant populations on Niwot Ridge, Colorado. Northwest Sci. 49(l):17-23. Fletcher, K.C. 1980. Needle reinforcement of butane powered darts. J. Zoo Animal Med. 11(2):44-46. 81 Flowers, R. 1977 The art and technique of snaring bears. Wash. For. Protection Assoc., Seattle. 37pp. Foerste, A.F. 1891. On the formation of the flower buds of spring-blossoming plants during the preceding summer. Bull. Torrey Botanical Club 18(4):101-106. Fowler, M.E. 1982. Delivery systems for chemical immobilization, pp. 18-45. In: L Nielsen, J.C. Haigh and M.E. Fowler (eds ). Chemical immobilization of north american wildlife. Wisconsin Humane Soc., Inc. 447pp. Fritz, E. 1951. Bear and squirrel damage to young redwood. J. For. 49(9);651-652. Garshelis, D.L. and M R. Pelton. 1981. Movements of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 45(4);912-925. Garshelis, D.L, H.B. Quigley, C R. Villarrubia and M R. Pelton. 1983. Diel movements of black bears in the southern Appalachians, pp. 11-19. In: EC. Meslow (ed.). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 5. 328pp. Greer, K.R. 1979a. Status report from Montana, pp. 66-71. In: D. Burk (ed.). The black bear in modern North America. Boone and Crockett Club - The Atwell Press. 299pp. Greer, K.R. 1979b. Status report from Montana, pp. 55-62. In: A. LeCount (ed ). First Western Black Bear Workshop, Tempe, Arizona. 339pp. Habeck, J R. 1970. The vegetation of Glacier National Park, Montana. Dept, of Botany, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 132pp. Habeck, J R. and T.W. Weaver. 1969. A chemosystematic analysis of some hybrid spruce {Picea) populations in Montana. Can. J. Bot. 47:1565-1570. Haigh, J.C. 1976. An extra tool for medication of exotic and dangerous animals. Proc. Ann. Meet. Amer. Assoc. Zoo Vet. pp.249-260. Haigh, J.C. and H.C Hopf. 1976. The blowgun in veterinary practice: its uses and preparation. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 169(9):881-883. Hamer, D., S. Herrero and R.T. Ogilvie. 1977. Ecological studies of the Banff National Park grizzly bear, Cuthead/Wigmore region 1976. Parks Canada Contract WR 34-76. 187pp. 8 2 Hamer, D., S. Herrero and L. Rogers. 1981. Differentiating black and grizzly bear feces. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 9(3):210-212. Hamilton, R.J. and R.L. Marchinton. 1980. Denning and related activities of black bears in the coastal plain of North Carolina, pp. 121-126, In: C.J. Martinka and K.L. MacArthur (eds.). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 3. 375pp. Harestad, AS. 1981. Computer analysis of home range data. Province of British Columbia, Fish and Wildl. Branch Bull. No. B-11. 37pp. Haroldson, M. 1980. Phenology of grizzly bear food plants: seasonal importance values of grizzly habitat components. Senior Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 22pp. Herrero, S. 1972. Aspects of evolution and adaptation in American black bears {Ursus americanus Pallas) and brown and grizzly bears (C/. arctos Linne) of North America, pp. 221-231. In: S. Herrero (ed.). Bears-Their Biology and Managem ent, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 2 371pp. Herrero, S.M. 1979. Black bears: The grizzly's replacement? pp. 179-195. In: D Burk (ed.). The Black Bear in Modern North America, Boone and Crockett Club - The Atwell Press. 299pp. Herrero, S. 1983. Social behavior of black bears at a garbage dump in Jasper National Park. pp. 54-70, In: E C Meslow (ed ). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 5. 327pp. Hoefs, M. 1979. Flowering phenology at Sheep Mountain, southwest Yukon Territory. Can. Field-Nat. 93(2): 183-187. Hofstra, T. 1982. Aldrich snare cable failure. Bear Biol. Assoc. Newsletter. 82(4):3-4. Horejsi, B.L., G.E. Hornbeck and R.M. Raine. 1984. Wolves, Canis lupus, kill female Black Bear, Ursus americanus, in Alberta. Can. Field-Nat. 98(3):368-369. Jackson, M.T. 1966. Effects of microclimate on spring flowering phenology. Ecology 47(3):407-415. Johnson, K.G., D O. Johnson and M R. Pelton. 1978. Simulation of winter heat loss for a black bear in a closed tree den. pp. 155-166, In: R.D. Hugie (ed ). Fourth Eastern Black Bear Workshop, Greenville, Maine. 409pp. 83 Johnson, KG. and M.R. Pelton. 1981. Selection and availability of dens for black bears in Tennessee. J. Wildl. Manage. 45(1);111-119. Jonkel, C.J. and I.McT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monogr. No. 27. 57pp. Jonkel, C.J. and F.L. Miller. 1970. Recent records of the black bear {Ursus americanus) on the barren grounds of Canada. J. Mamm. 51(4):826-828. Kasworm, W. 1984. Cabinet Mountains grizzly bear study - Annual Report. April 1983-March 1984. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks. Key, C.H. 1979. Mammalian utilization of floodplain habitats along the North Fork of the Flathead River in Glacier National Park, Montana. MSc. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 151pp. Kimball, S.L., B.D. Bennett and F.B. Salisbury. 1973. The growth and development of montane species at near-freezing temperatures. Ecology 54{1):168-173. Kimball, S.L. and F.B. Salisbury. 1974. Plant development under snow. Bot. Gaz. 135(2)147-149. Koterba, W.D. and J R. Habeck. 1971. Grasslands of the North Fork Valley, Glacier National Park, Montana. Can. J. Bot. 49(9):1627-1636. Krebs, C.J. 1964. Spring and summer phenology at Baker Lake, Keewatin, N.W.T., during 1959-62. Can. Field-Nat. 78(1):25-27. LeCount, A.L. 1980. Some aspects of black bear ecology in the Arizona chaparral, pp. 175-179. In: C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 4. 375pp. Lee, L.C. 1983. The floodplain and wetland vegetation of two pacific northwest river ecosystems. PhD. Dissert., Univ. Washington, Seattle. 268pp. Lentz, W.M., R.L. Marchinton and R E. Smith. 1983. Thermodynamic analysis of northeastern Georgia black bear dens. J. Wildl. Manage. 47(2) 545-550. Lindzey, F.G. and EC. Meslow. 1976. Winter dormancy in black bears in southwestern Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 40(3) 408-415. 84 Lloyd, K.A. 1979, Aspects of the ecology of black and grizzlv bears in coastal British Columbia. MSc. Thesis, Univ. British Columbia, Victoria. 151pp. Lloyd, K.A. and S. Fleck. 1977 Some aspects of the ecology of black and grizzly bears in southeastern B.C. B.C. Fish and Wildl. Branch Rep., Cranbrook. 55pp. Lockmiller, R.L. and W.E. Grant. 1983. A sodium bicarbonate-acid powered blow-gun syringe for remote injection of wildlife. J. Wildl. Dis. 19(1);48-51. Manville, AM. 1983. Human impact on the black bear in Michigan's lower peninsula, pp. 20-33. In: EC. Meslow (ed.). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 5. 328pp. Marcum, C.L. and DO. Loftsgaarden. 1980. A nonmapping technique for studying habitat preferences. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(4);963-968. Martin, P. 1983. Factors influencing globe huckleberry fruit production in Northwestern Montana, pp. 159-165. In: E C. Meslow (ed ). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 5. 328pp. Martinka, C.J. 1972. Habitat relationships of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Nat. Park Serv. Prog. Rep., Glacier Nat. Park, West Glacier. 19pp. McClellan. B.N. and C.J. Jonkel. 1980. Akamina - Kishinena grizzly project, pp. 9-48. In: C.J. Jonkel (ed ). Annual Report No. 5. Border Grizzly Project, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 222pp. Miller, R. 1966. Simultaneous statistical inference. McGraw-Hill, New York, 272pp. Miller, R.S. 1967. Pattern and process in competition. Adv. EcoL Res. 4:1-74. Miller, S.D. 1985. An observation of inter- and intra-specific aggression involving brown bear, black bear, and moose in southcentral Alaska. J. Mamm. 66(4):805-806. Moen, A N. and L. Rogers. 1985 Radiant surface temperatures and hair depths of a black bear, Ursus americanus. Can. Field-Nat. 99(1 ):47-50. Mohr, C.O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Amer. Midland Nat. 37:223-249. 85 Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1984. Montana big game hunting regulations. Montana Fish and Game Comm , Helena. Moss, E.H. 1960. Spring phenological records at Edmonton, Alberta. 74(1^113-118. Morse, M.A. 1937. Hibernation and breeding of the black bear. J. Mamm 18(4):46Q-465. Mueggler, W.F. 1983. Variation in production and seasonal development of mountain grasslands in western Montana. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. I NT-316. 16pp. Mundy, K.R.D. and D R. Flook. 1973. Background for managing grizzly bears in the National Parks of Canada. Canadian Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. No. 22. 35pp. Nagy, J.A. and R.H. Russell. 1978. Ecological studies of the boreal forest grizzly bear {Ursus arctos L.) - Annual Report for 1977. Canadian Wildl. Serv 72pp. National Park Service. 1981. Bear management plan for 1981. Glacier Nat. Park, W. Glacier, Montana. 20pp. Nelson, R.A. and T.D.I. Beck. 1984. Hibernation adaptation in the black bear: implications for management, pp. 48-53. In: D.S. Maehr and J R. Brady (eds.). Proceedings Seventh Eastern Workshop Black Bear Research and Management. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm. 85pp. Nielsen, L. 1982. Chemical immobilization in urban animal control work. Wisconsin Humane Soc., Inc. 93pp. Orme, M.L. and T.A. Leege. 