Note: The full text of this report is displayed below. You also have the option of downloading a PDF version.
Gibeau, Michael L. and Stephen Herrero. 1999. Eastern slopes grizzly bear project:
A progress report for 1998. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Prepared for the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Steering Committee
This paper contains preliminary results of an on-going study and should not be cited without permission from the authors.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Project Background
Project Origins
Project Organization and Budget
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
STUDY AREA
METHODS
RESULTS
Population Studies
Capture
Telemetry Data Set
Population Demographics
Home Range
LITERATURE CITED
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Grizzly bear capture data in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1998.
Table 2. Status of all grizzly bears captured in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, as of December 1998.
Table 3. Unduplicated grizzly bear females with cubs of the year in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1998.
Table 4. Reproductive status of known female grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1994 – 1998.
Table 5. Summary of grizzly bear translocations in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1998.
Table 6. Summary of grizzly bear mortalities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1998.
Table 7. Summary of days monitored and fate of radio collared grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993-1998.
Table 8. Multi-annual home range sizes (square kilometers) of radio collared grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1994-1998.
Figures 1 and 2 not included in this version
INTRODUCTION
Project Background
Several hundred years ago grizzly bears lived throughout much of what is now the province of Alberta. Today a historically estimated population of approximately 6000 individuals (Herrero unpublished data), has decreased to an estimated 600 grizzly bears on provincial land and another 200 within federal national parks (Nagy and Gunson 1990). Grizzly bears have declined in Alberta because of mortality in excess of recruitment and because people have occupied and developed land which once supported the bears and less industrialized people.
Grizzly bears are recognized in Alberta as one of the principle species that indicates wilderness—large scale landscapes in a relatively natural state, the raw material out of which our culture was, and is still being created. Now, however, the last remaining unprotected wildland areas in Alberta are being modified by industrial and recreational activity. Because Albertans value nature and wildlife in addition to economic development, there is an urgent need to understand the impacts of human-caused mortality and land use on grizzly bears, and to target mortality rates and habitat protection and management that will allow for grizzly bear persistence. This direction is supported by the Grizzly Bear Management Plan of Alberta which states that the provincial population will be increased to 1000 (Nagy and Gunson 1990). It is also consistent with National Park management objectives for ecological integrity as set by the National Parks Act and Policy (1988).
On the Eastern Slopes in Alberta grizzly bears occur at relatively low population densities, only one bear for each 60-100 km2. Male grizzlies have lifetime home ranges of approximately 1000-2000 km 2 (Russell et al. 1979, Carr 1989). Females do not begin breeding until they are 4-7 years old and then they produce significantly less than one cub per year. Because of these biological characteristics grizzly bears recover slowly if at all from population declines, and only if negative mortality factors have been brought under control (Mattson et al. 1996). These and other biological characteristics are part of the reason why human activities can have such a significant impact on grizzly bears.
Alberta has an expanding economy based significantly on the development of natural resources such as agriculture, oil and gas, forestry, and nature-based tourism. Individual grizzly bears, owing to their large home ranges, may come into contact with all of these activities. Research based in Yoho and Kootenay national parks showed that individual grizzly bears may enter four different management jurisdictions in a year (Raine and Riddell 1991). Whether land is managed as parks, commercial forests, or privately, management practices must respond to the grizzlies needs if these bears are to survive. There is an urgent need for scientific data on grizzly bears to help land managers better understand the affects of human activities on grizzly bears.
Project Origins
The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP) formally began in May 1994. Neither the project, nor its membership, were formally designated by any group or agency. The Project and its members evolved from a number of different origins. An understanding of these helps in defining the nature of the Project.
First, were changes in legislation and policy at both the Federal and the Provincial levels. In 1988 the Government of Canada amended the National Parks Act. Changes included a recognition that ecological integrity was the primary objective of national park management. In this context, the grizzly bear is recognized as one of the most sensitive ecosystem elements, meaning they are difficult to maintain in landscapes that have a lot of human activities. Where grizzly bears exist, they are an indicator of ecological integrity. Parks Canada thus had new reason to be concerned about the status of grizzly bears, especially in national parks such as Banff which is part of one of the most developed landscapes where grizzly bears still survive. This legislative change was reflected in a re-written Parks Canada policy document that recognized the need for multi-agency approaches to parks management. Again, the grizzly bear with its wide-ranging movements across jurisdictional borders, became a focal species in trying to address multi-agency dimensions of parks management.
In 1992 the Federal government enacted the Canadain Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) which broadened the scope of traditional environmental assessment to consider the cumulative effects of developments at a landscape scale. The following year (1993) the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) passed which also included a provision for assessing the cumulative impacts of development proposals. The need to consider cumulative effects in evaluating development proposals has been highlighted in the review of several major project proposals for the Eastern Slopes of Alberta: the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)(now the Energy and Utilities Board – EUB) highlighted the need for cumulative effects assessment (CEA) in its review of AMOCO’s proposal to drill an exploratory well in the Whaleback region (ERCB 1994); the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) which was established to function similarly to the ERCB, but with regard to large, proposed recreational developments, indicated the need for CEA in its review of the Three Sisters Resort Proposal and the Westcastle Resort Proposal (NRCB 1993a, 1993b). In all these reviews grizzly bears, because of their regional movements and ecological relationships, and because of their sensitivity to development, became a focal species for cumulative effects assessment.
