Note: The Abstract and Executive Summary for this Master’s Degree Project is
displayed below. You also have the option of downloading a PDF
version of the Executive Summary.
Benn, Bryon. 1998. Grizzly bear mortality in the
Central Rockies Ecosystem, Canada. Master’s Degree Project, EVDS,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
GRIZZLY BEAR MORTALITY IN
THE CENTRAL ROCKIES ECOSYSTEM, CANADA
-- ABSTRACT --
Grizzly bear mortality data from 1971-1996 were analyzed for the
Central Rockies Ecosystem (CRE) portions of Alberta and the East Kootenays,
B.C., and for Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks. Spatial and
temporal analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between
access, changing grizzly bear management strategies and grizzly bear
mortality. It was assumed that the goal of management agencies was to
maintain the present population status and distribution of grizzlies, and
that recreational hunting of grizzly bears is an acceptable practice.
Mortality rates, summaries by cause of death, sex, age, and cohort are
presented. Human-related causes were the primary sources of recorded
grizzly bear mortality in the study area (627 of 639). Except for the East
Kootenays region, which accounted for 50% of all recorded mortality in the
CRE, the annual number of grizzly bear deaths declined in the latter years
of the analysis period. Estimated total human-caused and harvest mortality
rates since the early 1980s, have been within acceptable parameters for
this aspect of population sustainability in most jurisdictions. However,
these were contingent on the population estimates used to generate
mortality rates. Eighty-five percent of 462 mortalities with accurate
locations occurred within 500m wide zones of influence (ZOI) around roads
and front country developments and 200m wide zones around trails and back
country developments. Area-concentrated kill locations were observed
throughout the CRE. Improved garbage management, public education
regarding bears, and the implementation of limited entry grizzly bear
hunting appears to have contributed the most to managing mortality in the
CRE. However, more needs to be done to prevent potential population
declines. Managing access and development, and educating hunters about
bear behavior are the critical issues with respect to managing grizzly
bear mortality in the CRE. Recommendations for managing grizzly bear
mortality are presented.
Keywords: grizzly bear, Ursus arctos, mortality,
translocation, Central Rockies Ecosystem, spatial analysis, temporal
analysis, access, roads, trails, zone of influence.
-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY --
The ecological integrity of the Central Rockies Ecosystem (CRE) is
being compromised by resource extraction, cattle production, timber
harvesting, transportation corridors, and outdoor recreation. Thus, the
grizzly bear is suffering continuous habitat degradation, and potentially
unsustainable mortality rates in some regions of the CRE. Grizzly bears,
especially males, typically move through many jurisdictions with different
management objectives. Outside of parks they are vulnerable to hunting,
and habitat modification and loss associated with myriad land uses. Inside
protected areas, bears are often either displaced from quality habitat by
human activities, or may become habituated or food-conditioned, increasing
their mortality risk.
The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP) was formed in response
to a request for information about grizzly bear habitat use, human impacts
on bear habitat use, and bear demographics. This project responds to a
part of that need by analysing grizzly bear mortality throughout the CRE.
I divided the CRE into three study areas, 1) the CRE portion of Alberta,
2) the CRE portion of the East Kootenays, B.C., and 3) Banff, Kootenay,
and Yoho National Parks. As there were no recorded grizzly bear deaths in
Kootenay National Park, analyses for the national park study area include
only the contiguous Banff and Yoho National Parks.
Grizzly bear mortality and translocation databases and digital access
data were provided by land management agencies from the CRE. Specific
analyses conducted varied among the jurisdictions based on the major
causes of grizzly bear death, and the quality of certain attributes of the
data. The conclusions reached and recommendations offered are based on
three assumptions, 1) the databases represent the minimum number of
grizzly bear deaths and translocations, 2) the goal of management agencies
is to maintain or enhance the present population size and distribution of
grizzly bears in their respective jurisdictions, and 3) recreational
hunting of grizzly bears is an acceptable use of the resource. For this
research, mortalities are defined as dead bears and translocations of
bears outside of their ecosystem of origin. The objectives and
methodologies for this research were:
Objective 1. to prepare a synthesis of the historical and current
mortality data and events that affected grizzly bear survival in the CRE.