1980. Phenology of shrubs on a north Idaho elk range. Northwest Sci. 54(3): 187-198. Paquet, P.C. and L.N. Carbyn. 1986. Wolves, Canis lupus, killing denning Black Bears, Ursus americanus, in the Riding Mountain National Park area. Can. Field-Nat. 100(3):371-372. Parker, G.R. 1977. The flowering phenology of common vascular plants at Bailey Point, Melville Island, Northwest Territories. Can. Field-Nat. 91(l):81-83. Pearson, A.M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear, Ursus arctos L. Canadian Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. No. 34. 86pp. 86 Pelton, M.R., LE. Beeman and D.C. Eager. 1980. Den selection by black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. pp. 149-151, In: C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 3. 375pp. Pflster, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F Arno and R.C. Presby, 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34. 174pp. Pruitt, W.O., Jr. 1957. Observations on the bioclimate of some taiga mammals. Arctic 10:130-138. Reader, R.J. 1975. Effect of air temperature on the flowering date of dogwood {Comas florida). Can. J. Bot. 53:1523-1534. Reynolds, O.G. and J.J. Beecham. 1980. Home range activities and reproduction of black bears in west-central Idaho, pp. 175-179. In: C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 4. 375pp. Ricklefs, R E. 1979. Ecology. Chiron Press Inc., New York. 966pp. Risser, P. and G. Cottam. 1967. Influence of temperature on the dormancy of some spring ephemerals. Ecology 48:500-503. Rogers, L.L. 1987. Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northwestern Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. No. 97. 72pp. Rogers, L.L. and L.D. Mech. 1981. Interactions of wolves and black bears in northeastern Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 62(2):434-436. Rosgaard, A. and C. Simmons. 1982. East Boulder big game technical report. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks. 51pp. Sauer, R.H. and D.W. Uresk. 1976. Phenology of Steppe plants in wet and dry years. Northwest Sci. 50(3): 133-139. Schemske, D.W. et al. 1978. Flowering ecology of some spring woodland herbs. Ecology 59(2) 351-366 Schmidt, W.C. and J.E. Lotan. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the Northern Rockies - 1928 to 1937. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-259. 20pp. Servheen, C. and T. Wojciechowski. 1978. Grizzly bear foods list. pp.83-107 37 In: C.J. Jonkel. (ed.). Border Grizzly Project, Third Ann. Rep., Univ. Montana, Missoula. 256pp. Shaffer, S.C. 1971. Some ecological relationships of grizzly bears and black bears of the Apgar Mountains in Glacier National Park, Montana. MSc. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 133pp. Sizemore, D.L. 1980. Foraging strategies of the grizzly bear as related to its ecological energetics. MSc. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 67pp. Singer, F.J. 1979. Habitat partitioning and wildfire relationships of cervids in Glacier National Park, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(2):437-444. Svihia, A. and M.S. Bowman. 1954. Hibernation in the American black bear. Amer. Midland Nat. 52(l);248-252. Swenson, J. In Prep. Effects of hunting on black bears in southwestern Montana. In, H. Carriles (ed.) Third Western Black Bear Workshop, Missoula, Montana. Switzenberg, D.F. 1955. Black bear denning in tree. J. Mamm. 36(3):459. Taylor, D.F. 1971. A radio-telemetry study of the black bear {Euarctos americanus) with notes on its history and present status in Louisiana. MSc. Thesis, Louisiana St. Univ., Baton Rouge. 87pp. Tietje, W.D., B.O. Pelchat and R.L. Ruff. 1986. Cannibalism of denned black bears. J. Mamm. 67(4):762-766. Tietje, W.D. and R.L. Ruff. 1980. Denning behavior of black bears in the boreal forest of Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(4) 858-870. Tisch, E.L. 1961. Seasonal food habits of the black bear in the Whitefish Range of northwestern Montana. MSc. Thesis, Montana St. Univ., Missoula. 108pp. USDA Forest Service. 1979. The mountain pine beetle. Final environmental assessment report. Flathead Nat. For., Montana. 79pp. USDA Forest Service. 1980. Flathead wild and scenic river management plan. Flathead Nat. For., Montana. 136pp. USDA Forest Service. 1981. Cumulative effects: A time and space evaluation of forest management activities on grizzly bears - Glacier View Ranger District, Flathead Nat. For., Montana. 59pp. 8 8 Vezina, P.E. and M.M. Grandtner. 1965. Phenological observations of spring geophytes in Quebec. Ecology 46:869-872. Warren, R.J., IM.L Schauer, J.T. Jones, P.P. Scanlon and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1979. A modified blow-gun syringe for remote injection of captive wildlife. J. Wildl. Dis. 15(4) 537-541. Weeden, R.B. 1968. Dates of first flowers of alpine plants at Eagle Creek, central Alaska. Can. Field-Nat. 82(1):24-31. Wright, W.H. 1910 The black bear. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 127 pp. Young, B.F. and R.L. Ruff. 1982. Population dynamics and movements of black bears in east central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(4):845-860. Young, D.D. 1984. Black bear habitat use at Priest Lake, Idaho. MSc. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 66pp. Zager, P. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. PhD. Dissert., Univ. Montana, Missoula. 131pp. Zager, P., C.J. Jonkel and J. Habeck. 1983. Logging and wildfire influence on grizzly bear habitat in Northwestern Montana, pp. 124-132. In: EC. Meslow (ed). Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 5. 328pp. Zager, P., C.J. Jonkel and R. Mace. 1980. Grizzly bear habitat terminology. BGP Spec. Rep. No. 41. Border Grizzly Project, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 15pp. A ppendix A Plant and Animal Species List 89 90 Genus and Species Common Name Symbol TREES Abies lasiocarpa Subalpine fir ABLA Larix occidentalis Western larch LAOCC Picea engelmannii Engelmann spruce PIEN Picea glauca White spruce PIGL Pinas contorta Lodgepole pine PICO Pinas monticola Western white pine PIMO Popalas tremaloides Trembling aspen POTRE Popalus trichocarpa Black cottonwood POTRl Pseadotsaga menziesii Douglas-fir PSME Thuja plicata Western red cedar THPL SHRUBS Ainas sinuata Sitka alder ALSI Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry AMAL Arctostaphylos ava-ursi Kinnikinnik ARUV Artemesia tridentata Big sagebrush ARTR Berberis repens Oregon grape BERE Comas stolonifera Red-osier dogwood COST Crataegus doaglasii Hawthorn CRDO Lonicera involucrata Twinberry LOIN Lonicera atahensis Utah honeysuckle LOUT Rhamnas alnifolia Alder buckthorn RHAL Ribes hadsonianam Ribes RIHU Rosa acicalaris Rose ROAC Rubas idaeas Red raspberry RUID Salix spp. Willow SALIX Sambucas racemosa Elderberry SARA Shepherdia canadensis Buffaloberry SHCA Sorbas scopalina Mountain ash SOSC Vacciniam caespitosam Dwarf huckleberry VACA Vaccinium globalare Globe huckleberry VAGL Vacciniam scoparium Grouse wortleberry VASC Vibernum edule Highbush cranberry VIED FORBS 91 Allium cernuum Wild onion ALOE Angelica arguta Angelica ANAR Claytonia lanceolata Western springbeauty CLLA Equisetum arvense Horsetail EQAR Equisetum spp. Horsetail EQUI Erythronium grandiflorum Glacier lily ERGR Fragaria virginiana Wild strawberry FRVI Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip MELA Hedysarum sulphur esc ens Hedysarum HESU Lathyrus ochroleucus Cream-flower peavine LAOC Osmorhiza chilensis Mountain sweet-clcely OSCH Senecio triangularis Arrowleaf groundsel SETR Streptopus amplexifolius Twisted stalk STAM Taraxacum officianale Dandelion TAG F Trifolium repens White clover TRRE Umbelliferae Umbel UMBEL Veratrum viride False hellebore VEVI Vida americana American vetch VIAM Xerophyllum tenax Beargrass XETE GRASSES & SEDGES Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch wheatgrass AGSP Calamagrostis rubescens Pinegrass CARU Carex spp Sedges CAREX Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue FEID Gramlnae Grasses GRAM Melica spectabilus Showy oniongrass MESP ANIMALS Aves Bird AVES Cervus elaphus Elk CEEL Coleoptera Moth COLE Formicidae Ant FORM Odocoileus spp Deer ODOC Tetraonidae Grouse TETR Ursus americanus Black bear URAM U r sus arctos Grizzly bear URAR Vespidae Hornet VESP Appendix B Descriptive data on black bears captured during 1980-82, North Fork of the Flathead River. 92 93 Tag No. Date Sex^ Age^ Weight^ Color BIaz 396 3GMav80 M 6.5 65.9 Brown None 364 lOJulSO F 10.5 53.6 Brown None 80 1 lJulSO M 5.5 51.4 Brown None 82 14Jul80 F 16 5 46.8 Black None 86 17Jul80 M 3.5 33.6 Brown^ None 86" 1Aug80 M 3.5 34.1 Black None 455 lQSep80 M 1.5 29.5 Black None 456 23Sep80 F 2.5 30.9 Black Yes 86"* 26Sep80 M 3.5 Black None 456** 30Sep80 F 2.5 Black Yes 458 4Oct80 M 2.5 38.6 Black None 459 7Oct80 F 1.5 40.9 Black None 458* 180ct8Q M 2.5 38.6 Black None 458* 23Mar81 M 3.5 36.8 Black None 459* 24Mar81 F 2.5 36.4 Black None 396** 19May81 M 7.5 Brown None 551 18Jun81 M 7.5 73.2 Brown None DBB** 5Jul81 M 9.5 70.5 Black None 553 lU u lS I F 12.5 34.1 Brown Yes 555 13JUI81 F 4.5 29.5 Black None 364* 27Jul81 F/3c 11.5 63.6 Brown None 558 30Jul81 M 10.5 76.4 Brown Yes 458** 12Sep81 :a 3.5 Black None 564 3Jun82 M 3.5 42.3 Black Yes 566 10Jun82 M 5.5 51-4 Brown None 564* 11Jun82 M 3.5 45.5 Black Yes 472* 12Jun82 M 2.5 27.3 Brown Yes 564* 13Jun82 M 3.5 45.5 Black Yes F/c - Female w/cubs. Determined from tooth cementum layer counts. Estimated (kg) from chest girth measurement using cattle weight tape. Appeared brown due to bleaching of shedding coat. Recapture. Kill Report. Appendix C Visual observations of collared black bears. North Fork of the Flathead River, 1980-82. 