The second major element in the origin of the ESGBP was new information regarding the status of grizzly bears in the Canadian Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in Alberta. In 1990 the province of Alberta released its grizzly bear management plan (Nagy and Gunson 1990). This document clearly showed not only historic declines of grizzly bears in the province, but major over hunting, especially during 1980-1988. This launched the province into a limited entry system for managing
hunting. It revealed how subject grizzly bear populations are to excessive mortality, not just from hunting but from all sources. This documented excessive mortality, combined with rapid expansion in resource harvesting activities in the province, was important in raising Alberta Fish and Wildlife’s concern for grizzly bears.
In the national parks new information also clearly documented the need for interagency management of grizzly bears. Research had shown that grizzly bears in the Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks moved freely and extensively across park borders and that mortality outside of park borders was a significant issue (Russell et al. 1979, Raine and Riddell 1991). Herrero (1995) showed that Canadian National Park grizzly bear populations by themselves were probably all too small for a high probability of long term persistence, and therefore integrated management with surrounding provincial or territorial lands would be required. Within the boundaries of Banff , Yoho and Kootenay National Parks research by Gibeau (In press) showed that habitat effectiveness was significantly compromised by development. More recent research documents that grizzly bear populations in Banff Park have suffered exceptionally high mortality for a national park (Gibeau et al. 1996).
The third factor that led to formation of the ESGBP was growing awareness of the discipline of conservation biology. This is a discipline with the objective of using scientific information to help maintain biological diversity. Many of the principles of conservation biology focus on the design of systems of environmental reserves along ecological boundaries that most often cross jurisdictional divisions (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Within conservation biology large-bodied mammalian carnivores such as the grizzly bear are often used as indicator and umbrella species (see August 1996 issue of the journal Conservation Biology). By maintaining the large carnivores we will also maintain a significant degree of terrestrial regional ecological integrity.
The ESGBP was a product of the foregoing series of societal level influences plus many others that have not been mentioned. Like most projects this one responded to a need perceived by many different individuals and institutions, sometimes for different reasons. By joining in a cooperative endeavor and pooling resources a major project was launched.
Project Organization and Budget
The ESBGP is an informal association of participants organized into a steering committee whose objectives are to: 1) review and suggest strategic direction for research and encourage a research-based understanding of grizzly bear biology and ecology in selected portions of the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta, 2) help focus research efforts on the cumulative effects of regional land use and mortality factors on grizzly bears, 3) provide a forum for various stakeholders to discuss land use planning issues as they relate to grizzly bears, 4) help secure funding and other forms of agency support, 5) coordinate public outreach initiatives and 6) contribute to the conservation of grizzly bear populations and their habitat in the Eastern Slopes.
All steering committee participants contribute either money, time or both toward the objectives. The group, meets about 4 times a year. It has a chair who was elected from a core organizing group. Membership currently consists of a selection of representatives from various groups that have either jurisdiction, resource harvest activities or potential, or other interests regarding occupied grizzly bear habitat in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains. The principal participants are Parks Canada, the Province of Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board, Fish and Wildlife Division, Lands and Forest Service, and Kananaskis Country), the University of Calgary, conservation groups, the oil and gas industry, the forest products industry, the land development industry and the cattle industry. There are numerous minor supporters as well, but most do not have direct representation on the Steering Committee.
During meetings research findings and strategic directions are discussed along with budget needs to further the committees objectives. The group serves as a focal point for fund raising activities to support the Project. Significant development proposals and activities are discussed in light of their potential cumulative effects regarding grizzly bears and their habitat.
During the period of 1994-1997 the ESGBP was been successful in raising over $1,450,000 to support the research. Sources for this funding have been: Parks Canada 46%, oil and gas industry 34%, Alberta Government 11%, other research grants 4%, forest industry 3%, conservation groups 1%, and land development industry (Herrero and Herrero 1996). Contributions to this project are tax deductible because they go to support independent research by the University of Calgary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A very successful fifth field season would not have been possible without the dedication of field biologists J. Wittingham, C. Mamo, C. Mueller, J. Saher, S. Stevens, S. Stotyn, and M. Urquhart. Their efforts were augmented through the largely volunteer support of C. Campbell and M. Lacroix. Assistance in coordination of field staff was provided by A. Dibb, S. Donelon and T. Hurd. Trapping was conducted by R. Leblanc, and C. Mamo. Veterinary care was provided by Dr. Todd Shury. Several Alberta Fish and Wildlife Officers, Banff National Park Wardens and Peter Lougheed Park Rangers all provided invaluable safety backup and field assistance during trapping. The Banff Park Warden Service and Kananaskis Country Park Rangers provided logistical support through all stages of monitoring. Exemplary flying skills were provided by Alpine Helicopters of Canmore and fixed wing pilot M. Dupuis of Wildlife Observation Air Services.
The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Steering Committee helped implement and guided this research. All steering committee participants contribute either money, time or both toward the objectives. Through the Steering Committee, governments, industry, business and conservation groups work together to support this project. The supporters include:
Alberta Conservation Assoc.
Spray Lakes Sawmills
Alberta Natural Resources Service
Alberta Lands and Forest Service
Canadian Pacific Foundation
Friends of Kananaskis Country
Alberta Cattle Commission
Alberta Energy Utilities Board
Alpine Helicopters
AMOCO Canada Petroleum Co. Ltd.
