Jalkotzy, M.G., R.R. Riddell, and J. Wierzchowski.
1999. Grizzly bears, habitat, and humans in the Skoki, Baker, South
Pipestone, and Lake Louise bear management units, Banff National Park.
Prepared for Parks Canada and The Skiing Louise Group. Arc Wildlife
Services Ltd., Riddell Environmental Research Ltd., and Geomar Consulting
Ltd. 101 pp.
Note: The Executive Summary this report
is displayed below. You also have the option of downloading a PDF
version of the Executive Summary.
Grizzly Bears, Habitat, and
Humans in the Skoki, Baker, South Pipestone, and Lake Louise Bear Management Units, Banff National Park
November 1999
M.G. Jalkotzy (Arc Wildlife Services Ltd.),
R. Riddell (Riddell Environmental Research Ltd.), and
J. Wierzchowski (Geomar Consulting Ltd.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cumulative effects modelling was developed in the 1980’s to
quantitatively and qualitatively assess the cumulative effects of human
activity on grizzly bear habitat and habitat use in specified areas of
grizzly bear range. The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Project is an interagency,
multi-stakeholder research project designed to understand and predict the
cumulative effects of development on grizzly bears along the eastern
slopes of the Rockies including Banff National Park. Results from the
Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project will provide concrete answers to
questions regarding the impacts of humans on grizzly bears in the Central
Canadian Rockies including Banff National Park. However, impending
land-use decisions in the Lake Louise area of Banff National Park made
that area of special concern to Parks Canada.
Habitat effectiveness (HE) modelling is 1 part of a cumulative effects
assessment. HE modelling is a product of overlaying 2 input layers,
habitat potential and human disturbance. Habitat potential is the inherent
capability of the landscape to support grizzly bears. Grizzly bears
respond to human activities by altering their normal spatial and temporal
patterns of habitat use. Realized habitat is land that grizzly bears wary
of humans will continue to use after the effects of human disturbance on
the landscape have been accounted for. HE is the amount of realized
habitat expressed as a percentage of the landscape’s potential. HE
modelling is applied at a landscape scale; bear management units (BMU’s)
typically encompass watersheds.
In 1997, Parks Canada developed a new management plan for Banff
National Park in which park planning and operations are driven by the
grizzly bear HE targets within BMU’s. Geomar Consulting Ltd. and Parks
Canada developed an interative HE model at a 1:50,000 scale to assist with
planning and managing human use and development within the national parks.
This iterative HE model allows park managers to develop land-use scenarios
that will attain grizzly bear HE targets set out in the new management
plan. Parks Canada contracted Arc Wildlife Services Ltd. and Riddell
Environmental Research Ltd. to develop a refined HE model (1:20,000 scale)
for the Lake Louise area to assist with management planning in that area.
This work was conducted cooperatively with the East Slopes Grizzly Bear
Project with access to their data. The study area encompassed
approximately 630 km² of Banff National Park centred on the Village of
Lake Louise. Habitat potential and realized habitat were mapped, and HE
values were determined for the Skoki, Lake Louise, Baker, and South
Pipestone BMU’s.
This report summarizes the results of the HE model for the Lake Louise
area, and places those results in the context of cumulative effects
assessment and grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park and the
surrounding Central Canadian Rockies Ecosystem.
Habitat Potential
The landscape in the Lake Louise study area is diverse and its value to
grizzly bears is variable. Based on potential habitat modelling, 29% of
the study area is made up of areas that have no food value for grizzly
bears with values from 17% (South Pipestone BMU) to 40% (Lake Louise BMU)
in individual BMU’s. Similarly, the amount of grizzly bear habitat rated
as good or very good in the potential habitat model comprised 24% of the
study area. Since the sizes of the 4 BMU’s are variable, the amounts of
good grizzly bear habitat and unusable terrain varies across the study
area. The Baker BMU is both the largest of the 4 BMU’s and the BMU with
the most habitat rated as good or very good for grizzly bears, more than
twice as much as any other BMU. The Lake Louise BMU is the second largest
but also has the most land that is not rated as habitat for grizzly bears.