94 95 Tag# Sex^ Date Time^ Activity^ & Comments 82 F 12Jul80 15 Feed/Tearing logs & stumps F/c 2Mav81 1 Feed/GRAM; 2 Cubs, Treed 31 Mav81 45 Feed/GRAM; Tearing logs. Treed 20Jun81 1 Trav/N. Fk. Trail, GNP, Treed 24Jun81 1 Feed/EQAR; Treed 2Jul81 3 Trav/Kintia Trail, FNF, Treed " 3Jul81 10 Feed/Forbs; Cubs playing " 8Jul81 2 Trav/KintIa Trail, FNF, Treed lOJulSI 10 Feed/Forbs; Cubs feeding & playing 15JUI81 60 Feed/Tearing logs. Cubs playing " 28Jul81 10 Feed/Forbs; Cubs feeding & playing " 4Aug81 45 Feed/Forbs, SHCA; Cubs playing F 15Aug81 1 Trav/Cubs not seen " 17Aug81 1 Trav/Crossing N. Fk. Rd., Cubs not seen F/c 23Aug81 10 Feed/SHCA, COST; Cubs feeding " 24Aug81 15 Feed/SHCA, COST; Cubs feeding " 5Sep81 5 Feed/COST; Cubs feeding " 26Sep81 30 Feed/ARUV,BERE; Cubs feeding & playing F 27Sep81 5 Feed/ARUV; Cubs not seen F/v 21Mar82 45 Den/Lethargic but active 364 F/c 27Mar81 30 Den/Lethargic " IBMaySI 5 Feed/Tearing logs, 3 Cubs, Treed " 15Jul81 10 Feed/Forbs, GRAM; Cubs playing F 16Jul81 5 Feed/SHCA; Cubs not seen F/c 17JUI81 1 Trav/On N. Fk. Rd. " 27Jul81 1 Trav/Crossing N. Fk. Rd., Treed " 3Aug81 10 Feed/SHCA; Tearing logs & stumps " 40ct81 3 Feed/VAGL 458 M 23Mar81 30 Den/Lethargic 459 F 24Mar81 30 Den/Lethargic but active 551 M 15Sep81 1 Trav/Along Ketchikan Cr. 553 F/c 21Mar82 30 Den/Lethargic, No. Cubs unknown ^ F/c - Female w/cubs. F/y - Female w/yearlings. ^ Length of observation (min.) before bears treed or left area. ^ Feeding, Traveling or Denning. Appendix D Physical data collected from black bear dens. North Fork of the Flathead River, 19 80 -82 . 96 97 Oen^ % Elev Entrance Chamber Tag# Sex^ Type Ht? Slope Asp. (m) Ht Wd Ht Wd Ln Nest 82 F/2c Tree 21.3 15 ESE 1238 71 65 85 71 76 No " F/2y Tree 14.8 Flat - 1189 76 23 109 71 79 " 364 F/3c Gr. - 50 N 1671 -- - - - » " F/3y Cave - 120 E 1951 33 66 180 91 304 458* M Slash — 5 E 125631 43 38 64 140 Yes 52 69 51 79 127 459 F Gr. — 10 SE 1439 28 61 38 58 76 No 553 F/c Gr. - 100 NNE 1311 69 102 76 102 137 Yes 558 M Gr. _ 60 NE 1457 25 91 62 112 117 « ^ F/c - Female w/cubs, F/y - Female w/yearlings. ^ Tree - Above ground. Cave - Rock cave, Gr. - Under blowdown. Slash - In slash/woodchip pile. ^ Height (m) above ground of tree cavities. Den had 2 entrances and 2 chambers. Appendix E Physical data collected from black bear beds. North Fork of the Flathead River, 1 9 8 0 -8 1 . 98 99 Tag No. Sex^ Slope(%) Aspect Elev(m) Wd(cm) Ln(cm) Nest^ 82 F 10 E 1268 86 107 None " " Flat - 1183 61 76 F/2c " - 1171 61 89 » " - 1171 61 79 " - 1171 58 84 "" - 1189 64 84 " - 1226 64 86 " 5 NE 1250 56 79 " 5 NE 1250 81 135 " Flat - 1250 69 102 " 5 ESE 1281 61 91 " Flat - 1232 71 102 F/2y » - 1189 114 147 Yes^ 364 F/3c 5 E 1537 102 127 None " 5 E 1537 135 160 « 15 E 1260 76 81 Flat - 1281 64 76 " - 1281 74 79 551 M 5 NE 1348 119 142 ^ F/c - Female w/cubs, F/y - Female w/yearlings. ^ Beds were primarily natural depressions w/o excavation or nest material. Nest material consisted of bark, twigs, needles & miscellaneous debris. Appendix F Black bear scat analysis results, 1980-81, North Fork of the Flathead River (n=363). 100 101 Freq. Import Species No. % Tot.Voi. Vol.% %Comp Value AMAL 27 7.44 456.0 1.26 16.89 0.09 ARUV 77 21.21 1898.0 5.32 24-65 1.11 BERE 67 18.46 740.0 2.04 1104 0.38 COST 36 9.92 1043.0 2.87 28.97 0.28 CRDO 1 0.28 1.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 LOIN 5 1.38 17.0 0.05 3.40 0.00 RHAL 45 12.40 2100.0 5.79 46.67 0.72 ROSA 36 9.92 119.0 0.33 3.31 0.03 SHCA 104 28.65 3154.0 8.69 30.33 2.49 SOSC 1 0.28 7.0 0.02 7.00 0.00 VACA 75 20.66 1298.0 3.58 17.31 0.74 VAGL 46 12.67 3348.0 9.22 72.78 1.17 VASC 2 0.55 2.0 0.01 1.00 0.00 VIED 1 0.28 2.0 0.01 2.00 0.00 RIHU 10 2.75 25.0 0.07 2.50 0.00 Tot. Shrub 247 68.04 14212.0 39-15 57.54 26.64 ANAR 6 1.65 63.0 0.17 10.50 0.00 CLLA 1 0.28 92.0 0.25 92.0 0-00 FRVI 70 19.28 988.0 2.72 14.11 0.52 HELA 41 11.29 1793.0 4.94 43.73 0.56 LAOC 170 46,83 5100.0 14.05 30.00 6.58 OSCH 4 1.10 25.0 0.07 6.25 0.00 STAM 1 0.28 1.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 TAOF 50 13.77 3043.0 8.38 60.86 1.15 TRRE 9 2.48 241.0 0.66 26.78 0.02 UMBEL 1 0.28 1.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 VIAM 78 21.49 379.0 1.04 4.86 0.22 Tot. Forb 259 71.35 11764.0 32.41 45.42 23.12 GRAM 82 22.59 967.0 2.66 11.79 0.60 CAREX 1 0.28 2.0 0.01 2.00 0.00 GRAM/CAREX 22 6.06 1469-0 4.05 66.77 0.25 Tot. Gram 105 28.93 2438-0 6.72 23.22 1.94 102 EQAR 73 20.11 1622.0 4.47 22.22 0.90 EQUI 3 0.83 94.0 0.26 31.33 0.00 LICHEN 1 0.28 1.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 Tot. EQUI 76 20.94 1717.0 4.73 22.59 0.99 CEEL 1 0.28 1.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 ODOC 20 5.51 290.0 0.80 14.50 0.04 URAM 53 14.60 86.0 0.24 1.62 0-03 UK Lg Mamm 5 1.38 6.0 0.02 1.20 0.00 UK Sm Mamm 2 0.55 97.0 0.27 48.50 0-00 Tot. Mamm 78 21.49 480.0 1.32 6.15 0.28 ANTS 227 62.53 4854.0 13.37 21.38 8.36 VESP 5 1.38 1.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 COLE 1 0.28 1.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 Tot. Insect 231 63.64 4860.0 13.39 21.04 8.52 AVES 6 1.65 8.0 0.02 1.33 0.00 TETR 1 0.28 3.0 0.01 3.00 0.00 Tot. AVES 7 1.93 11.0 0.03 1-57 0.00 Tot Garbage 3 0.83 6.0 0.02 2.00 0.00 Tot. Debris 184 50.69 812.0 2.24 4.41 1.13 A ppendix G Descriptions of phenology stages. 103 104 VEGETATIVE DEVELOPMENT Bud Burst (shrubs) green of new leaves exposed between the winter scales but not unfolding, or Leaf Emerging (forbs, grass) leaves first appearance above ground Leaf Unfolding leaf straightening out from folded position held within the bud (shrubs) or during emergence (forbs, grass). Vegetative Growth (shrubs, forbs, grass) stem, twig or leaf growth andelongation. Leaf Mature (shrubs, forbs,grass) leaves have attained full size. Leaf Color Change (shrubs, forbs, grass) leaves have changed color from that of the mature leaf to brown, yellow or red. Leaf (shrubs) leaves are shed, or Leaf Withered (forbs) leaves lose turgor and wilt or droop, or Leaf Cured (grass) leaves dried. FLORAL DEVELOPMENT Boot Stage (grass) flower stalk still in sheath. Flower in Bud (shrubs) appearance of floral bud to blooming, or Flower Stem Elongating (forbs) appearance of floral bud on elongating stem to blooming, or Head Stage (grass) flower stalk emerging from sheath. Flower Bloom (shrubs, forbs, grass) period during which petals are open and/or pistils and stamins are visible. Flower Past Bloom(shrubs, forbs, grass) petals, pistils and stamins withered and/or dropped. FRUIT/SEED DEVELOPMENT Ovary Swelling (shrubs, forbs, grass) ovaries increasing in size but remaining green in color. 105 Ovary Color Change (shrubs, forbs) color of ovary changing from green to color of ripe fruit, or Seed Doughy (grass) seed spongy to the touch Fruit/Seed Ripe (shrubs, forbs, grass) ovary mature, color of ripe fruit with no further growth occuring, or seed hard to the touch. Fruit Over-ripe/Seed Cast (shrubs, forbs, grass) mature fruit drying, shrivaling and usually darkening in color, or the seed is cast. A ppendix H Phenology data for 22 permanent plots (1980-82), North Fork of the Flathead River. 106 Wo» No- - 1 Y o o r _J52_ Cl«v. izxsm A*p«<» ~ Slope __z_ ______v e g e t a t iv e _ _ fiowe A LC t M a y J u n e July A u g . Sept. P lo t N o . Sept. May June July Aug. 107 Plot No. A lC E c r a m FRVI M a y J u n e J u ly Aug. Sept. P lo t N o. A sp e c t Slope SHCA FRVI H tS U May JuneAug. Sept. 108 Mo» No AICE GRAM SHCA FRVI HESU « t M y J u n e J o ly Aug. S«pt.Ma P lo t N o, ROAC g r a m SHCA FRVI HESU May July Aug S«pt, 109 Plot No S lo p # g r a m M a y Juno J u ly Aug. Sept P lo t N o . T A O f GRAM ÎRRE May July Aug. Sept. no Plot No f RVI TRRE M a y J u n e J u ly Aug Sept Plot No 1 E lev. 12S6 A s p e c t S lo p e GRAM Sa r a lO I N HEIA May July Aug m P lo t Nm * GRA SARA M a y n o J u ly A ug. S«pt.Ju P lo t N o . May July Sop*Aug 112 P lo f N o 1 E U v . «aSSm S lo p # SEDGE cram AR VACA IÔIN M o y Jun eJuly Aog Sept. P lo t N o . FRVI SEDGE CRAM ANAR RHA( VACA SHCA SAIIX Sept. Moy Joly Aug. 113 Plot No S. F«VI StO GE SMC* M a y J u n o J u ly Aug. P lo t N o * Y o o r _Ê2_ Elov. :256m A s p e c t 20** S lo p e SEDGE f « v i TRRE Sept. May July Aug. 114 Wot No. CABEX SEDGE FRVI EOAR TRRE M a y Ju n e J u ly Aug. Sept. P lo t N o GRA SAIIX Sept. May June July Aug 115 l*lol No. S lo p * f RVI VAC A A M A l M a y June July Aug. Sept. P lo t N o . £«CR f RVI VAC A A M A I Sept. May July Aug. 116 Plo» No. VAC* A M A l M o y J u n e Ju ly Aug. Sept. P lo t No. Y e o r _®2, p e c t S lo peAs f « v i ARUV GRA HELA May JuneJuly Aug Sept. 117 Plot No. ARUV GRA. ANAR h e i a M a y J u n e J u ly Aug. Sept. P lo t N o . lO lN cram HEIA May June July Aug. Sept. 1 1 8 Plot No 9 S lo p * VAC A J u n e JulyMay Aug. Sept. P lo t N o Y e o r _ « i. lOUI VAC A ERC8 Moy June July Aug. Sept. 119 Plot No. LOUT ARUV VAC A M a y J u n e J u ly Aug. P lo t N o 12 Y e o r S lo p e C llA C l lA C llA60 May June July Aug Sept. 120 Plo» No. ■ Il at S lo p # COST lO lN RtBES EOAR M a y July A u g S#pf, Plo# No li. Y e o r - » COST lO IN Moy July Aug. Sept. 121 Plot No !2 Yoor A s p e c t gram EOAR H f lA COST «MAI M a y Juno July A u g P lo t N o ._L£ Y e o r _£2 gram h e i a SARA lO lN COST Sept. May June July Aug 122 Plot Mo 13 S lo p * VA SC ERCR M a y June Ju ly Aug. Sept. P lo t N o . " Y e a r ■ VASC VAGI May June July Aug. Sept. 123 W o t N o Y o o r —•3. VASC M o y J u n e J o ly A ug. Sept. P lo t Y e a r _J91 A s p e c t S lo p e S € m May June July Aug. 1 2 4 M o y Ju n e J u ly A ug. Sept. P lo t N o Î1 S l o p e - l l V£V( SOSC v a g i May June July Aug. Sept. 125 Plot No 1* RIBES v e v i SOSC VAGI M a y n e J v iy A u gJu Sept. P lo t N o .