Calgary Zoological Society
Canadian Assoc. of Petroleum Producers
Bow Valley Naturalists
Canadian Parks & Wilderness Soc.
Canmore Collegiate High School
Eagle Terrace Developments
Human Resources Canada
Husky Oil
Parks Canada, BNP & AB Region
Shell Canada Ltd.
Springbank Middle School
Sking Louise Ltd.
Three Sisters Resorts Inc.
University Of Calgary
World Wildlife Fund Canada
Warner Guiding and Outfitting Ltd.
Wilderness Medical Society
Rigel Energy
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Prior to the ESGBP, little research has focused on the effects of non-motorized tourism oriented activities on bears. One of our principle research questions is how do grizzly bear’s spatial and temporal use patterns differ in areas of high human presence compared to areas with low human presence in a landscape, some of which is dominated by tourism activities? Our situation is unique in that few other grizzly bear study areas in North America have both a high volume transcontentinal highway and railway bisecting occupied grizzly bear habitat along with intensive tourism. Analysis has never been done on the effects of such levels of human presence on grizzly bears. One important question is the extent to which the Bow River Valley continues to function as a major movement corridor for bears providing connectivity between habitats. Unregulated human access and development within bear habitat can contribute to increased bear mortality and affect grizzly bear use of existing habitat.
The overall goal of this research is to understand how developments and human-induced mortality impact grizzly bears. Specific research objectives include:
1. Determine the basic demographic parameters for the grizzly bear population within the study area.
2. Detect spatial and temporal activity patterns of bears given various levels of human influences.
3. Determine how the distribution of humans affects a bear’s ability to use the landscape.
4. Determine if population connectivity is being impeded by major transportation corridors.
5. Determine what adjustments to human activities would give bears better access to resources.
6. Suggest management alternatives for integrating land uses compatible with bear habitat needs for the study area.
STUDY AREA
The area of interest remains unchanged from year 1 with the Bow River Watershed, from its headwaters to approximately where it meets the prairies, as the core study area. The Bow River drainage system is approximately 11,400 km2. The greater study area defined by the movement of radio-collared bears is about 22,000 km2 or roughly twice the size of the core study area.
METHODS
Methods for both the capture and monitoring of bears remain unchanged from the detailed description found in the year 1 progress report (Gibeau and Herrero 1995). Approximately 25 grizzly bears per year have active radio-collars. These bears are monitored from air and ground wherever they go and our budget permits. Aerial monitoring gives infrequent, but relatively unbiased data regarding location. This facilitates understanding of home range, movements and habitat use. Ground-based research allows intensive monitoring of grizzly bear activities related to development features such as towns, highways, campgrounds and trails. Mortality is monitored using both aerial and ground-based telemetry. The radio-telemetry monitoring area includes lands under several different jurisdictions. In the British Columbia portion of these lands, where some of our radio-collared grizzly bears are found, there is a Western Slopes Bear Research Project (Woods pers. comm.) which provides complementary data and will allow a broader ecosystem versus provincial boundary-based understanding of grizzly bears in what has been called the Central Rockies Ecosystem (Komex International 1995).
RESULTS
Population Studies
Capture
In 1998 emphasis was placed on capturing dispersing subadult bears (Table 1).
Table 1. Grizzly bear capture data in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1998.
|
ID |
Sex |
Age Estimate |
Weight (kg) |
Area |
Comments |
|
45 |
M |
4a |
86 |
Lake Louise |
cub of Bear #46 |
|
46 |
F |
14a |
91 |
Lake Louise |
|
|
56 |
F |
4a |
Lake Louise |
cub of Bear #30 |
|
|
59 |
F |
4a |
Lake Louise |
cub of Bear #30 |
|
|
60 |
F |
4a |
74 |
Lake Louise |
cub of Bear #30 |
|
65 |
F |
4a |
61 |
Lake Louise |
cub of Bear #46 |
* certainty code a= +/- 0 years, b= +/- 1-2 years, c= +/- 2-3 years
Since the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project began in May of 1994, we have captured 25 male and 29 female grizzly bears. Currently, 25 bears are radio-instrumented including 6 males and 19 females (Table 2). Of the remainder, 11 bears have died, 15 have dropped collars or stopped transmitting, 1 was removed from the system, and 2 were never collared initially.
Table 2. Status of all grizzly bears captured in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, as of December 1998.
