S Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Food Habits, Demographic Changes & A Bear Bathtub Safety in Bear Country Photo © Bradley Orsted COPYRIGHT ©2014 NOT FOR REPRODUCTION PHOTOGRAPH BY RONAN DONOVAN Photo © Ronan Donovan A Celebration of Grizzly Bears hen I first began working in Yellowstone National Park in the early 1980s, it was fairly uncommon to see a bear, grizzly or black. If you saw a dozen bears in a summer, you considered it a good bear year. Today, you can easily Wsee a dozen bears in one morning or even on one bison carcass. At present, if you’re in a hurry when driving through the park, you must try to plan your travel route to avoid bear-caused traffic jams. Unlike the “bear jams” of the past, the bears causing traffic congestion today are not seeking human food handouts but are usually seen feeding on natural foods found in roadside meadows. Consequently, Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks have become the premier bear viewing destinations in the lower 48 states. Bear viewing contributes significantly to the economies of park gateway com- munities, something I never imagined in the early 1980s. Although grizzly bears have increased significantly in numbers and range, their rate of increase is beginning to slow down in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. This may be evidence they are approaching their carrying capacity, both biologically and socially. In 2008, an entire issue of Yellowstone Science focusing on grizzly bears was published; it celebrated the removal of grizzly bears from threatened species status as one of the greatest conservation achievements in the history of the United States. That issue contained articles on the history of bear management and the controversial closing of garbage dumps in the ecosystem, the recovery and delisting of the species, and how grizzly bears would be managed and monitored after delisting. The issue also examined habituation, which was predicted to be the most significant bear management challenge moving into the fu- ture, as both park visitation and the bear population increased. About a year after the publication of that issue, grizzly bears were returned to threatened species status by court order, primarily due to uncertainty regarding the future of some bear foods because of climate change and other factors. In this issue of Yellowstone Science, grizzly bears are once again the featured species. We present recent research on dietary preferences and the response of bears to changing food resources, demographics of the current greater Yellowstone bear population, and bear habituation to people in national parks. We also present information on grizzly range expansion, cub adoption, consumption of army cutworm moths at high elevation talus slopes, and the risk of a bear attack. In 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is once again considering removing grizzly bears from threatened species status. Whether you are in favor of or opposed to delisting, this issue of Yellowstone Science has something for you. We hope you find the articles in- teresting, engaging, and scientifically relevant. In contrast to the 2008 issue on bears, which was intended as a celebration of delisting, this issue is simply a celebration of bears as a wonderful, remarkable animal and an integral member of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Kerry Gunther Bear Management Biologist Yellowstone Center for Resources COPYRIGHT ©2014 NOT FOR REPRODUCTION S PHOTOGRAPH BY RONAN DONOVAN a periodical devoted to natural and cultural resources volume 23 • issue 2 • December 2015 Kerry Gunther FEATURES Guest Editor Frank van Manen Mark Haroldson 4 Forty Years of Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Chris Servheen Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Guest Editorial Board 7 Grizzly Bears: Ultimate Omnivores of the Greater Sarah Haas Managing Editor Yellowstone Ecosystem Karin Bergum 12 How Important is Whitebark Pine to Grizzly Bears? Marie Gore Christie Hendrix 17 Demographic Changes in Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bear Population Jennifer Jerrett Erik Öberg 26 Response of Grizzly Bears to Changing Food Associate Editors Resources in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Charissa Reid Graphic Designer 33 Habituated Grizzly Bears: A Natural Response to Increasing Visitation in Yellowstone & Grand Teton National Parks 41 Visitor Compliance with Bear Spray and Hiking Group Size in Yellowstone National Park 44 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Facts DEPARTMENTS Submissions to Yellowstone Science are welcomed from investigators conducting formal research in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Article acceptance is based on editorial board review for clarity, 47 I Am Not a Scientist completeness, technical and scientific soundness, and relevance to NPS policy. 49 Shorts All photos are NPS unless noted otherwise. Please visit our website for further information on 82 From the Archives submitting articles, letters to the editor, viewing back issues, and/or subscription requests: www. nps.gov/yellowstonescience. 