The spatial and temporal distribution of potential habitat is also
important to bears. Grizzly bear habitat in mountain landscapes is
naturally fragmented by the distribution of inhospitable terrain at higher
elevations. In the Lake Louise study area, large continuous pieces of
potential grizzly bear habitat are associated with major valley bottoms,
in particular the Bow River, the Pipestone River, Baker Creek, and the
upper Red Deer River. Grizzly bear habitat at higher elevations tends to
have a patchy distribution relative to the valley bottoms. Temporal
variation in potential habitat quality for grizzly bears results from the
changing importance of plant foods and other food sources throughout the
year. The food habitats model rated habitat polygons for grizzly bears on
a monthly basis to take into account this variation. As a result, the
relative quality and quantity of habitats rated as good or very good for
grizzly bears in the potential habitat model changed with the seasons.
Within the Skoki BMU, the Bow Valley contains the largest contiguous
pieces of good and very good grizzly bear habitat in all seasons. The
majority of the Skiing Louise lease within the Bow Valley is rated as good
or very good potential grizzly bear habitat in all seasons. On an annual
basis, good and very good habitats encompass 2,635 ha or 17% of the BMU,
while non-habitat accounts for 5,175 ha or 33.2%. The Baker BMU contains
more good and very good grizzly bear habitat than any other BMU within the
Lake Louise study area. On an annual basis, good and very good habitats
account for 6,791 ha (40% of the BMU), while land rated as non-habitat for
grizzly bears takes in an additional 4,306 ha (25% of the BMU). The
largest contiguous block of good and very good habitat in all seasons
includes the Bow Valley and the lower portions of Baker Creek. Twenty-four
percent of the South Pipestone BMU or 3,229 ha is rated as good or very
good on an annual basis. Non-habitat accounts for 18% or 2,388 ha within
the BMU. Habitat potential in spring in the South Pipestone BMU is an
interwoven matrix of moderate and good habitats. Very good habitats are
limited in extent. Major portions of the Bow Valley within the BMU, the
Pipestone and Little Pipestone Rivers, Molar Creek, and other tributaries
are rated as very good, particularly in the summer. The Lake Louise BMU
has 6,680 ha or 40% of the BMU rated as non-habitat. It also has just
2,297 ha or 14% of its land base rated as good or very good potential
grizzly bear habitat on an annual basis, less than any other BMU in the
study area. In spring, good and very good habitat potential for grizzly
bears in the Lake Louise BMU is limited primarily to the Bow Valley. In
summer, the amount of good and very good potential habitat expands to
include all of the Bow Valley, and the majority of major tributary
drainages; only higher elevation habitats are rated as moderate, poor, or
non-habitat. Very good habitat is more extensive and contiguous in the
summer than in spring, particularly in the Bow Valley. Potential habitat
rated as good is almost as extensive in the fall as during the summer;
however, the amount of very good habitat declined and is more fragmented
in the fall.
Human Disturbance
The Lake Louise BMU sustains the highest levels of human use in the
study area. Day use probably exceeds several thousand hikers per month in
the summer on many of the popular trails and there are trails in every
valley. Use of hiking trails was rated as low (<100 users/month) during
the spring since most are still snow covered. However, during the summer
and fall virtually all human disturbances were rated high (>100
users/month) throughout the BMU. The Bow Valley within the BMU is heavily
impacted by the Village of Lake Louise and surrounding outlying commercial
accommodations. In addition, the TransCanada Highway passes through it and
the zones of influence surrounding the Bow Valley Parkway, CP Rail, and
Skiing Louise’s activity area impinge on the BMU. Human use levels in
the Skoki BMU were ranked second among the 4 BMU’s in the study area,
well below those in the Lake Louise BMU, but higher than use levels in
Baker and South Pipestone. Overall, human use in summer is high, exceeding
>100 users/month on most trails within the Skoki backcountry, including
day-use hiking loops to Lake Merlin, and around Skoki and Fossil
Mountains. Spring and fall use in the backcountry was rated low since
these high elevation trails are often not snow-free before mid-June and
become snow-covered by early October. Most human use in the Baker Creek
BMU occurs in the Bow Valley. The Bow Valley Parkway and CP Rail are
within the BMU while the TransCanada Highway is outside, but its zone of
influence affects the BMU. The Baker Creek Trail is designated low use
throughout the 3 seasons with the exception of the south end during the
summer months when it is frequently used by guests of Baker Creek Chalets.