|
ID |
Sex |
Age at 1st capture |
Date 1st captured |
Current status |
No of radio relocations |
|
10 |
M |
13 a* |
05/07/94 |
unknown- drop collar 06/98 |
333 |
|
11 |
M |
4 b |
05/17/94 |
unknown – drop collar 07/97 |
48 |
|
12 |
M |
13 b |
05/19/94 |
dead – 10/04/94 |
14 |
|
13 |
M |
5 a |
05/25/94 |
active |
485 |
|
14 |
M |
9 a |
05/29/94 |
unknown- no signal 05/97 |
49 |
|
15 |
M |
6 a |
05/20/94 |
active |
336 |
|
16 |
M |
5 a |
08/16/93 |
removed to zoo 07/05/96 |
168 |
|
17 |
F |
10 a |
06/02/94 |
unknown – drop collar 07/96 |
103 |
|
18 |
F |
6 a |
05/30/94 |
active |
140 |
|
19 |
M |
6 b |
05/13/94 |
dead – 05/14/94 |
1 |
|
20 |
M |
11 a |
05/14/94 |
unknown – drop collar 08/94 |
8 |
|
21 |
M |
3 a |
05/21/94 |
dead – 07/26/95 |
3 |
|
22 |
M |
14 a |
05/21/94 |
dead – 05/28/94 |
2 |
|
23 |
M |
3 a |
05/28/94 |
dead – 08/08/96 |
75 |
|
24 |
F |
5 a |
05/31/94 |
active |
503 |
|
25 |
M |
6 a |
05/31/94 |
unknown – drop collar 09/94 |
15 |
|
26 |
F |
18 a |
06/08/94 |
active |
440 |
|
27 |
F |
2 a |
06/13/94 |
unknown – no signal 04/96 |
35 |
|
28 |
F |
22 a |
06/08/94 |
dead – 08/24/96 |
71 |
|
29 |
M |
2 a |
06/13/94 |
unknown – never collared |
1 |
|
30 |
F |
9 a |
09/28/94 |
active |
882 |
|
31 |
F |
7 c |
06/25/94 |
unknown – drop collar 05/96 |
120 |
|
32 |
F |
13 b |
06/04/94 |
unknown – drop collar 10/97 |
156 |
|
33 |
F |
19 a |
06/14/94 |
active |
268 |
|
34 |
M |
6a |
05/17/95 |
unknown – no signal 05/97 |
54 |
|
35 |
F |
4a |
05/17/96 |
dead – 09/20/97 |
187 |
|
36 |
F |
8a |
06/23/93 |
active |
242 |
|
37 |
F |
10 a |
06/27/94 |
active |
244 |
|
38 |
M |
1 a |
06/27/94 |
unknown – never collared |
8 |
|
39 |
F |
3a |
05/10/95 |
unknown – no signal 08/96 |
105 |
|
40 |
F |
15c |
05/15/95 |
active |
334 |
|
ID |
Sex |
Age at 1st capture |
Date 1st captured |
Current status |
No of radio relocations |
|
41 |
F |
12a |
05/28/95 |
active |
74 |
|
42 |
M |
7a |
05/30/95 |
active |
61 |
|
43 |
M |
5a |
05/24/96 |
dead – 10/10/96 |
11 |
|
44 |
M |
4a |
06/13/95 |
dead – 08/23/96 |
27 |
|
45 |
M |
1a |
06/15/95 |
active – with #46 |
104 |
|
46 |
F |
11a |
06/15/95 |
active |
317 |
|
47 |
F |
9a |
06/02/96 |
active |
191 |
|
48 |
F |
2a |
06/02/96 |
unknown – no signal 09/97 |
14 |
|
49 |
M |
2a |
06/02/96 |
unknown – no signal 06/98 |
19 |
|
50 |
M |
4a |
06/17/96 |
unknown – no signal 06/96 |
2 |
|
51 |
M |
8a |
05/23/97 |
unknown – drop collar 06/98 |
31 |
|
52 |
M |
7b |
05/16/97 |
active |
30 |
|
53 |
M |
3a |
05/15/97 |
dead – 10/20/98 |
38 |
|
54 |
M |
15a |
06/03/97 |
active |
49 |
|
55 |
F |
6a |
06/07/97 |
active |
63 |
|
56 |
F |
3a |
05/28/97 |
active |
134 |
|
57 |
F |
5a |
05/17/97 |
active |
52 |
|
58 |
M |
9a |
06/08/97 |
dead – 09/23/97 |
5 |
|
59 |
F |
3a |
05/28/97 |
active |
99 |
|
60 |
F |
3a |
05/28/97 |
active |
143 |
|
61 |
F |
12a |
06/11/97 |
active |
260 |
|
62 |
F |
8a |
06/12/97 |
active |
124 |
|
65 |
F |
4a |
05/15/98 |
active – with 46 |
104 |
* certainty code a= +/- 0 years, b= +/- 1-2 years, c= +/- 2-3 years
Telemetry Data Set
Aerial and ground monitoring from the mid-March until the first week of December produced 2066 point locations for the 1998 field season. Of these 505 (24%) were from the air and 1561 (76%) from ground monitoring. Aerial locations were biased toward early morning hours. Ground locations were also biased towards where observers could travel easily.
Since 1994 the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project has collected 7382 telemerty relocations. Of these 2041 (28%) were from the air and 5335 (72%) from ground monitoring. Eight hundred and nineteen aerial locations were visual observations. Sightability was higher from the air (40%) than from the ground (9%). Table 2 outlines the number of telemetry points for each individual from project initiation to December 1998.
Population Demographics
Observations from the research team as well as records from Banff National Park, Kananaskis Country Rangers and Alberta Fish and Wildlife Services established a minimum unduplicated count of females with cubs for the years 1993 – 1998 (Table 3). Over time, a minimum count of sows with cubs can be established and used as a trend indicator (Knight et al. 1995).