- il . Y e o r _ *2 vtvi SOSC May July Aug. Sept. 126 Plot No !« A M A l GRA M a y Jun e Joly A u g. Sept. Plot No._l± Y e a r £1 May June July Sept. 127 Plot No 1*. yay Jun e J u lyMa A u g. P lo t N o Y e o r _S2_ £tev. Aspect Slope as* lO u T t=- M a y J un e J u ly A u g . Sept. 128 Plo# No I I tO lN lOUl A M A l VAGI M a yJ un o J « ly A ug S«pt. Plo# N o._!I Y o o r —S I lO IN lO U l AMAL VAGI Moy July Aug. Sept. 129 Mot No , l« S lo p * SOSC H É tA VEVI C i l * M a y J un e J oly Sept.Aug. P lo t N o . IS Y e a r &1. SOSC SARA cram HEIA C llA Moy July Aug.June Sept. 130 Plot No *1 SOSC Sa r a CUA M o y J u n e J o lyAug. Sept. Plot No 11. Y e a r _S2_ 1695m A s p e c t S lo p e ___Sf SETR CUA VEVI Sept. May June July Aug. 131 Plot No » g r a m SARA SETR C ll A VEVI HÉIA M a y J u ly Aug. Sept.June P lo t N o 12. SARA SETR C l lA May July Aug Sept. 132 Plot No. .20 l v Y a r oo Elov.Yo S lo p # A lllU M GRA. C l l A M a y JulyJune Sept.Aug. Plot No._22 SETR A lllU M g r a m CUA Moy JulyAug. Sept,June 133 Plot No. _ 20 g r a m M a yJ u n e July A ug. Sept. Plot N 0..2L Y o o r - 8 0 Elov. *8*8m Aspect S lo p e A lllU M SEDGE May June July Aug. Sept. 1 3 4 Plor No 21 SETR M a y Jwne Joly Aug. Sept. P lo t N o Hi SETR A l l l U M SEDGE Moy June July Aug. 135 S lo p * EOAR u yay Juno JulyMa A ug. Sept. Plo* No. _32- Y o o r _ *2 GRA EOAR Moy July Aug. Sop*. 136 Appendix I Descriptions of generalized habitat components. 137 138 Component Description 1 -Timbered Timbered site with >60% canopy coverage. 2 Cut Open or variously timbered site on which timber has been harvested; clear cut, salvage, seedtree, etc. 3-Timbered Shrubfield Site with 30 to 60% canopy coverage with shrubs as the dominant understory species. 4 Shrubfield Sparcely timbered (<30%) or open site dominated by shrubs. B.Sidehlll Park Sparcely timbered (<30%) or naturally open slope dominated by forbs and graminoids. 6-Snowchute Steep, linear, concave site dominated by shrubs, forbs and graminoids; maintained in early successional stages by periodic snow movement. 7 Creek Bottom Ephemeral or perennial hydrologically active site; can be open or timbered. 8.Wet Meadow Naturally open, concave moist site dominated by mesic forbs and graminoids. 9.Dry Meadow Naturally open, convex dry site dominated by xeric forbs and graminoids. 10.Talus/Scree Steep unstable slopes covered with loose rock fragments of variable size and composition. 11 Road Disturbed, open sites which have been cleared and graded and are open to vehicular traffic use. Appendix J CAMBIUM FEEDING BY A FEMALE BLACK BEAR IN NORTHWESTERN MONTANA 139 140 Bears feed on the cambium layer of trees during the spring and early summer. In most cases the bark is loosened near the base of the trunk and peeled upward exposing the inner sapwood. Damage has been reported on redwoods {Sequoia semper^irens) up to 80ft above the ground (Glover,1955). Strands of bark usually remain hanging from the top of the peeled area. The cambium is then scraped off with the incisors leaving vertical grooves on the trunk. Horizontal grooves sometimes appear at the base of the trunk and on exposed roots. Vigorous, fast growing trees are preferred (Lutz, 1951; Poelker and Hartwell, 1973). The extent of damage to the tree may be determined by the percent bole circumference that has been stripped of bark (Watanabe, 1980). Girdled trees eventually die, while others may become suseptable to disease and rot. Presumably, the growth rate of injured trees is reduced (Watanabe, 1980), however, Molnar and McMinn (1960) indicated that bear-caused scars were of such a nature that decay is limited. Cambium feeding by bears has been reported in Alaska (Lutz, 1951), British Columbia (Molnar and McMinn, 1960; Ketter, 1980), California (Glover, 1955), Japan (Furubayashi et al., 1980; Watanabe, 1980), Maine (Zeedyk, 1957), Montana (Tisch, 1961; Jonkel and Cowan, 1971), Oregon (Maser, 1967), Quebec (Ray, 1941), and Washington (Resner, 1953; Poelker and Hartwell, 1973; Barber, 1983). Erskine (1976) attributed a concentrated area of damage to white spruce trees (Picea glauca) in Quebec to adverse weather; presumably violent winds bending the trees and causing the bark to peel from the base of the trunk. However, Jorgensen and Erskine (1984) attributed the damage to lightning strikes. They believe that bear damage was done subsequent to the debarking of the trees by lightning. Bears used primarily conifers in all the studies reviewed. In areas where bear use conflicts with intensive timber management, control programs have been initiated to minimize tree damage (Poelker and Hartwell, 1973; Furubayashi et al., 1980; Watanabe, 1980). Lawrence (1979) and Poelker and Parsons (1980) discuss the use of recreational hunting as a tool to control bear damage by properly set seasons in affected areas. This is a desirable m anagem ent tool and Poelker and Parsons (1980) discuss the results of 3 years of study in Washington using special spring seasons in areas of extensive bear damage. This paper presents data gathered in June 1981 from a radio-collared female black bear (No. 364) in the North Fork of the Flathead River (NFFR) drainage of northwestern Montana. These data were collected incidental to other field work in June 1981. They should be viewed as preliminary, with limited application due to small sample sizes. 141 STUDY AREA General Description The study area includes part of the Flathead National Forest (FNF), Glacier National Park (GNP), and SE British Columbia (BO), Canada. The NFFR Valley is bordered by the Whitefish Range to the west and the Livingston Range to the east in GNP. Spruce-flr {Picea engelmannii/P, glauca-Abies lasiocarpa) forest dominates the area; extensive stands of lodgepole pine {Pinus contorta) occur due to past wildfires. A severe mountain pine beetle {Dendroctonus ponderosae) infestation in the late 1970's has killed many of the lodgepole pine in the Valley (US DA For. Serv., 1980). Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and black cottonwood (P. trichocarpa) occur on moist sites. The climate is influenced by Pacific Maritime weather. Precipitation averages 24.3in/yr at Polebridge, Montana, 22 miles south of the International Border (1962-1982 data compiled from Climatological Data Annual Summaries, Montana. NCAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N. Carolina). Snow can occur in any month of the year but usually persists from November through April In the Valley. Floodplain elevation at the Border is 3982ft. Stand description Tree damage was located in the FNF approximately 2 miles west of the NFFR. The stand was approximately 4500 to 4800ft in elevation on a northeast-facing slope. A random sample shows that approximately 40% of the trees in the stand were killed by mountain pine beetle. Eighty four percent of the lodgepole pine in this sample were beetle killed (Table J-1). Table J-1 shows percent stand composition by species and percent beetle killed lodgepole pine for the two samples taken. Figure J-1 shows stand composition and beetle kill by DBH class. Species composition of live trees by DBH class are presented in Figure J-3. The stand was <70 years old due to the 1910 wildfire. The extensive beetle kill has opened up the canopy in much of the stand, stimulating understory shrub and forb growth. 