Objective 2. to develop a centralized grizzly bear mortality
database accessible to all agencies in the CRE.
Methods. I conducted a review of the scientific and grey
literature, government documents, contract documents, and graduate theses
to prepare a summary of events important to grizzly bear survival
(Appendix 1). I integrated information from these sources with mortality
and translocation databases supplied to construct an historical mortality
database (Appendix 2), and up to date mortality databases for the three
CRE study areas (Appendices 3,4, & 5).
Objective 3. to summarize human-caused mortality and estimate total
human-caused and harvest mortality rates. To analyse mortality rates
spatially and temporally with respect to changing management policies.
Methods. Human-caused grizzly bear mortality was summarized by
cause of death and the sex, age, and cohort of bears that died. I
stratified mortality data by legal harvest and non sport mortality. The
Alberta study area was subdivided into Kananaskis Country (no hunting) and
north of the Bow R. (hunting permitted). As there is no hunting in the
national parks, only non sport mortality was analysed. I generated total
human-caused mortality rates based on population estimates from each
jurisdiction. Similarly, harvest mortality rates were estimated for the
provincial jurisdictions. Temporally, mortality rates were estimated and
compared among periods defined by specific management policies in each
jurisdiction. Some examples are changes from general hunting seasons to
limited entry hunts, regional scale road closures, and improved garbage
management strategies. The total number of mortalities is a conservative
figure, as I used only the recorded deaths and translocations, and did not
apply correction factors for estimating unreported mortality.
Objective 4. to generate a preliminary analysis of mortality risk
posed to grizzly bears by human access into grizzly habitat.
Methods. I integrated accurate mortality locations and access data,
and created zones of influence (ZOI) of 500m around roads and front
country developments (open to the public and 2WD accessible), and 200m
zones around trails and back country developments. In the East Kootenay
region, ZOIs were of 1000m width due to less accurate mortality locations
available. I performed elevational analyses on the Alberta and National
Park data to describe the vertical distribution of mortalities.
Results. Human-related causes were the primary sources of grizzly
bear mortality in the CRE study area (627 of 639 known
mortalities). Grizzly bears spend much of the year at lower elevations in
this region, and roads and trails usually follow valley bottoms, often
negatively affecting bear use of riparian and montane habitats.
Eighty-five percent of 462 human-caused grizzly bear deaths with known
locations occurred in ZOIs along roads and trails and around settlements.
Area-concentrated kills occurred around Banff townsite, the village of
Lake Louise, along the Trans Canada Highway, and along roads and trails
accessing many valley systems throughout the study area. Planning for, and
managing appropriate development and levels of access into grizzly bear
habitat, such that encounters between humans and bears are minimized, is a
critical issue with respect to managing grizzly bear mortality in the CRE.
In the national park study area from 1971-96, there were 118
recorded human-caused grizzly bear deaths (107 in BNP, 11 in YNP and 0 in
KNP). Problem wildlife control (PW) accounted for 72% of these mortalities
followed by highway and railway mortalities at 19%. The annual number of
grizzly bear deaths (average 4.5/year) declined significantly into the
1980s. Total human-caused mortality rates were estimated at 8-10% for the
1971-83 period and less than 2% during 1984-96. However, the female
portion of this mortality (80%) for the period 1984-96 was higher than
reported in any grizzly bear population. One hundred percent of 95
human-caused mortalities with known accurate locations fell within 500m of
roads and front country developments, and 200m of trails and back country
facilities (ZOIs occupied 25% of the area of suitable habitat in the study
area). Forty-six of these 95 mortalities occurred at park townsites and
associated landfills (Lake Louise 26, Banff 17, Field 3), 19 took place at
ski resorts and commercial lodges, and 16 occurred at public campgrounds.