Human use of the South Pipestone BMU is concentrated in the upper Bow
Valley along the Icefields Parkway. Human use in the backcountry was rated
as low during all 3 seasons.
Realized Habitat and Habitat Effectiveness
Realized habitat maps were developed for each BMU in May, August, and
October. These maps indicate the extent to which the amount and
distribution of grizzly bear habitats in all BMU’s are altered by human
disturbance. This has many effects on bears within the BMU. Three effects
are discussed relative to realized habitat within each BMU. First, the
extent of grizzly bear habitat within the BMU is reduced. There are fewer
places for bears to forage. Second, the sizes of the remaining patches of
good and very good grizzly bear habitat are reduced. There are fewer
places where grizzly bears can remain within the BMU without being
disturbed by humans. Finally, linkages of good and very good habitat
between larger pockets of undisturbed lands are reduced in size and
number. Further fragmentation of a naturally-fragmented landscape makes it
more difficult for grizzly bears to move throughout the BMU’s without
contacting humans.
Skoki BMU
A comparison of the realized and potential habitat in the Skoki BMU in
May shows a reduction in the availability of predominantly good and very
good habitat ratings to moderate and poor habitats in the Bow Valley in
the vicinity of the Skiing Louise lease. Approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the
Bow Valley’s good and very good habitat has been downgraded to moderate
or poor habitat. In addition, connectivity of bear habitats on either side
of the Skiing Louise lease at lower elevations within the Bow Valley is
compromised. This situation is exacerbated in summer and fall. There is
less good and very good habitat within the Bow Valley because of increased
human use and the remaining patches are smaller than in spring. In the
backcountry the situation is similar. However, the landscape at higher
elevations is naturally more fragmented than in the Bow Valley, and the
effects of additional fragmentation on potential grizzly bear habitat at
higher elevations are more severe. Travel routes through Boulder Pass,
Deception Pass and Packer’s Pass are rated as moderate to good potential
habitat in all 3 seasons. However, the effects of human use in summer
result in realized habitat values that are predominantly poor. In summer,
moderate and poor realized habitat values dominate the landscape around
Skoki Lodge and its network of day hikes, and in the vicinity of the
backcountry campgrounds at Baker Lake and Red Deer Lakes. HE values for
the Skoki BMU in spring, summer, and fall are 88.3%, 81.0%, and 87.7%,
respectively.
Baker BMU
Realized habitat in the Baker BMU contrasts the effects of human use of
the Bow Valley with those in the Baker Creek drainage. The TransCanada
Highway, the Bow Valley Parkway, CP Rail, and outlying commercial
accommodation combine to drive all potential habitat values in the valley
bottom to realized values of less than 0.5 on the 10-point scale
(non-habitat) in all seasons. Human use on the Baker Creek Trail lowers
habitat values from good to moderate in certain lower portions of Baker
Creek, particularly in spring. Outside of lower elevations in the Bow
Valley, linkages between good and very good realized habitat polygons are
relatively intact in the Baker BMU. HE values for the Baker BMU in spring,
summer, and fall are 78.8%, 76.5%, and 78.4%, respectively.
South Pipestone BMU
Realized habitat in the South Pipestone BMU again demonstrates the
differences between human use of the Bow Valley and the backcountry.
Although the Bow Valley is rated as predominantly good and very good
potential habitat for grizzly bears, realized habitat values are poor when
the effects of the Icefields Parkway are factored in. Realized habitat
values in the Pipestone River drainage change little from their potential
as a result of low human use. Outside of the Bow Valley, good and very
good habitat patches remain relatively large and well-connected within the
South Pipestone BMU. HE values for the South Pipestone BMU in spring,
summer, and fall are 92.6%, 92.7%, and 92.6%, respectively.
Lake Louise BMU
The effects of high human use on a naturally-fragmented mountain
landscape is well-illustrated in the Lake Louise BMU. Most good and very
good potential habitat in the Bow Valley and tributary valleys (e.g.,
Paradise Valley, Moraine Lake, Lake Louise) becomes poor realized habitat
as a result of human disturbance in all seasons. Remaining fragments of
good and very good habitat are scattered throughout the BMU with very poor
connectivity between them. Once again, the Bow Valley represents the best
potential habitat within the BMU, yet realized habitat is worst as a
result of the concentration of motorized human activities in the valley.