142 METHODS Bear No.364 was radio-tracked in the area during June 1981. On two occasions she was heard ripping the bark off of trees but no observations of actual feeding behavior were obtained. She was observed with 3 cubs during the 1981 field season. No other bears were observed in the area during the feeding period. In order to avoid disturbance to the family group, stand data were collected during periods when they were not in the immediate area. Two samples were taken in the stand (BEARFED and RANDOM). The 8EARFED sample included 49 trees that were located with fresh bear feeding activity. The species, DBH, height of stripped bark and percent circumference of bole stripped were recorded for each individual tree. The distance to its nearest neighbor that had been fed on in 1981 was also recorded. Using the bear damaged tree as the center point, the distance to its nearest neighbor, >4in DBH, in each major quadrant (NE,SE,etc.) was measured (Point-Centered Quarter Method) (Barbour et al., 1980). The species, DBH and bear use were recorded for the 4 trees. The cause of death was determined for dead trees; trees used by bearsbefore 1981 were recorded as such. Nineteen trees were duplicated in the sample. Twenty nine trees were measured in the RANDOM sample. I ran a transect through the stand in the direction indicated by a pencil that was tossed into the air and let hit the ground (Hays et al., 1981). At 50ft intervals, the closest tree to the observer was measured and used asthe center point. Four trees were measured from the center point and the data were recorded as in the BEARFED sample. Trees <4in DBH were excluded from the sample because none were found to be used by bears, although Ketter (1980) did find some trees of this size that were used by bears north of the study area. RESULTS In June 1981 a radio collared female black bear (No 364) was found to be feeding on the cambium of trees in the NFFR study area. On 2 occasions she could be heard ripping the bark off trees, but no observations of feeding behavior were made. Data were collected on 49 trees that she used and on 177 others. A random sample was also obtained. A total of 245 trees were measured in the BEARFED sample, 19 of which were duplicates. Fourty nine trees were fed on by black bear No.364 in 1981. However, no scats containing cambium were found in or adjacent to the stand, therefore the scat analysis data show no indication of cambium use (Appendix I). 143 The BEARFED sample is composed primarily of subalpine fir, engelmann/white spruce and lodgepole pine. However, 71.2% of the pine (23.0% of the stand) in the sample was killed by pine beetle (Table J-1). The majority of dead pine (92.3%) were in the 8-16in DBH classes (Fig. J-1). Seven trees were fed on before 1981 and were later killed by beetles. These trees were considered alive for the analysis. Western larch {Larix occidentalis) received the highest percentage of feeding activity (81.8%) of the live trees available to bears in the sample, followed by pine (53.6%), spruce (46.2%) and fir (22.1%). Bears killed 72.7% of the larch and 10.8% of the spruce that were attacked. The spruce were killed by bear No.364 in 1981, whereas most of the larch were killed before 1981 and were not available in 1981 (Table J-1). Bears fed on 38.1% of the live trees in the BEARFED sample and killed 10.5%. Bear No.364 killed 6.4% of the sample in 1981 (Table J-1). A total of 44.2% of the live trees in the sample were in the 8-12in DBH class; bears used 36.3% and killed 20.0% of the trees in this class (Fig. J-2). Use of tree species by DBH class is presented in Fig. J-3. The distance from a damaged tree to the next nearest damaged tree was measured for trees used in 1981. Twenty nine percent of the sample fell in the 10-20ft category, while 25% were > 50ft (Figure J-4). The height of debarking above ground level was measured on trees used in 1981 (Figure J-5). Fourty percent of the sample was stripped 50-70in (mean=57) above the ground. The maximum height of stripped bark was 103in. The percent bole circumference debarked in 1981 is presented in Figure J-6. Twenty five percent of the sample fell into the 90-100% group; only 1 tree in this category was not girdled. The 20-30% group contained 18% of the sample, while the remaining groups had <10% each. The mean bole circumference stripped, excluding girdled trees, was 47%. The RANDOM sample contains 145 trees, and is considered more representative of the entire stand than the BEARFED sample in spite of its smaller sample size. The stand is dominated by pine(51.7%); however, 84.0% of the pine, or 43.4% of the total stand, were beetle killed (Table J-1). Most of the beetle killed pine (87.3%) were in the 8-16in DBH classes (Fig. J-1). One tree was fed on by bears and then beetle killed. Spruce made up 45.1% of the live trees in the stand. Fir and live pine were less common in the stand making up 18.3% and 15.7% of the total trees respectively (Table J-1). Table j- i Stand composition, beetle k ill and bear use of a timber stand, as determined by two data samples, BEARFED SAMPLE % Beetle % Comp. % Live trees % Live trees % Live trees Subalpine f i r 30.1 (68) - - 37.6 (68) 22.1 (15) 4.4 (3) 4.4 (3) Engelmann/Whlte spruce 28.8 [65) 35.9 (65)_ 46.2 (30) 10.8 (7) 10.8 (7) 15 - Lodgepole pine 32.3 73] 71.2 (52) 15.5 (28 r 53.6 3.6 (1) Western Larch 4.9 11 - 6.1 In 81.8 ( 9) 72.7 (8) 9.1 (1) Quaking Aspen 3.9 9 4.9 ( 9) Douglas f i r - - - - - Black cottonwood Stand Totals 100.0 (226) (52) 80.1 (181)9 3Ô.1 (69) 10.5 (19) 6.4 (11) - ' RANDOM SAMPLE . • Subalpine f i r 10.3 15] 18.3 (15| Engelmann/Whlte 25.5 Î37! - • 45.1 |37 2.7 ( 1) 2.7 ( 1) - - spruce Lodgepole pine 51.7 (75) 84.0 15.7 (13] 15.4 ( 2) 7.7 ( 1) -- Western Larch 4.8 7] 14.3 1 1) 7.4 6 ------Quaking Aspen 2.8 4 - 4.9 ( 4^ ------■ Douglas f i r 2.1 ( 3) - - 3.7 ( 3) 33.3 ( 1) 33.3 ( 1) - - - Black cottonwood 2.8 4) -- 4.9 A -• •*- - - Stand Totals 100.0 145) 43.4 (63) 56.6 Î82 * 4.9 ( 4) 3.7 ■ 3 7 ~ (BEARFED) and 1 (RANDOM) Pico fed on and later killed by pine beetle. Considered alive. Western Larch dead from unknown causes. 4:^ 145 BEARFED RANDOM 4 — 8 8 —12 12 — 16 16—20 20—24 24—28 Figure J - i: Stand composition and beetle kill (%) of PICO by DBH classes. BEARFED TJ C O tft Q) 4) 9 > RANDOM C o K f k. 9 a. 4 — 8 8 —12 12 — 16 16—20 20—24 24—28 Figure J-2: Trees fed on and killed (%) by bears by DBH classes 146 BE ARFEO c « w 4) a RANDOM Laoc lOO 90 50 C O CL lO O RANDOM 50 Psme o Pot r 4 S 8-12 DBH Figure J-3: Bear use (%) of individual tree species by DBH classes. 147 so. 4 0 . BEARFED 30 20. lO 6 0 . (L SO. RANDOM 4 0 3 0 20. lO A bl a 4 *8 8 *12 12*16 16*20 20*24 DBH RANDOM Pien o 4 *8 8 12 12*16 16.20 20*24 DBH RANDOM 4 * 8 8*12 12*16 16*20 20*24 DBH Figure J-3. (Continued) 148 Only 4 trees in the sample were used by bears. None were used in 1981. Two pine, 1 spruce and 1 Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) were used; 3 were girdled, the fourth was beetle killed. A total of 4.9% of the live trees in the stand was used and 3.7% was killed by bears (Table J-1). There were no trees >16in DBH in the sample and the bear-killed trees were evenly distributed in the 3 DBH classes represented (Fig. J-2). DISCUSSION The mountain pine beetle has had a significant influence on stand composition. The RANDOM sample is dominated by pine, but spruce is the dominant live tree. Four trees used by bears showed up in the sample with none of those used in 1981 being represented. Bear-killed trees made up only 3.7% of the total stand. The BEARFED sample was determined by trees used by bear No.364 in 1981. The sample was dominated equally by pine, spruce and fir, but the dominant live trees were spruce and fir. Of the more common live trees in the stand, pine had the highest use, followed by spruce and fir. Spruce was killed most often and all the kill occurred in 1981. Western larch was not a common species in the stand but bear use was highest (81.8%) on this species. In June 1980 a collared male black bear (No.396) was located in an old clearcut at Moose Creek. Subsequent examination of the area revealed fresh cambium use on larch and pine in the 4-8in DBH class. Two of 4 pine and 4 of 7 larch were girdled. Another location on 21 June 1980 at RedMeadow Creek revealed the use of spruce in the 8 -1 2in DBH class. Aspen and cottonwood were the only common species not used by bears in the study area, although both species have been reported as being used by bears (Lutz, 1951; Poelker and Hartwell, 1973). Based on field observations it appeared that bear No.364 used small pockets of trees, separated by relatively large areas of unused timber. Slightly mesic microsites contained predominantly spruce and fir, species not affected by pine beetle. Large areas of predominantly dead pine were virtually unused except for an occasional larch or live pine. This pattern is illustrated in Fig. J-4. The measured distance between damaged trees shows the highest percent in the 10-20ft range (29%) followed by 25% in the >50ft range, in this stand, the mountain pine beetle was the primary factor determining the availability of trees and subsequently bear use patterns. Bears have been reported to strip the bark off trees as high as 30-80ft above 149 40 Figure J-4: Distance between trees that were fed on by bears in 1981 Figure J-5: Height of peeled bark on trees fed on in 1981 killed » O - lO - 20 — 30 — 40 - SO — 60 — 70 - 80 9 0 - 1 0 0 Percent of Circumference Stripped 100 Figure J-6: Percent circumference of stripped bark on trees fed on in 1981 150 the ground (Fritz, 1951; Levin, 1954; Glover, 1955; Tisch, 1961; Maser,1967; Poelker and Hartwell, 1973). The maximum height of stripped bark found in this study was 103in (Figure J-5); the mean height was 57in above the ground. It appears that the height to which the bark is stripped is determined primarily by the ability of the bark to remain intact as it is being peeled upward by the bear. In many cases, much of the higher portions of the stripped areas showed no signs of feeding; they were out of her reach unless she climbed the tree. Most trees, especially spruce and fir, had limbs down to the ground, but no evidence was found that bears climbed to use the cambium. Watanabe (1980) reported that bark stripping of >50% of the bole circumference caused signs of distress to appear on some