Of 72 mortalities with month of kill known 57% happened during the berry
season. Of 48 dated PW mortalities, 75% fell in the peak tourist season
and 42% occurred during the berry season.
In the Alberta study area from 1972-96, there were 190 recorded
human-caused mortalities (average 7.6/year). Legally harvested (LH)
grizzly bears accounted for 53% of these, followed by hunting related non
sport kills (29%) and problem wildlife control (16%). The annual number of
LH mortalities increased through the mid-1980s and declined with the
implementation of limited entry hunting (LEH). Fifty-one percent of all
non sport kills occurred during the berry season. The degree of
hunting-related non sport mortality remained consistent throughout the
25-year period. Ninety-two percent of 48 illegal and self-defence kills
fell during spring and fall hunting seasons. The annual number of PW
mortalities increased significantly in the 1984-96 period. The Alberta
government (AFWD 1990) has set current harvest and total human-caused
mortality rates at 2% and 6% respectively, to prevent a population
decline. The harvest mortality rate will be increased to 4% when the
provincial grizzly bear population is estimated at 1000 animals. Estimated
total human-caused mortality rates for south of the Bow R. were within
acceptable parameters, whereas total human-caused and harvest mortality
rates north of the Bow R. were above provincial mortality targets (these
results held even after applying a 25% correction factor for unreported
mortality). Eighty-nine percent of 172 human-caused mortalities with known
accurate locations fell within ZOIs (55% of the area of suitable habitat
in the study area). South of the Bow R., 92% of 32 mortalities occurred
below 2000m, and 71% of 139 mortalities north of the Bow R. fell below
1700m.
In the East Kootenay study area from 1976-96, there were 319
recorded human-caused mortalities (average 15/year) of which 81% were the
result of legal harvests. I believe that many non sport mortalities have
gone unreported and/or unrecorded. The annual number of mortalities (total
human-caused and LH) increased throughout the 21-year analysis period,
even following the implementation of LEH. This was the result of
increasing hunting permit allocations to maximize the legal harvest within
the provincial target harvest rate of 4%, and justified by an assumed
increasing grizzly bear population. The mortality rates based on an upper
population estimate of 616 were within acceptable parameters for this
aspect of population sustainability (4% harvest and 6% total mortality
rates), whereas rates calculated with a lower estimate (214) were above
provincial mortality targets (these results held even after applying a 50%
correction factor for unreported mortality). Seventy-one percent of 303
human-caused mortalities with reasonably accurate locations fell within
1000m of roads and trails (62% of the area of suitable habitat in the
study area).
The results from these analyses, combined with the results of
previously published research on grizzly bear ecology throughout North
America, allowed me to reach the following general conclusions, and to
make recommendations with respect to managing grizzly bear mortality, for
each jurisdiction in the CRE. These recommendations are explained in more
detail, in the chapter(s) of the specific jurisdiction(s), for which they
were developed.
Conclusion 1: Human actions account for the greatest proportion of
all grizzly bear deaths throughout all jurisdictions in the CRE. Thus,
mortality management entails management of human activities in grizzly
bear habitat.
Recommendations: 1) Interagency planning for effective land
use at the regional scale should consider the needs of grizzly bears. This
requires that 2) accurate, consistent, and complete reporting and
recording of all known grizzly bear deaths and translocations be made, and
3) all jurisdictions develop the same conventions for recording mortality
data. Agencies responsible for bear management should, 4) secure funds to
employ a full time Bear Management Specialist and increase aversive
conditioning programs, in particular to develop a Karelian Bear Dog
program in Canada and 5) continue to improve educational programs
regarding how to live and recreate safely in bear country. Some grizzlies
have died during handling, and some have been translocated without marking
or follow-up. 6) Study the effects of translocating problem grizzly bears,
on both the relocated animals and the resident bears in the relocation
site, to understand the effectiveness of translocations. 7) Use more
on-site or within home range translocations in conjunction with
appropriate aversive conditioning. 8) Area closures should be proactive
and not just after an incident. They should be based on indicators such as
habitat quality and known bear use of an area.