83 A Look Back Correspondence can also be emailed to yell_ [email protected] or posted to: Editor, Yellowstone 88 A Day In the Field Science, PO Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190. 90 News & Notes The opinions expressed in Yellowstone Science are the authors’ and may not reflect either National Park Service policy or the views of the Yellowstone 96 Sneak Peek Center for Resources. Copyright ©2015, Yellowstone Association. Yellowstone Science is printed on partial post- consumer recycled paper and is 100% recyclable. Forty Years of Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Frank T. van Manen, Cecily M. Costello, Kerry A. Gunther, & Mark A. Haroldson COPYRIGHT ©2014 NOT FOR REPRODUCTION PHOTOGRAPH BY RONAN DONOVAN Photo © Ronan Donovan he fate and history of grizzly bear populations huahua, Mexico (the Sierra del Nido and possibly the in North America are similar to that of other Sierra Madre); the San Juan Mountains of southwest- Tlarge mammals, and carnivores in particular. ern Colorado; and the Yellowstone Plateau region of Indiscriminate killing and habitat loss took a severe toll Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, often referred to as the on populations in the late 1800s and early 1900s. By the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). 1920s and 1930s, grizzly bears in the contiguous United Because of its large size, remoteness, and the protec- States had been reduced to less than 2% of their histori- tions afforded by national park, national forest, and na- cal range (Servheen 1999) and by the 1950s had been ex- tional wildlife refuge lands over a large portion of the tirpated from most areas outside of Alaska and Canada area, the GYE grizzly bear population was the only one (Cowan et al. 1974). In the lower 48 states, grizzly bears of the three isolated populations that persisted in via- still persisted in Washington, Idaho, and Montana adja- ble numbers after the 1960s (Cowan et al. 1974). During cent to the Canadian border, and in three small isolated the following decade, biologists estimated as few as populations further south (Cowan et al. 1974). These 600–800 grizzly bears remained in the lower 48 states. isolated populations included the mountains of Chi- In 1975, grizzly bears in the lower 48 states, including the 4 Yellowstone Science 23(2) • 2015 GYE, were listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to changing food resources in the GYE. This research (USFWS) as a threatened species under the Endangered became particularly relevant given the increasing popu- Species Act. In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Com- lation trajectory documented at the time. mittee was formed to help ensure grizzly bear recovery In this issue, we report on the results from several in- through interagency coordination of policy, planning, teresting grizzly bear research projects conducted in the management, and research. The federal, state, and trib- GYE, including demographic changes, cub adoption al members of this committee, as well as its Yellowstone among related mother bears, unique bear scent-marking Ecosystem Subcommittee, initiated various measures behavior at a small remote pond, the numeric probabili- to protect vital habitat and reduce bear mortality in the ty of being attacked by a grizzly bear when backpacking, GYE (see Yellowstone Science, 2008:16[2]). These mea- results of a pilot project using new camera collar tech- sures were associated with higher survival, a steady in- nology, and the challenges of managing habituated griz- crease in the bear population, expansion of bear range, zly bears in the face of increasing visitation in national and recolonization of previously occupied habitats. parks. In addition, we take a look back at some unusual By the end of the 20th century, the USFWS and attempts at modifying nuisance bear behavior during these committees determined that the population had the early history of Yellowstone National Park. COPYRIGHT ©2014 recovered and should be moved toward delisting. One NOT FOR REPRODUCTION of the tasks in the 1993 Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) was Literature Cited the preparation of a Conservation Strategy, detailing Cowan, I.M., D.G. Chapman, R.S. Hoffmann, D.R. McCullough, PHOTOGRAPH BY RONAN DONOVAN G.A. Swanson, and R.B. Weeden. 1974. Report of the com- management and monitoring plans for if and when mittee on the Yellowstone grizzlies. National Academy of Sci- the population was delisted. A final plan was released ences, Washington, D.C., USA. Servheen, C. 1999. Status and management of the grizzly bear in 2007 (USFWS 2007a); and the USFWS submitted in the lower 48 United States. Pages 50–54 in C. Servheen, a final rule to delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: Status survey and population in March 2007 (USFWS 2007b), effectively conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Spe- cialist Groups, IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. removing the population from the Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. List. This delisting rule was challenged by a number U.S.