trees. Stripping of >60% of the bole caused a definite lack of vigor that may predispose the trees to disease and decay. Girdled trees eventually die but the effects of partial stripping is unknown at present. Poelker and Hartwell (1973) studied fungi in bear damaged trees but could not make definite conclusions as to their effects on tree growth. Childs and Worthington (1955) believe that the damage inflicted by bears is slight (from Maser, 1967), In this study, 57% of the trees used in 1981 had >50% of the bole debarked; 23% were girdled (Figure J-6). No trees < 4 in DBH were found to be used by bears in this study, although others have reported their use (Poelker and Hartwell, 1973, Bumgarner, et al., 1979; Ketter, 1980; Barber, 1983). Although use has been reported on trees from pole size to 30in DBH (Fritz, 1951), most studies indicate that use was concentrated in the intermediate DBH classes (Lutz, 1951; Levin, 1954; Glover, 1955; Tisch, 1961; Poelker and Hartwell, 1973; Furubayushi, et al., 1980; Watanabe, 1980). Trees in the 8-12in DBH class dominate the stand in this study and were the most heavily used diameter class (Fig. J-1). Preference for certain diameter classes is probably related to stand age and availability. In Alaska, Lutz (1951) reported that black bears preferred white spruce (Picea glauca) of rapid growth, and relatively smooth, thin bark. Poelker and Hartwell (1973) reported that faster growing, more vigorous trees were preferred. In Quebec, Ray (1941) reported that >90% of a balsam fir (Abies balsamea) stand was lost to bear damage after hardwoods were girdled, effectively opening the canopy (from Lutz, 1951). In my study area, the extensive beetle kill has opened the canopy, stimulating growth in the surviving pines and other species not suseptable to beetles. The rapid growth of these trees may act as an attractant to bears that have learned to use cambium as a food source, although how bears might locate such a site is unclear. Radwan (1969) studied the chemical composition of cambium in 4 species of trees used by bears in Washington. He found that the total sugars were highest and ash content was lowest in Douglas fir, the species preferred by bears. The 1 5 1 chemical composition of cambium did not vary significantly within species between an area of high bear use and one of very little use, therefore he concluded that chemical coposition alone could not explain cambium feeding. Analyses done by Poelker and Hartwell (1973) show that the sugar content of Douglas fir cambium is higher than that of red huckleberry fruit {Vaccinium parvifolium). The high sugar content of cambium in some tree species may be an attractant to bears (Bacon and Burghardt, 1983). Acuce olfactory senses could aid in locating preferred trees (Bacon and Burghardt, 1976). Not all bears use cambium as a food source. In my study only 2 radio collared bears showed any evidence of cambium feeding. Lutz (1951) believed that it is a trait that is aquired by watching other animals, and Fritz (1951) suggested that it is learned by cubs from their mother. My observations of bear No.364 concur with Fritz (1951). In 1981 she was accompanied by 3 cubs. Many of the trees on which she fed had small vertical and horizontal grooves in the exposed sapwood at the base of the trunk and on exposed roots. These marks were distinctly different from those made by the adult and appear to be attempts by the cubs to mimic their mother while learning to use a new food source. The food habits of bear No.364 and her cubs, as determined by scat analysis, show remarkable similarities in the major food items consumed (Fig. 2-10, Chapter 2), indicating that food preference may be learned largely through mimicry. Lauckhart (1955) theorized that bears use trees because of low food availability in spring and early summer in the Northwest. Furubayashi, et al. (1980) attributes the increase of bear damage to Man-made forests in Japan to the increase in clearcutting of natural forests and the resulting decrease in the bears natural food supply. Scheffer (1952) suggested that trees were a major seasonal food source of bears in the Puget Sound area of Washington. In this study, cambium was found to be a minor food item used by a few bears. The activity was limited to June in 1980 and 1981. Bears that have learned to feed on cambium will probably use it whether alternate foods are available or not. Although local areas may receive heavy cambium use, it is apparent that bear damage to conifers in Montana is of little economic concern. Ketter (1980) estimated the losses to bears at between $0.04 and $0.14/acre in BC just north of my study area. In local areas where more extensive damage occurs, the problem may becom e serious and should be studied further. 152 LITERATURE CITED Bacon, E.S. and G.M. Burghardt. 1976. Ingestive behaviors of the American black bear. pp. 13-25. In. M.R. Pelton, J.W. Lentfer and G.E. Folk, (eds ) Bears-their biology and management. lUCN New Ser. No. 40. 467pp. Bacon, E.S. and G.M. Burghardt. 1983. Food preference testing of captive black bears, pp. 102-105. [n. E.C. Meslow. (ed.) Bears-their biology and management. Fifth Inter. Conf. Bear Biol, and Manage. 327pp. Barber, K.R. 1983 Use of clearcut habitats by black bears in the Pacific Northwest. Appendix C. MSc. Thesis, Utah St. Univ., Logan. 169pp. Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk and W.D. Pitts. 1980. Terrestrial plant ecology. Benjamin/Cummins Publishing Co., Inc. Menlo Park, Calif. 604pp. Bumgarner, T., R. Mace and C.J. Jonkel. 1979. Cambium use by grizzly bears. Border Grizzly Project, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. Spec. Rep. 7pp. Childs, T.W. and N.P. Worthington. 1955. Bear damage to young Douglas Fir. USDA. Pacific Northwest For. and Range Exp Sta. 4pp. Erskine, A.J. 1976. Peculiar damage to mature spruce trees Can. Field-Nat. 90(2):191-193. Fritz, E. 1951. Bear and squirrel damage to young redwood. J. For. 49{9):651-652. Furubayashi, K„ K. Hirai, K. Ikeda and T. Mizuguchi. 1980. Relationships between occurrence of bear damages and clearcutting in Central Honshu, Japan, pp.81-84. In, C.J.Martinka and K.L.MacArthur (Eds.) Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Bio. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No.3. 375pp. Glover, F A. 1955. Black bear damage to redwood reproduction. J. Wildl. Manage. 19(4):437-443. Hays, R.L., C. Summers and W. Seitz. 1981. Estimating wildlife habitat variables. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog. FW S/OBS-81/47. 111 pp. Jonkel, C.J. and I.McT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the Spruce-Fir forest. Wildl. Monog. No. 27. 57pp. Jorgensen, Ê. and A.J. Erskine. 1984. More on "Peculiar damage to mature spruce trees". Can. Field-Nat. 98(3):370-371. Ketter, D. 1980. Cambium feeding on forest trees by bears in the Upper Flathead 153 River Drainage of Southeastern British Columbia. Unpubl. Senior Thesis. Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver. 65pp. Lauckhart, J.B. 1955. The effect of logging old-grow th timber on bear. Proc. Soc. Amer, For. 1955:128-130. Lawrence, W. (Chairman). 1979. Pacific Working Group, pp 196-217. [n. D.Burk (ed ). The black bear in modern North America. Proc. of the Workshop on the Managem ent and Biol, of N. Amer. Black Bear, Kalispell, Montana. Feb.17-19,1977. 299pp. Levin, O R. 1954. The South Olympic Tree Farm. J. For. 52(4):243-249. Lutz, H.J. 1951. Damage to trees by black bears in Alaska. J. For. 49(7):522-523. Maser, C. 1967. Black bear damage to douglas fir in Oregon. Murrelet. 48(2):34-38. Molnar, A C and R.G. McMinn. 1960. The origin of basal scars in the British Columbia interior white pine type. For. Chron. 36(1) 50-60. Poelker, R.J. and H.D. Hartwell. 1973. Black bear of Washington. Wash. St. Game Dept., Biol. Bull. No. 14. 180pp. Poelker, R.J. and L.D. Parsons. 1980. Black bear hunting to reduce forest damage, pp.191-193. In. C.J.Martinka and K L.MacArthur. (eds.) Bears-their biology and management. Bear Bio. Assoc. Conf Ser. No. 3. 375pp. Radwan, M.A. 1969. Chemical composition of the sapwood of 4 tree species in relation to feeding by the Black Bear. For. Sci. 15(1) 11 -16. Ray, R.G. 1941. Site-types and rate of growth. Lake Edwards, Champlain County, P.Q., 1915 to 1936. Can. Dept. Mines and Resources, Lands, Parks and For. Branch, Dominion For. Serv., Silvicultural Res. Note 65. Resner, O.L. 1953. Damage to conifers by bear. Proc. West. Assoc. St. Game and Fish Comm. 33:109-111. Scheffer, T.H. 1952. Spring incidence of damage to forest trees by certain animals. Murrelet. 33(3):38-41. Tisch, E.L 1961. Seasonal food habits of the black bear in the Whitefish Range of Northwestern Montana. MSc. Thesis. Montana St. Univ., Missoula. 108pp. Watanabe, H. 1980. Damage to conifers by the Japanese black bear. pp. 67-70. In. C.J.Martinka and K.L.MacArthur. (eds.) Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 3. 375pp. 154 USDA Forest Service. 