Table 3. Unduplicated grizzly bear females with cubs of the year in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1998.
|
Family Identification |
Most Cubs Observed |
Location |
# of Sightings |
|
A – 1993 |
1 |
Bryant Creek |
2 |
|
B – 1993 |
2 |
Fatigue Creek |
1 |
|
C – 1993 |
2 |
Moraine Lake |
1 |
|
D – 1993 |
2 |
Cascade River |
1 |
|
E – 1993 |
2 |
Elbow R. / Nahahi Ridge |
3 |
|
F – 1993 |
2 |
Kananaskis Lakes |
4 |
|
A – 1994 |
2 |
Lower Cascade River |
1 |
|
B – 1994 |
1 |
Moose Mtn. / Elbow R. |
2 |
|
C – 1994 |
2 |
Mt. Indefatigable |
4 |
|
D – 1994 |
1 |
Bryant Cr. / Mt. Nestor |
2 |
|
Bear #28 1994 |
1 |
Upper Cascade River |
2 |
|
Bear #30 1994 |
3 |
Baker Lake / Pipestone R. |
5 |
|
Bear #36 1994 |
1 |
Upper Bow River |
2 |
|
Bear #46 1994 |
2 |
Pipestone River |
1 |
|
Bear #47 1994 |
2 |
Kananaskis Lakes |
2 |
|
A – 1995 |
2 |
West Bragg Cr / Powderface |
3 |
|
B – 1995 |
2 |
Skogan Pass / Wasootch |
3 |
|
C – 1995 |
2 |
Upper Spray / Albert R. |
3 |
|
Bear #17 1995 |
1 |
Cascade River |
13 |
|
Bear #18 1995 |
3 |
Bryant Cr. / Assiniboine |
10 |
|
Bear #26 1995 |
2 |
Nakiska / Evans Thomas |
6 |
|
Bear #31 1995 |
2 |
Highwood River |
3 |
|
Bear #32 1995 |
3 |
Forty Mile Cr. / Elk Lake |
12 |
|
Bear #33 1995 |
3 |
Cascade River / Stoney Cr. |
14 |
|
A – 1996 |
1 |
Cascade R. / Grassy Ridge |
1 |
|
B – 1996 |
3 |
Mid Spray River |
1 |
|
Bear #24 1996 |
2 |
Highwood Pass |
25 |
|
Bear #36 1996 |
2 |
Upper Bow River |
8 |
|
Bear #37 1996 |
2 |
Elbow / Sheep Rivers |
3 |
|
Family Identification |
Most Cubs Observed |
Location |
# of Sightings |
|
A – 1997 |
2 |
Wind Valley |
2 |
|
B – 1997 |
3 |
Elbow Lakes |
2 |
|
A – 1998 |
1 |
West Bragg Creek |
2 |
|
B – 1998 |
2 |
Palliser Range |
2 |
|
C – 1998 |
1 |
Pipestone River |
1 |
|
Bear # 33 1998 |
2 |
Cascade River |
4 |
|
Bear # 41 1998 |
1 |
Simpson River |
4 |
|
Bear # 47 1998 |
2 |
Kananaskis Lakes |
3 |
|
Bear # 55 1998 |
1 |
Cascade River |
9 |
|
Bear #57 1998 |
1 |
Plateau Mtn |
6 |
Reproductive success of radio collared females was determined through year to year visual observations between 1994 and 1998 (Table 4). Year to year cub survivorship can be tracked by referring to the table and comparing the number of cubs observed in a given year to the previous years observations. Reproductive data from collared females will eventually be used to construct an estimate of whether the sample population is increasing or decreasing.
There were no grizzly bear translocations out of the study area in 1998. Since 1993, there have been 6 translocations from the Bow River Watershed (Table 5).
Table 4. Reproductive status of known female grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1994 – 1998.
|
Bear |
Location |
Age in |
|
|
|
Cubs In |
|
|
|
Age of First |
Interbreeding |
|
# |
98 |
94 |
95 |
96 |
97 |
98 |
99 |
2000 |
Parturition |
Interval |
|
|
17 |
Cascade River |
13+ |
0 |
1 |
1 |
off air |
|||||
|
18 |
Bryant Creek |
10 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2* |
7 |
4 |
||
|
24 |
Highwood Pass |
9 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2* |
7 |
3 |
||
|
26 |
Nakisa |
22 |
2* |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
||||
|
27 |
Cascade River |
5+ |
0 |
0/off air |
|||||||
|
28 |
Cascade River |
24+ |
1 |
0 |
0/died |
||||||
|
30 |
Lake Louise |
13 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3* |
5 |
|||
|
31 |
Highwood River |
9+ |
0 |
2 |
off air |
||||||
|
32 |
Cascade River |
17 |
1* |
3 |
3 |
3* |
3 |
||||
|
33 |
Cascade River |
23 |
2* |
3 |
2 |
2* |
2 |
3 |
|||
|
35 |
Evan Thomas |
5+ |
0 |
0 |
0/died |
||||||
|
36 |
Upper Bow River |
13 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
||||
|
37 |
Sheep River |
14 |
1* |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
||||
|
39 |
Kananaskis River |
4+ |
0 |
0/off air |
|||||||
|
40 |
Spray River |
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||||
|
41 |
Brewster Creek |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|||||
|
46 |
Pipestone Creek |
14 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2* |
6 |
|||
|
47 |
Kananaskis Lakes |
11 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2* |
2 |
7 |
4 |
||
|
48 |
Kananaskis Lakes |
4 |
0 |
0/off air |
|||||||
|
55 |
Cascade River |
7 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
||||||
|
56 |
Lake Louise |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
|
57 |
Cateract Creek |
6 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
||||||
|
59 |
Lake Louise |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
|
60 |
Lake Louise |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
|
61 |
Spray River |
13 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
|
62 |
Cascade River |
9 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
|
65 |
Pipestone River |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
|
# known females with c.o.y. |
5\12 |
6\14 |
3\15 |
0\15 |
5\15 |
* cubs dispersed | |||||
|
cub survival |
coy |
7\9 |
11\14 |
4\6 |
0\0 |
?\8 |
+ age at time of death or contact lost | ||||
|
y1y |
7\7 |
7\9 |
2\4 |
0\0 |
|||||||
|
y2y |
7\7 |
7\7 |
0\0 |
||||||||
|
y3y |
5\5 |
0\0 |
|||||||||
|
y4y |
2\2 |
||||||||||
37 cubs observed between 1994 – 1998 to 19 females = 1.9 cubs/sow.