Conclusion 2: In jurisdictions where hunting is permitted, harvest
and total mortality rates have been within acceptable parameters in some
regions, and above mortality targets in others. This conclusion is
contingent on the population estimates used. Self-defense, illegal, and
mistaken identity kills by ungulate and black bear hunters account for a
large percentage of grizzly bear deaths in some regions of the CRE.
Recommendations: 9) Continue to closely monitor harvest and
total mortality, and adjust hunting permit allocations accordingly. 10) In
jurisdictions where any hunting is permitted, create No Hunting Zones
adjacent to parks and high human use areas, and along driveable roads to
reduce the killing of habituated grizzlies by hunters and other people
with guns who encounter these bears at close range. 11) All hunters going
into grizzly bear habitat should be required to show a proficient
understanding of bear identification, behavior, and safety.
Conclusion 3: Most PW mortalities occur where bears are attracted
to human food and garbage, livestock and feed.
Recommendations: Effective legislation and enforcement
should be enacted to ensure that 12) concessionaires in the parks and
provinces secure all food attractants, 13) landfills are bear proofed with
appropriate safeguards, preferably electric fencing, 14) all back country
users (campers and hunters) secure food attractants including feed for
stock and carcasses. 15) in the provinces, agency personnel should
continue to assist landowners in reducing livestock-bear conflicts. 16)
Continue to improve the predator compensation program. Fair compensation
for loss for landowners exercising good husbandry techniques will instill
tolerance for bears on their land.
Conclusion 4: Mortality rates presented are estimates, as they are
based on population estimates with wide confidence limits.
Recommendations: 17) Continue to increase the level of
commitment to developing and using appropriate population assessment
techniques.
Conclusion 5: Spatial analyses clearly showed that most grizzlies
died within a narrow zone along roads and trails, and around human
settlements. Yet, roads and major developments continue to be constructed
into the last unroaded areas.
Recommendations: 18) Collect more detailed access-related
and location information with each grizzly bear mortality. 19) Access into
grizzly habitat, particularly in areas with past concentations of
mortality, should be regulated through quotas and/or closures of roads.
20) Commit to no new roads into the remaining secure grizzly bear habitat,
and require the decommissioning of industrial roads at project
termination.
Conclusion 6: Temporal analyses of the mortality data, as conducted
in this project, are snapshots in time.
Recommendations: 21) This type of analysis should be
conducted at future times with improved population estimates, to assess
changing management strategies, and events that affect grizzly bear
survival.
Throughout the period of this study, and as part of the Eastern Slopes
Grizzly Bear Project Team, I prepared analyses of grizzly bear mortality
for presentations and/or documents to the Central Rockies Ecosystem
Interagency Liasion Group, the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project
Steering Committee, the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, the Rocky Mountain
Grizzly Bear Planning Committee, and for the Kananaskis Country
Recreational Review Process. The results of these efforts have been
increased interagency communication with respect to grizzly bear mortality
management. Two recommendations presented to the Banff-Bow Valley Task
Force by the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project were written into the
1997 Banff National Park Management Plan. They were, 1) grizzly bear
mortality should not exceed 1% of the park’s estimated grizzly bear
population annually, and 2) targets will be implemented to restore habitat
effectiveness in key carnivore management units in the park, and thereby
reduce mortality risk for grizzly bears.
Grizzly bears exist at low population densities because they have a low
reproductive potential and require large home ranges. As a result the
grizzly population is susceptible to rising mortality risk with increasing
exposure to people. The Central Rockies Ecosystem will face increasing
pressure from human activities as nearby urban populations grow. Thus,
there will be an ongoing need to fund 1) scientific research on the
effects of human access and presence in grizzly bear habitat, and 2) the
integration of the above recommendations into regional planning and
management policy.
|