1980. The mountain pine beetle. Final environmental assessment report. Flathead Nat. For. 79pp. Zeedyk, W.D. 1957. Why do bears girdle balsam fir in Maine? J. For. 55( 10);731-732. Appendix K BIBLIOGRAPHY: BEAR USE OF CAMBIUM 155 156 The citations included in this bibliography were obtained primarily from Tracy et al. (1982) and from the Literature Cited section of those papers and reports that were available to the author. The majority of the citations deal primarily with cambium feeding; a few only mention it briefly. Most of the unpublished reports and some of the published papers were not available for review, however, they were included in order to make the list as comprehensive as possible. Some of the reports that were available were not annotated. I would like to thank M. Smith for compiling and annotating the initial list of citations. 1. Anderson,C.F. 1965. Deterioration due to bear-damage. Washington Dept. Game, Olympia. Unpubl Rep. 2. Anderson,G. 1967. Black bear-forest relationships. Washington Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Rep., Pro). W -0 7 1 -R -0 4 , Job 1. Washington Dept. Game, Olympia. Unpubl. Rep. 3. Anon. 1951. Bear facts committee finds stripping bad. J. For. 49(5) 382. Discusses the formation of a Bear Facts Committee to report on the bear damage problem in Washington. 4. Anon 1954. Bear damage to young-growth timber in North Coast Area of California, Division of Forestry, pp. 51-58. In; L.W.Lowrey (Chairman). Bear depredation, report of Subcommittee on Public Lands, Grazing and Forest Practices of Assembly Interim Committee on Agriculture, House Resolution No.193, 1953. Assembly of the State of California. Assembly interim Reports 1953-1955. Vol.17, No.1. 5. Anon. 1954. Bear depredations in young timber stands Humboldt County, Hammond Lumber Company Report, pp. 22-26. In: L.W.Lowrey (Chairman). Bear depredation, report of Subcommittee on Public Lands, Grazing and Forest Practices of Assembly Interim Committee on Agriculture, House Resolution No. 193, 1953. Assembly of the State of California. Assembly Interim Reports 1953-1955. Vol. 17, No 1. 6. Anon. 1959. The case of the vanishing bark. Sports Illustrated 11(22):W5-W8. A review of the problems with bears killing young trees at farms in Washington and Oregon. Presents a researcher's view and a hunters view of the problem and how to solve it. 7. Barber,K.R. 1983. Use of clearcut habitats by black bears in the Pacific Northwest. Appendix C. MSc. Thesis, Utah St. Univ., Logan. 169pp. 157 Discusses the use of conifers by black bears on Long Island, Washington. 8. Black,H.C., E.J.Dimock, W.E.Dodge and W.H.Lawrence. 1969. Survey of animal damage on forest plantations in Oregon and Washington. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Nat. Resource Conf. 34:388-409. 9. Boyer,K.B. 1976. Food Habits of black bears {Ursus americanus) in the Banning Canyon Area of San Bernardino National Forest. M.S.Thesis. California St. Polytechnic Univ., Pomona. 63pp. 10.Buckland,D.C. 1946. Investigations on the relation of basel scar injury to the management of Western White Pine at Revelstoke, B.C. Canada. Dept. Agri. Bot. and Plant Path. Div., Victoria. 11.Bumgarner,T., R.Mace and C.J.Jonkel. 1979. Cambium use by grizzly bears. Border Grizzly Project, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. Spec. Rep. 7pp. (Mimeo). Presents data from the S. Fk. Flathead River drainage on grizzly bear use of cambium. 97.1% of the trees used were 4 to 12 inch DBH. Lodgepole pine and subalpine fir were used most often, however the small sample size precludes determination of a preference. 12.Childs,T.W. and N.P.Worthington. 1955. Bear damage to young Douglas Fir. USDA. Pacific Northwest For. and Range Exp. Sta. 4pp. 13.Clingman,B 1971. Bears practice reverse high yield forestry-endanger douglas fir on 10,000 acres. Weyerhaeuser World, Aug.:2-3 14.Crews,A.K. 1954. Bear control project report Washington Dept. Game, Olympia. Unpubl. Rep. 15.Crouch,G.L. 1969. Animal damage to conifers on National Forests in the Pacific Northwest Region. USDA For, Serv. Bull. PNW -28 13pp. 16.Erskine,A.J. 1976. Peculiar damage to mature spruce trees. Can. Field-Nat. 90(2):191-193. Noted bark stripped from black spruce trees >25cm DBH in Quebec. Mistakenly attributed the damage to bending of the trunk by a violent wind storm. 17.Fritz,E. 1951. Bear and squirrel damage to young redwood. J. For. 49(9):651-652. Describes the similarities of redwood damage by bears to that reported in douglas fir. Finds that bears totally strip the bark from young trees ranging from pole size 158 to 30" DBH and up to 25 years old. Some trees are stripped from the ground to as high as 50', where the tree becomes to small to support a bears weight. It goes on to describe the extent of the damage in this area. IB.Fritz.E. 1954. "Bear" damage to young redwood *rees. pp.28-31. In: LW. Lowrey (Chairman). Bear depredation, report of Subcommittee on Public Lands, Grazing and Forest Practices of Assembly Interim Committee on Agri. House Resolution No.193, 1953. Assembly of the State of California. Assembly Interim Reports 1953-1955. Vol.17, No.l. 19.Furubayashi,K., K.Hirai, K.Ikeda and T.Mizuguchi. 1980. Relationships between occurrence of bear damages and clearcutting in Central Honshu, Japan, pp.81-84. In: C.J.Martinka and K.L.MacArthur (Eds.) Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Bio. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No.3. 375pp. Bear damage to coniferous trees was documented in a recently clearcut stand and one 20 years old. Characteristics of bear damaged trees recorded include species, d.b.h., frequency, and distribution. The results were then compared to areas of natural forests showing that man-made forests are much more suceptable to bear depredation. 20.Furubayashi,K., N.Maruyama and S.Miura. 1975. Destruction of nature in Ooshika Village, the Mountains of South Alps - in view of forest damage by beasts. Jap. J. Mmichurin Biol. 11(1):2-15. (In Japanese). 21.Glover,F.A. 1955. Black bear damage to redwood reproduction. J. Wildl. Manage. 19(4):437-443- A comprehensive study of the problem with analysis of the following characteristics from 6 separate study areas. Year damage incured (1942- 1951), age classes of damaged trees, d.b.h., percentage of circumferal bark area damaged, frequency of damage related to years, and damage intensity within each area. 22.Glover,F.A. and E.E.Hansen. 1954. Bear damage to redwood reproduction. Humboldt St. Coll. Rep., Res. Proj. Index No. 1.36123, Interim Rep. A. pp.9-20. In: L.W.Lowrey (Chairman). Bear depredation, report of Subcommittee on Public Lands, Grazing and Forest Practices of Assembly Interim Committee on Agriculture, House Resolution No.193, 1953. Assembly of the State of California. Assembly Interim Reports 1953-1955. Vol.17, No.1. 23.Haga,R. 1974. On attempts at prevention of damage done by the Yezo-Brown bear by the use of bear-frightening contrivance. Obihiro Zootech. Univ., Res. Bull. 8:757-762. (In Japanese). 159 24.Hamilton,R.J. 1978. Ecology of the black bear in Southeastern North Carolina. M.S.Thesis. Univ. of Georgia, Athens. 214pp. 25-Hartwell,H.D. 1973. A survey of tree debarking by black bear in Capitol Forest. Wash. Dept. Nat. Resources, DNR Note No. 7. 7pp. 26.lmano,T., I.Yamashita and H.Suzuki. 1969. Bear damage in Cryptomeria stands. For. Pests. 18{10):20-22. (In Japanese). 27.Jonkel,C.J. and I.McT.Cowan. 1971 The black bear in the Spruce-Fir forest. Wildl. Monog. No. 27. 57pp. The killing of large numbers of lodgepole pine trees by bears on a moose winter range in NW Montana was credited with keeping the area in an early serai stage of development thus maintaining critical moose habitat. 28.Ketter,D. 1980. Cambium feeding on forest trees by bears in the Upper Flathead River Drainage of Southeastern British Columbia. Unpubl. Senior Thesis. Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver. 65pp. A survey which documents the extent of the problem in this study area. Relates frequency of occurrence with specific site characteristics. An analysis of the economic impacts is based on two approximations of actual volume loss. 29.Kobayashi,T. and M.Morisawa. 1952. Bear damage in Keta National Forest. Gijutsu Kenkyu 3:190-193. (In Japanese). 30.Landers,J.L, R.J.Hamilton, AS.Johnson, and R.L.Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of black bears in Southeastern North Carolina. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(1):143-153. Table 1 shows that cambium was found In a small number of scats in April, May, July and August in the North Carolina study area. 31.Lauckhart,J.B. 1955. The effect of logging old-growth timber on bear. Proc. Soc. Amer. For. 1955:128- 130. Reviews the history of tree damage and bear control, primarily in Washington, Oregon and northern California. Theorizes that bears feed on trees In spring and early summer due to low food availability. Without cambium the author believes that many bears would starve during this period. 3 2 .Lawrence,W. (Chairman). 1979. Pacific Working Group, pp.196-217. In: D.Burk (ed ). The black bear in modern North America. Proc of the Workshop on the 160 M anagem ent and Biol, of N. Amer. Black Bear, Kalispell, Montana. Feb.17-19.1977. 299pp. Discusses bear damage to trees and methods of documenting the extent of the problem. Bear control is discussed with the emphasis on properly set hunting seasons in affected areas as the most desirable control method. Recommends continual monitoring of harvest and damage reduction. Seasons should be set annually as needed to adjust harvest. 