There were 4 known mortalities within the study area in 1998 (Table 6). An adult female was killed by a vehicle on Highway 40, a subadult was killed in aggressive encounter with Bear #10, radio collared study bear #53 was shot and left, and an old adult male was destroyed by Alberta Fish and Wildlife Services after a cattle depredation.
Table 5. Summary of grizzly bear translocations in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1998.
| Bear
Identification |
Date | Translocation |
Sex |
Age |
| From To | ||||
| AFWS #407801a | 09/04/93 | Canmore-410b Owl Crk-339 |
M |
Subadult |
| Research #23 | 10/21/94 | Sundre-318 Mitsue-350 |
M |
3 |
| B.C. GF75 | 09/26/95 | Lake Louise Kinbasket L |
F |
9 & 1yly |
| Research #50 | 06/17/96 | Canmore-410 Highwood-404 |
M |
4 |
| Research #16 | 07/05/96 | Banff Calgary Zoo |
M |
8 |
| AFWS# | 0729/97 | PLPP-648 Nordegg – 428 |
M |
Subadult |
a Occurance number
b Wildlife Management Unit
Table 6. Summary of grizzly bear mortalities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1998.
| Bear
Identification |
Date |
Location |
Sex |
Age |
Kill Type |
| AFWS #21055a | 08/19/93 |
West Spray-408b |
M |
3 |
PWc |
| Research #19 | 05/13/94 |
Kananaskis-648 |
M |
6 |
AC |
| Research #22 | 05/28/94 |
Albert R.-B.C. |
M |
14 |
LH |
| AFWS #25161 | 09/29/94 |
Fortress Mt-408 |
M |
subadult |
IL |
| Research #12 | 10/04/94 |
Simpson R.-B.C. |
M |
13 |
SD |
| Research #21 | 07/26/95 |
Elkford B.C. |
M |
4 |
PW |
| AFWS #25722 | 08/20/95 |
Sarcee Reserve |
M |
unkn |
TI |
| investigate | fall/95 |
3 Point Cr.-406 |
? |
unkn |
IL |
| BNP L952104 | 09/25/95 |
Lake Louise |
F |
adult |
PW |
| BNP L952104 | 09/25/95 |
Lake Louise |
F |
yly |
PW |
| C – 1995 | 10/12/95 |
Albert River |
F |
adult |
PW |
| AFWS #34990 | 06/04/96 |
Morley |
M |
adult |
TI |
| Research #44 | 08/23/96 |
Stoney Reserve |
M |
5 |
TI |
| Research #28 | 08/24/96 |
Cascade River |
F |
24 |
NA |
| Research #23 | 08/08/96 |
James River |
M |
5 |
PW |
| Research #43 | 10/10/96 |
Grease Creek |
M |
5 |
IL |
| BNP97-1567 | fall 1996 |
Spray Lake |
? |
subadult |
? |
| Research #35 | 09/20/97 |
Evan Thomas Cr. |
F |
5 |
TI |
| Research #58 | 09/23/97 |
James River |
M |
9 |
PW |
| BNP98- | 06/05/98 |
Bryant Cr. |
? |
subadult |
NA |
| AFWS # | 07/18/98 |
Kananaskis R |
F |
adult |
AC |
| Research #53 | 10/20/98 |
Trap Cr. |
M |
4 |
IL |
| AFWS # | 09/??/98 |
Pekisko Cr. |
M |
adult |
PW |
a Registration or file number
b Wildlife Management Unit
c PW=problem wildlife, AC=accidental, LH=legal hunter, SD=self defense, NA=natural, TI=treaty Indian, IL=Illegal
Phase Two of the ESGBP will focus on monitoring trends in the grizzly bear population through landscape scale data collection of demographic parameters such as reproduction and survival rates. The number of days monitored and fate of each radio collared bear are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Summary of days monitored and fate of radio collared grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993-1998.