This concentration of activity in the Bow Valley also presents a serious
blockage to grizzly bear movements within the larger landscape of the
study area. HE values for the Lake Louise BMU in spring, summer, and fall
are 47.2%, 37.1%, and 37.6%, respectively.
Habitat Effectiveness Targets and Management Scenarios
The Banff Park Management Plan recognizes that to fulfill the mandate
of PC to protect ecological integrity and at the same time to continue to
offer visitors the opportunity to enjoy a quality visitor experience,
direct management of human use is required at a scale not currently
practiced. HE was chosen as a means of quantifying the degree of human
disturbance on large carnivores, and HE targets were chosen for carnivore
management units as a quantifiable measure of ecological integrity. Within
the management plan’s section titled "Effective Human Use
Management", stated principles include "human use management
will be based on the desired effectiveness of each Carnivore Management
Unit". Since HE modelling for carnivores other than grizzly bears has
not been undertaken, grizzly bear HE is currently being used as a
surrogate. Carnivore management units in the plan are equivalent to BMU’s
in the grizzly bear HE model. Baker, South Pipestone, and Skoki BMU’s
have summer targets of >90% in the management plan; only the South
Pipestone BMU currently reaches that level. Skoki and Baker are 9.0% and
14.5% less than their target HE’s. Although the Lake Louise BMU has the
lowest target of all BMU’s in the study area at >60%, it is also
farthest from the target with an HE value for summer 22.8% below 60%.
Several human use management scenarios were tested to determine the
degree of change required to increase HE values within the 4 BMU’s.
Comparing HE values within the Lake Louise BMU in spring versus summer and
fall indicate the changes required to significantly raise HE values in
that BMU. The change from low to high use on all backcountry trails
decreased HE for the BMU by about 10%. Increases in HE to reach the target
set out in the management plan for the BMU will require drastic changes in
human use. In the Skoki BMU, scenarios that significantly reduce human use
in the Bow Valley would result in HE values above 90%. For example, if
summer use of the Skiing Louise lease was capped below 100 users per month
(ski area maintenance only) and human use in Skoki’s backcountry was
also kept low (<100 users per month), the resulting HE value would
probably meet the target set out in the management plan. Decommissioning
the Baker Creek Trail and trails associated with it increases HE in that
BMU by 2.5% over the current use scenario in August. Achieving HE of over
80% in the Baker BMU requires severe curtailment of human activities
within the Bow Valley since the loss of HE within the BMU is principally
in that portion of the BMU. As an example, the decommissioning of the Bow
Valley Parkway and associated human developments (e.g., Corral Creek
picnic area, Protection Mountain campground, Baker Creek Chalet, Baker
Creek Trail) would increase HE by 8% to 84.5% in August. These human use
scenarios serve to emphasize the extent to which grizzly bear habitat in
the study area has been compromised, and the kinds of changes to human use
that will be necessary to bring HE values to targets set out in the Banff
National Park management plan.
Grizzly Bear Home Ranges and Habitat Use
Home Ranges
Three adult female grizzly bears, F30, F36, and F46, were radio tracked
in and around the Lake Louise study area during the course of this work.
Between 1994 and 1998, 1,441 radio locations were collected from these
bears both from aircraft and from the ground. The 184 km2 cumulative home range of F30 included the middle Bow Valley, Baker Creek,
the lower Pipestone, and the Skoki area. F46’s 112 km2 cumulative home range overlapped with F30’s in the Bow Valley, Skoki,
and upper Baker Creek, but also included the upper Red Deer River around
Red Deer Lakes. F36’s home range was 555.4 km2 and was
centred on the upper Bow Valley between Hector Lake and Bow Summit. It
also included the headwaters of the Pipestone River, and areas to the
south and west in Kickinghorse Pass, Sherbrooke Lakes, and the Yoho
Valley. Her movements did not overlap with the other 2 radiocollared
bears.
Habitat Use
The aerial radio locations of F30 and F46 were pooled for the analysis
of habitat use in Baker and Skoki BMU’s to increase sample sizes for
each season. Only aerial locations were used because they are a random
sample of each bear’s movements. Radio location data collected on the
ground were biased because proportionately more data were collected in
more accessible areas like the Bow Valley (i.e., a grizzly bear’s
movements over its entire home range were not sampled randomly). Both
bears were accompanied by cubs throughout most of the sample period and
both used large portions of the 2 BMU’s. F36 was not used in the habitat
analysis because her home range was outside the boundaries of the habitat
map.