33.Levin,O.R. 1954. The South Olympic Tree Farm. J. For. 52(4);243-249. Bear damage occured primarily on douglas-fir in the 10-18 inch DBH classes. Most damage occured from 8 to 30 feet above ground. Damage averaged 51% on douglas-fir; less than 1% on other conifers. Subsequent bear control program is discussed. 34.Lowrey,L.W. (Chairman), 1954. Bear depredation, report of Subcommittee on Public Lands, Grazing and Forest Practices of Assembly Interim Committee on Agriculture, House Resolution No. 193, 1953. Assembly of the State of Califoria. Assembly Interim Reports 1953-155. Vol.17, No.1. 35.Lucci,F. 1960. Bear damage at the Crov/n-Zellerbach Tree Farm at Neah Bay. Proc of the North Olympic Peninsula Bear Control Unit Meeting. Unpubl. Rep. in files of Washington For. Protection Assoc., Seattle. 36.Lutz,H.J. 1951. Damage to trees by black bears in Alaska. J. For. 49(7):522-523. White spruce and occasionally aspen are the primary species damaged by black bears on the Kenai Peninsula. Spruce in the 10-18 inch DBH class, often 10-20/acre, are most often chosen. A preference is shown for spruce of rapid growth and relatively smooth, thin bark. 37.Maser,C. 1967. Black bear damage to douglas fir in Oregon. Murrelet. 48(2):34-38. Review of tree damage in Oregon, including the identification, mechanics, and effects of bear damage. Douglas-fir was the preferred species. Damage has been noted to a height of 50-60 feet above ground. Lose to bears In a sample plot was 3%; killed and fed on trees accounted for 9% of the total stand. 3 8 .Merrill,A.H. 1953. Bears hamper tree growing in California. J. For. 51(12X928-929. 161 The article lists some statistics of bear damage to Hammond Lumber Company's young timber. Among them are an estimate of 400 Million board feet lost to bear damage over 40 years. This is based on the loss of 20-40 Douglas Firs a day for 75-100 days each spring and summer. There are no citations and no data presented to support these conclusions. 39-Minor,W.C. 1946. Bear trees. Amer. Forests. 52(6) 316-317. A popular styled account of the author's observations of marks left in aspen trees of Colorado by bears. It is a non-scientific article and has no data or citations. 40.Molnar,A.C. and R.G.McMinn. 1960. The origin of basal scars in the British Columbia Interior white pine type. For. Chron. 36(1):50-60. Compares 4 major types of scarring and found bears to cause the most number of scars. They present a means for differentiating between the different types of damage. There was a wide variance in frequency of occurrence from 47% of some stands to 0% in others. Bear caused scars are of such nature that decay is limited but this may be offset by the large size of such scars. 41.Moore,A.W. 1940. Wild animal damage to seed and seedlings on cut-over douglas fir lands of Oregon and Washington. USDA Tech. Bull. 706. 42.Newman,C.C. 1954. Special report on bear. USDI, National Park Service, Olympic National Park. Unpubl. 8pp. 43.Parsons,L.D. and R.J.Poelker. 1975. A comparison of two methods of using sport hunting as an alternative to snaring for the control of bear damage to commercial timber. Washington Dept. Game, Olympia. 51pp. 44.Pierson,D.J. 1965. Black bear-forest relationships. Job completion report. Research Proj. Segment. Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Project: W -0 7 1 -R -0 3 , Job 01. Washington Dept. Game, Olympia. 42pp. Unpubl Data contained in this report is presented in Poelker and Hartwell, (1973). 45.Poelker,R.J. and H.D.Hartwell. 1973. Black bear of Washington. Wash. St. Game Dept., Biol. Bull. No. 14. 180pp. Reports on the findings of a study begun in 1963 to investigate the problem of bear damage to coniferous forests in Washington. Douglas-fir was the preferred species. Bark stripping may extend 40 to 50 feet above the ground in some instances. The preferred average DBH for various areas was 9 to 15.6 inches. 162 Faster growing, more vigorous trees were damaged more frequently than others. Sapwood was found higher in sugar content than red huckleberry and salal. 46.Poelker,R.J. and L.D.Parsons. 1980. Black bear hunting to reduce forest damage, pp.191-193. In: C.J.Martinka and K.L.MacArthur. (eds.) Bears- their biology and management. Bear Bio. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 3. 375pp. Discusses the use of limited spring bear hunting seasons to reduce bear damage to conifers in Washington State. 47.Priaulx,A.W. 1960. Bears vs. trees. Southern Lumberman. 201(2513):92-94. A story about BUI Hulet, a bear hunter who is employed by various lumber companies to control bear numbers. It is quite slanted, with no scientific data presented. If you want to know how many bears Mr. Hulet has killed then this is the article for you, otherwise there isn't much to be gained. 4B.Radwan,M.A. 1969. Chemical composition of the sapwood of X tree species in relation to feeding by the Black Bear. For. Sci. 15(1):11-16. Sapwood samples were taken from two areas in Washington, a bear damaged and a control undamaged area. There were differences in chemical composition between species in each area but only minor differences within species between areas. Sugar content and ash were the only components related to bear preference. Douglas-fir had the highest sugar content and the lowest ash, followed by western hemlock, western redcedar and red alder. Chemical composition was not sufficient to explain bear use. 49.Ray,R.G. 1941. Site-types and rate of growth. Lake Edwards, Champlain County, P.Q., 1915 to 1936. Can. Dept. Mines and Resources, Lands, Parks and For. Branch, Dominion For. Serv., Silvicultural Res. Note 65. Bears use primarily balsam fir in Quebec. The best, fastest growing trees are preferred. In some stands in which the canopy has been opened by girdling hardwoods, loss to bears was over 90% of the balsam fir. In adjacent stands in which growth had not been stimulated, only slight damage was found, (from Lutz, 1951) 5 0 .Resner,O.L- 1953. Damage to conifers by bear. Proc. West. Assoc. St. Game and Fish Comm. 33:109-111. This article summarizes the Game Dept.'s study of the bear problems in the Olympic Peninsula and justifies the classification of bears as predators (I.e. no bag 163 limits or seasons). Among the data analyzed are; percent of trees damaged, stomach contents from harvested bears, population estimates, and affected tree species. 51.Scheffer,T.H. 1952. Spring incidence of damage to forest trees by certain animals. Murrelet. 33(3) 38-41. This study was a cooperative investigation on depredation of tree farms in the Puget Sound area by bear, mountain beaver, and gray squirrels. Bears prove to be the major depredator on second growth fir and hemlock. Trees are indicated as being a major, seasonal food source for the bears. 52-Schreuder,G.F. 1976. Economic decision making in black bear damage control. Washington For. Protection Assoc., Seattle. 43pp. 53.Stehsel,D.L. 1965. Hunting the California Black Bear. The Pasadena Lithographer, Inc., Pasadena. 194pp. 54.Taylor,R.A. 1964. Columbian ground squirrel and cambium found in grizzly bear stomachs taken in fall. J. Mamm. 45(3):476-477. The stomach of a yearling grizzly bear killed in September in the Mission Mountains of western Montana was found to contain cambium. 55.Teramoto,N. and H.Omori. 1952. Bear damage in Senzu National Forest. Gijutsu Kenkyu. 3:183-189. (In Japanese). 56.Tisch,E.L. 1961. Seasonal food habits of the black bear in the Whitefish Range of Northwestern Montana. M.S.Thesis. Montana St. Univ., Missoula. 108pp. One aspect of the thesis (pp. 76-83) was an analysis of cambium feeding to determine it's significance in the bear's diet. Data included the following factors: Tree d.b.h , wound length, % circumferal extent, period of occurrence, and species of tree. 57.Tracy,D M , F.C.Dean, C M Anderson and T M Jordan. 1982. Black bear bibliography. Alaska Coop. Park Studies Unit, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. A major source of citations that deal primarily with cambium feeding by bears. 5 8 Watanabe,H. 1980. Damage to conifers by the Japanese black bear. pp. 67-70. In: C.J.Martinka and K.L.MacArthur. (eds.) Bears-Their Biology and Management, Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 3. 375pp. 164 Reviews species damaged (17 different species), method of inflicting the damage, diameter of the damaged trees, the distribution and season of damage, and the deterioration and mortality of the damaged trees. 59.Watanabe,H., J.Noborio, K.Nimura and S.Wada. 1970. Damage to Cryptomeria by wild bears in the Ashu Experimental Forest of Kyoto University. Bull. Kyoto Univ. For. 41:1-25. (In Japanese). BO.Watanabe.H. and A.Komiyama. 1976. Conservation of the bears and control of its damage to forest trees. II. Bull. Kyoto Univ. For. 48:1-8. (In Japanese). 61.Watanabe,H., N.Taniguchi and T.Shidei. 1973. Conservation of wild bears and control of its damage to forest trees. 1. Bull. Kyoto Univ. For. 45:1-8. (In Japanese). 62.Zeedyk,W.D. 1957. Why do bears girdle balsam fir in Maine? J. For. 55(10):731-732. No data, just a discussion of the problem and a presentation of several possible answers to the question. Essentially all it does is ask that research be carried out in this area.