|
|
Adult Male |
Subadult Male |
Adult Female |
Subadult Female |
||||||||||||
|
Bear # |
D* |
C* |
A* |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
|
|
1993 |
|
|
|
|
16 |
138 |
|
|
36 |
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
138 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
193 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
|
Total |
0 |
138 |
193 |
0 |
||||||||||||
|
1994 |
16 |
365 |
21 |
225 |
28 |
207 |
24 |
215 |
||||||||
|
12 |
135 |
23 |
218 |
17 |
213 |
|||||||||||
|
19 |
1 |
11 |
229 |
31 |
190 |
|||||||||||
|
22 |
7 |
13 |
221 |
32 |
211 |
|||||||||||
|
25 |
93 |
36 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
20 |
78 |
18 |
216 |
|||||||||||||
|
14 |
217 |
26 |
207 |
|||||||||||||
|
10 |
239 |
30 |
95 |
|||||||||||||
|
15 |
226 |
33 |
201 |
|||||||||||||
|
37 |
188 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Subtotal |
508 |
627 |
226 |
443 |
229 |
221 |
207 |
614 |
1272 |
0 |
0 |
215 |
||||
|
Total |
1361 |
893 |
2093 |
215 |
||||||||||||
|
1995 |
16 |
365 |
21 |
207 |
28 |
365 |
27 |
214 |
||||||||
|
14 |
365 |
23 |
365 |
17 |
365 |
39 |
236 |
|||||||||
|
10 |
365 |
44 |
202 |
31 |
365 |
|||||||||||
|
34 |
229 |
11 |
365 |
32 |
365 |
|||||||||||
|
13 |
365 |
36 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
15 |
365 |
18 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
42 |
216 |
24 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
26 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
30 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
33 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
37 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
40 |
231 |
|||||||||||||||
|
41 |
218 |
|||||||||||||||
|
46 |
200 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Subtotal |
365 |
959 |
946 |
774 |
365 |
0 |
365 |
1095 |
3204 |
0 |
450 |
0 |
||||
|
Total |
2270 |
1139 |
4664 |
450 |
||||||||||||
|
|
Adult Male |
Subadult Male |
Adult Female |
Subadult Female |
||||||||||||
|
Bear # |
D* |
C* |
A* |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
|
|
1996 |
16 |
186 |
23 |
220 |
28 |
236 |
35 |
229 |
||||||||
|
11 |
365 |
44 |
235 |
17 |
181 |
27 |
90 |
|||||||||
|
14 |
365 |
43 |
140 |
31 |
120 |
39 |
212 |
|||||||||
|
10 |
365 |
50 |
0 |
32 |
365 |
|||||||||||
|
34 |
365 |
36 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
13 |
365 |
18 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
15 |
365 |
24 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
42 |
365 |
26 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
30 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
33 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
37 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
40 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
41 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
46 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
47 |
213 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Subtotal |
551 |
1095 |
1095 |
595 |
0 |
0 |
236 |
666 |
3863 |
229 |
302 |
0 |
||||
|
Total |
2741 |
595 |
4765 |
531 |
||||||||||||
|
1997 |
11 |
181 |
53 |
231 |
32 |
273 |
35 |
263 |
||||||||
|
58 |
108 |
49 |
214 |
36 |
365 |
48 |
92 |
|||||||||
|
14 |
120 |
18 |
365 |
57 |
229 |
|||||||||||
|
10 |
365 |
24 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
34 |
120 |
26 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
51 |
223 |
30 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
13 |
365 |
33 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
15 |
365 |
37 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
42 |
365 |
40 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
52 |
231 |
41 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
54 |
212 |
46 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
47 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
55 |
208 |
|||||||||||||||
|
61 |
204 |
|||||||||||||||
|
62 |
203 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Subtotal |
289 |
828 |
1538 |
231 |
214 |
0 |
0 |
273 |
4630 |
355 |
0 |
229 |
||||
|
Total |
2655 |
445 |
4903 |
584 |
||||||||||||
|
|
Adult Male |
Subadult Male |
Adult Female |
Subadult Female |
||||||||||||
|
Bear # |
D* |
C* |
A* |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
Bear # |
D |
C |
A |
|
|
1998 |
10 |
151 |
53 |
293 |
36 |
365 |
57 |
365 |
||||||||
|
51 |
151 |
49 |
151 |
18 |
365 |
|||||||||||
|
13 |
365 |
24 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
15 |
365 |
26 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
42 |
365 |
30 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
52 |
365 |
33 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
54 |
365 |
37 |
365 |
|||||||||||||
|
40 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
41 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
42 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
47 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
55 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
56 |
214 |
|||||||||||||||
|
59 |
214 |
|||||||||||||||
|
60 |
214 |
|||||||||||||||
|
61 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
62 |
365 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Subtotal |
0 |
302 |
1825 |
293 |
151 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5752 |
0 |
0 |
365 |
||||
|
Total |
2127 |
444 |
5752 |
365 |
||||||||||||
* Eventual fate of bear as of December 1998. D=dead; C=censored (no longer being monitored); A=active.
Home Range
Minimum convex polygon (MCP) and fixed kernel home ranges were calculated for all bears with multi-annual telemetry locations (Table 8). The average 99% MCP home range from a sample of 14 males was 1172 km2 ( range = 339 – 2910 km2). The average 99% MCP home range from a sample of 21 females was 277 km2 ( range = 79 – 884 km2).
Composite maps of MCP home ranges for males (Figure 1) and females (Figure 2) continue to show clear differences between the sexes in interactions across the highly developed portions of the Bow Valley. After five years of data collection, no radio collared adult females have crossed the Trans Canada Highway. Subadult female #56 crossed the Trans Canada Highway within the town of Lake Louise twice (crossing briefly, then returning). Females have periodically crossed other hard surface 2 lane roads such as Highway 93 or 40.