F30 and F46 did not use ecosites within the Baker and Skoki BMU’s
between 1994-98 in a random manner (Pearson’s Chi-square, P<0.001).
Use of ecosites and consolidated cover types varied seasonally. Among
ecosites, WF2 was strongly preferred in all 3 seasons and several were
used preferentially in 2 of 3 seasons annually. Ten ecosites, BY1, CV1,
EG1, EN2, PP3, PR4, SB1, WF2, and WF7 were strongly selected for by F30
and F46 between den emergence and the end of June. PR3, WF2, and SB1 were
the 3 most strongly-selected ecosites; the 3 together represent 5.6% of
land within the 2 BMU’s. Twelve ecosites, CA4, EG2, EG3, PP3, PL4, RD1,
SX1, SX2, T, WF1, WF2, and WH5 were strongly selected for by F30 and F46
during July and August. EG3, PL4, and RD1 were the 3 most preferred
ecosites, primarily because of their limited areal extent relative to
their use. All 3 ecosites together represent 2.7% of land in the 2 BMU’s.
In fall, 13 ecosites, BS1, BY1, CA4, CN1, EN2, RD1, SB1, SX1, TR1, WF1,
WF2, WH2, and WH3 were strongly selected for by F30 and F46. SB1, BS1, and
WF1 were the 3 most-preferred ecosites within the 2 BMU’s, again because
of their limited areal extent relative to their use. All 3 ecosites
together represent just 1.9% of the landscape.
F30 and F46 also used certain consolidated cover types significantly
more often than expected while others were used significantly less
(Pearson’s Chi-square, P<0.001).
Avalanche Types
Cover types dominated by avalanche slopes were the most strongly
selected for cover types in the spring and fall. Avalanche slopes tend to
be snow-free prior to the surrounding landscape in spring. Hedysarum, milk
vetch, and bearberry are common on many avalanche slopes and were used by
bears in the early spring. Hedysarum roots in particular are an important
early spring food for grizzlies. In late spring, avalanche slopes
continued to provide important food plants, including cow parsnip, tufted
hair grass, spike trisetum grass, and brome grass. In summer, in addition
to a wide variety of succulent vegetation, buffaloberry, and various Vaccinium spp. became available. Crowberry, an important fall fruit for
bears, is also common in avalanche tracks. Bears again used hedysarum in
the late fall immediately prior to den entrance. In spring, F30 and F46
used avalanche slopes around their den sites in upper Baker Creek and in
the Skoki Lakes area, respectively. F46 also used them in Wildflower Creek
in spring. Use of avalanche slopes during the summer was more dispersed
and occurred throughout the 2 BMU’s. In fall, the 2 females’ use of
this type was concentrated in the areas they chose for denning in the
Skoki area and upper Baker Creek.
Ski Hill
Cleared ski runs on the Skiing Louise lease were strongly selected for
in the Baker and Skoki BMU’s in spring. Early green-up of forbs,
particularly introduced clover, alfalfa, and dandelions, on the lower
slopes of the ski runs attracted bears in the spring. Wet seeps on and in
the vicinity of ski runs with their communities of common horsetail, and
various nutritious grasses and sedges, were also attractive to bears.
Although selection for the type weakened in the summer, attraction to
these artificial openings in the summer continued as green-up progressed
up the slope. Berry production, particularly buffaloberry, tends to be
greater along the ecotone between the predominantly closed forest
surrounding the ski runs and the open runs than in closed forest itself,
providing foraging opportunities in late summer. Ski runs were avoided in
the fall probably because better food sources were available elsewhere. In
addition, den sites of F30 and F46 tended to be in more remote areas away
from human disturbance and the bears were moving into these areas in the
fall.