Table 8. Multi-annual home range sizes (square kilometers) of radio collared grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1994-1998.
|
Bear ID |
# of Telemetry Locations for Kernel Method a |
95%Fixed Kernal w/ lscv b |
# of Telemetry Locations for MCP Method c |
99% Minimum Convex Polygon |
|
Females 17 |
54 |
138 |
99 |
111 |
|
18 |
95 |
311 |
113 |
236 |
|
24 |
74 |
209 |
406 |
279 |
|
26 |
102 |
146 |
320 |
497 |
|
28 |
51 |
250 |
65 |
307 |
|
30 |
84 |
248 |
429 |
268 |
|
31 |
31 |
– |
103 |
79 |
|
32 |
80 |
192 |
126 |
328 |
|
33 |
104 |
217 |
213 |
218 |
|
35 |
42 |
115 |
145 |
168 |
|
36 |
60 |
297 |
207 |
617 |
|
37 |
88 |
1041 |
132 |
884 |
|
39 |
29 |
– |
102 |
125 |
|
40 |
80 |
199 |
160 |
206 |
|
41 |
70 |
194 |
70 |
189 |
|
46 |
67 |
76 |
185 |
321 |
|
47 |
51 |
155 |
137 |
245 |
|
55 |
27 |
– |
45 |
180 |
|
57 |
31 |
– |
49 |
282 |
|
61 |
34 |
– |
133 |
232 |
|
62 |
36 |
– |
93 |
150 |
|
Males 10 |
72 |
580 |
245 |
1890 |
|
11 |
35 |
– |
47 |
1183 |
|
13 |
79 |
926 |
334 |
1181 |
|
14 |
25 |
– |
46 |
997 |
|
15 |
100 |
1030 |
269 |
1025 |
|
16 |
26 |
– |
121 |
1120 |
|
23 |
15 |
– |
35 |
2910 |
|
34 |
23 |
– |
43 |
1460 |
|
42 |
38 |
– |
52 |
418 |
|
44 |
23 |
– |
25 |
896 |
|
51 |
19 |
– |
28 |
1756 |
|
52 |
28 |
– |
29 |
637 |
|
53 |
26 |
– |
36 |
339 |
|
54 |
29 |
– |
45 |
598 |
a Independent sample of aircraft locations only.
b Least squares cross validation smoothing method. A minimum of 40 locations required.
c One location per day based on both air and ground telemetry.
LITERATURE CITED
Carr, H.D. 1989. Distribution, numbers and mortality of grizzly bears in and around Kananaskis Country, Alberta. Fish and Wildl. Div. Wildl. Manage. Branch Wildl. Res. Series 3. 49 pp.
ERCB. 1994. Decision report D 94-8, Application for an exploratory well, Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., Whaleback Ridge Area. Energy Resources Conservation Board, Edmonton.
Gibeau, M.L. In press. Grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model for Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks, Canada. Int. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 10: 000-000.
Gibeau, M. and S. Herrero. 1995. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project: 1994 Progress Report. University of Calgary, AB. 26 pp.
Gibeau, M. and S. Herrero. 1996. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project: 1995 Progress Report. University of Calgary, AB. 46pp.
Gibeau, M., S. Herrero, J. Kansas and B. Benn. 1996. Grizzly bear population and habitat status in Banff National Park: A report to the Banff Bow Valey Task Force. University of Calgary, AB. 62 pp.
Herrero, S. 1995. The Canadian National Parks and grizzly bear ecosystems: The need for interagency management. Int. Conf. Bear. Res. and Manage. 9:7-21.
Herrero, S. and J. Herrero. 1996. Cheviot Mine: A proposed carnivore compensation program. BIOS Environmental Research Ltd., Calgary, AB. 38 pp.
Herrero, S., D. Poll, M. Gibeau, J. Kansas, and B. Worbets. 1998. The eastern slopes grizzly bear project: Origins, organization, and direction. Proceedings; Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, Annual meeting, Calgary, AB. November 1995.
Komex Intl. 1995. Atlas of the Central Rockies Ecosystem. Komex Intl., Calgary, A.B.
Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, R.G. Wright and C.M. Pease. 1996. Science and management of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears. Consv. Biol. 10(4): 1013-1025.
Nagy, J.A. and J.R. Gunson. 1990. Management plan for grizzly bears in Alberta. Alberta Fish and Wildlife, Edmonton. 164 pp. plus appendicies.
Noss, R. and Cooperrider. 1994. Saving natures legacy: Projecting and restoring biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, D.C.
NRCB. 1993a. Decision report. Application to construct a recreational and tourist resort Project in the Town of Canmore, Alberta. Application 9103- Three Sisters Golf Resorts Inc. Natural Resources Conservation Board. Edmonton.
NRCB. 1993b. Decision report, Application #9201, Vacation Alberta corporation application to construct recreation and tourism facilities in the West Castle Valley, Near Pincher Creek, Alberta. Natural Resources Conservation Board, Edmonton.
Raine, M. and R. Riddell. 1991. Grizzly bear research in Yoho and Kootenay National Parks. Canadian Parks Service Report, Calgary, Alberta.
Russell, R.H., J.W. Nolan, N.G. Woody, and G.H. Anderson. 1979. A study of the grizzly bear in Jasper National Park. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton. 102 pp. plus 10 appendicies.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Woods, John. Research ecologist. Glacier/Revelstoke National Parks, Revelstoke, B.C.
Figure 1. Home ranges of radio-collared male grizzly bears, 1994 – 1998.
Figure 2. Home ranges of radio-collared female grizzly bears , 1994 – 1998.