Closed Forest
Closed forest was the predominant cover type within the Skoki and Baker
BMU’s. It was strongly selected for in the spring, to a lesser degree in
the summer, and strongly avoided in the fall. It is found in a wide
variety of ecosites containing forest cover and often contained inclusions
of non-closed cover types and miscellaneous landscape types too
interspersed or too small to map. However, these unmappable (at this
scale) landscape units are frequently those most important to grizzly
bears for late spring and early summer feeding (e.g., seeps containing
common horsetail and tufted hair grass). In this analysis, closed forest
was defined as forest with >15-20% cover and included lodgepole pine
forests with canopy cover between 20% and 50%. Buffaloberry fruiting
declines dramatically when canopy cover exceeded 50%, but is high below
45-50% canopy cover. Many lodgepole pine forests with 20-50% canopy cover,
defined as closed forest in this analysis, produce excellent fruit and
attracted bears during the late summer. Selection for the cover type
declined in the fall as other bear foods became available. F30 and F46
made most use of this cover type in the Bow Valley in the vicinity of the
Skiing Louise lease. In this case, F30 and F46 probably used the closed
forest as security cover during the day. Ski runs were strongly selected
for in spring and closed forest is the predominant cover type adjacent to
the ski runs.
Shrub Types
Shrub cover types, excluding those associated with avalanche types,
were avoided by F30 and F46 during the spring months, but were strongly
selected for in summer and fall. In early summer, many important
succulents such as cow parsnip were locally abundant and attracted
grizzlies. Shrub cover types include many berry-producing species and the
availability of berries attracted bears during late summer and fall. Their
occurrence within the 2 BMU’s was widespread and use by F30 and F46 was
not concentrated in any particular area. In and around the Skiing Louise
lease, shrub cover types in Wolverine Bowl and the Temple area were used
by F30 and F46.
Open Forest Types
Open forest was strongly avoided in spring, but was strongly selected
for in summer and fall. Use of open forest cover types was associated with
a wide variety of upper subalpine Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir habitats.
In early summer, common horsetail is the dominant ground cover in certain
Engelmann spruce habitats. In addition, in late summer buffaloberry
produce more fruit in open forests than in closed forests. Crowberry is
locally abundant in these forests as well and is an important fruit for
bears in the fall. Several berry-producing Vaccinium spp.
are also present. F30 and F46’s locations in open forests in summer were
scattered throughout their home ranges with use occurring on the Skiing
Louise lease both on the front side of Whitehorn and in the
Temple/Ptarmigan areas. However, in fall F30 frequently used open forest
cover types in the vicinity of her den site, while F46 used open forests
in Oyster Creek. Use of the Skiing Louise lease in fall was limited to the
Temple/Ptarmigan area where bears frequently fed on crowberry.
Grizzly Bear Movements Relative to Human Development
Grizzly bear movements and use of habitat in the vicinity of human
developments varied between seasons and years, as well as between bears.
Core home ranges of the 3 adult female bears radio tracked during this
study included a wide variety of human infrastructure. F30’s core home
ranges in spring and summer included the Skiing Louise lease and in
particular, the front side of Whitehorn Mountain. F30 used the Back Bowls,
the Temple area, and Wolverine Bowl every fall. F46 also used the Skiing
Louise lease during the spring and early summer in most years. However,
she was located on the front side of Whitehorn just once in 1996. She was
not usually located within the Skiing Louise lease in the fall, although
she sometimes used the upper end of Corral Creek between Richardson Ridge
and Wolverine Bowl. F36’s core home range included Num-Ti-Jah Lodge at
Bow Lake. Human activity in these areas was frequent and in some cases
continuous during daylight hours.
Reactions to roads by these 3 bears appeared to depend on traffic
volume and roadway width. F36 was not documented crossing the TransCanada
Highway, but did cross the Icefields Parkway on a regular basis, at times
more than once per day. F30 and F46 moved back and forth across the Bow
Valley Parkway. However, neither bear was documented crossing the
TransCanada Highway which bordered their home ranges to the south. The
TransCanada Highway carries over 1,600 vehicles per hour on a typical
afternoon in August, while traffic volumes on the Icefields Parkway and
the Bow Valley Parkway are just 25% of that. On the Skiing Louise lease,
the roads to Temple Lodge and to other hill facilities on both the front
and back side of the ski hill are closed to public travel, but are used
several times a day by Skiing Louise staff and others with permission. It
lies in the heart of F30’s and F46’s spring and summer ranges and they
crossed it as much as several times per day, both during the day and at
night.
Hiking trails including some with human use exceeding thousands of
users per month in the summer crisscross the home ranges of all 3 grizzly
bears; their selection of home ranges did not appear to avoid areas with
hiking trails. A quantitative analysis of grizzly bear habitat use in the
vicinity of trails is beyond the scope of this study. However, levels of
human use on trails appeared to affect habitat use in the vicinity of
trails. For example, bear use of habitat close to the heavily-used trail
to Boulder Pass and Deception Pass, a trail in open terrain, typically
occurred in late September only after human use of the trail system
declined from high summer levels. Even at low use levels, crepuscular or
nocturnal feeding along these trails was the norm.
Radio telemetry locations of F30 and F46 in the immediate vicinity of
the Skiing Louise lease in spring and summer were used to test the
hypothesis that F36 and F40 were located farther from ski runs and the
base lodge during periods when there was human activity (07:00 – 18:00),
than during periods of relative inactivity (18:00 – 07:00). In spring
and summer, both F30 and F46 tended to be closer to ski runs and the base
lodge at night than during the day. In addition, both bears tended to be
closer to the ski runs than to the base lodge in spring and summer.
The behaviours of both F30 and F46 relative to human developments are
likely the result of habituation, the ability to tolerate humans as a
means of accessing food or finding security from potentially threatening
bears. Both F30 and F46 were exposed to humans and their developments on a
daily basis. Their home ranges overlapped with human developments both in
the front country in the Bow Valley and in the backcountry. Their daily
movement patterns were affected by humans and their developments
throughout their home ranges. In order to utilize high quality seasonal
foods in the Bow Valley and possibly to avoid dominant bears in more
remote areas, they were forced to accept the presence of human
developments. Through their experiences, they became habituated to the
presence of humans and continued to use quality habitats in close
proximity to humans and human developments. This, however, is likely at a
cost to their longevity. Empirical data from the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem support the contention that habituation is detrimental to the
long term survival of grizzly bears. Between
1975 and 1990, habituated, radio marked bears were killed 3.1 times more
often than wary radio marked bears.
Current thinking within management agencies is that we should be
managing for wary grizzly bears. In the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear
Project, wary bears used higher-quality habitat and moved less than
habituated bears. Bears living in lower quality habitat have reduced
energy input. Increased movements result in greater energy expenditures
for bears. Overall, the energy balance of habituated bears that do not
have access to human foods will be lower than wary bears in the same
ecosystem. Beyond maintenance requirements, adult female bears require
energy for reproduction. These data suggest that habituation could reduce
the reproductive output of an adult female grizzly bear; that is, she may
produce fewer offspring over her life span. Therefore, habituation has the
potential to depress natality in a regional population. Given the
naturally-low reproductive output of grizzly bears, this could reduce the
long term viability of grizzly bear populations within protected areas
like Banff National Park.
Summary
The grizzly bear population within the Lake Louise study area is
probably at risk based on the analysis of data presented in this report
and additional analyses of data from the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear
Project (Benn 1998, Gibeau et al. 1996, Gibeau 1998, Gibeau and
Herrero 1999, Gibeau et al. 1999a,b). HE is seriously compromised
by human development in the Lake Louise, Skoki, and Baker BMU’s. In
particular, the Bow Valley, where grizzly bear habitat potential is
greatest, is negatively affected by the TransCanada Highway, the Bow
Valley Parkway, the CP Railway, the Village of Lake Louise and outlying
commercial accommodation in the vicinity, and the Skiing Louise lease.
Linkage zone analysis (Gibeau et al. 1996) indicates that these
developments have created a significant filter to bear movements both back
and forth across and up and down the Bow Valley. Radio telemetry data from
the East Slopes Grizzly Project supports this conclusion (Gibeau et al. 1999a). Core security analysis (Gibeau et al. 1999b) shows that
grizzly bears in the study area survive in one of the most
human-influenced landscapes where they still exist. Reduced HE, severed
landscape linkages, and low percentages of land free of human encroachment
mean that these grizzlies must frequently encounter humans. High encounter
rates often lead to habituated bears, and habituated bears have
significantly higher mortality rates than wary bears. The examination of
grizzly bear mortality patterns in the Lake Louise region concludes that
Lake Louise has been and continues to be a mortality sink within the
larger Central Canadian Rockies Ecosystem (Benn 1998). Significant changes
to human land use patterns are required in the Lake Louise area to reverse
these trends.
|