SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Bears: Their Biology and Management”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Application of close-kin mark–recapture to an American black bear population using harvest samples

Close-kin mark–recapture (CKMR) offers a promising alternative to traditional mark–recapture methods for estimating wildlife population parameters. CKMR estimates demographic parameters by identifying genetic relationships between individuals, effectively “recapturing” parental genotypes through their offspring's genetic profiles. One key advantage of CKMR over traditional methods is the ability to estimate abundance without recapture, facilitating the use of lethally collected biological samples. Here, we present an application of CKMR to a terrestrial species using samples collected from harvested individuals. We analyzed genetic data from 1767 American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) harvested over two consecutive years in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Using Genotyping-in-Thousands by sequencing (GT-seq), we identified parent-offspring pairs and developed sex-specific models tailored to black bear reproductive biology and management strategies. Female population estimates aligned with our expectations, based on prior knowledge of the population. In contrast, male population estimates deviated from expectations, potentially due to an unmodeled combination of factors pertaining to male reproductive biology and sampling bias. Our study not only demonstrates the viability of using harvest-based CKMR for monitoring of terrestrial wildlife populations, but also highlights the need for careful model specification. By providing a novel method to estimate demographic parameters and population size, CKMR using harvest samples can inform management decisions and harvest quotas. This approach leverages existing management practices involving collection of genetic samples, such as mandatory harvest registrations and health monitoring programs. Our findings contribute to the growing body of CKMR applications and expand its use to terrestrial species management.

Michigan↗

USGS1990

Fluctuating asymmetry and testing isolation of Montana grizzly bear populations

Fluctuating asymmetry of adult skulls was used to test he genetic isolation of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population from its nearest neighbor. An overall summary statistic was used in addition to 16 other parameters. Tests found the males of the Yellowstone populaion to be more vaiable than those of the North Conitinental Divide Exosystem. Evidence for precipitaiton effects is also included. This test tends to support the existing management haypothesis that the Yellowstone population is isolatied.

Yellowstone National Park↗

USGS1983

Grizzly bear: habitat relationships in the Yellowstone area

Habitat use by grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) was studied from 1977 through 1979 in a 20,000-km 2 area with Yellowstone National Park in the center. Of 1826 aerial radio locations of 46 instrumental grizzlies, 90% were in timber. Three-fourths of the locations were 100 m or less from an edge between timber and an opening. Timber over 3 m tall with a canopy cover of 26-75% accounted for 50% of all activity sites from March through November. The Abies lasiocarpa/Vaccinium scoparium community alone contained 23% of the total activity sites and 35% of the forested activity sites. Of 507 observations of feeding activity, 45% were recorded in timber over 3 m tall with a canopy cover of 26-100%, 34% in timber with a 0.1-25% canopy cover, 20% in open habitats, and 3% in timber less than 3 m tall. Ninety-nine percent of examined day beds were in forested communities.

Yellowstone National Park↗

USGS1983

Use of pine nuts by grizzly and black bears in the Yellowstone area

The large seeds (pine nuts) of whitebark pine are commonly eaten in the spring (March-May) and fall (September-November) by grizzly and black bears in Yellowstone National Park and adjacent areas (Craighead and Craighead 1972, Blanchard 1978, Mealey 1980) and western Montana (Tisch 1961; J. Sumner and J. J. Craighead, unpubl. rep., Montant Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ. Montana, Missoula, 1973). Similar nuts from limber pine are eaten by grizzly bears on the east Rocky Mountain Front of northwestern Montana (Schallenberger and Jonkel, annual rep., Border Grizzly Project, Univ. Montana, Missoula, 1980). The nuts of the European stone pine ( P. cembra ) are an important food for brown bears ( U. arctos ) throughout the taiga zone in the Soviet Union (Pavlov and Zhdanov 1972, Ustinov 1972, Yazan 1972). Both the production of whitebark pine cones (Forcella 1977, Blanchard 1978, Mealey 1980) and the quantity of nuts consumed by bears vary annually (Mealey 1975, Blancard 1978). Pine nuts are also an important food for red squirrels in whitebark forests. In fall, squirrels remove cones from trees and cache them in middens. Bears as well as other mammalian and avian seed predators compete with squirrels for whitebark nuts (Forcella 1977, Tomback 1977). Confusion about the ripening process of whitebark pine cones has resulted in errors in the literature on the availability of pine nuts as a bear food. Whitebark cones are indehiscent and do not disintegrate (Tomback 1981). Vertebrate foraging probably leaves few, if any, seed-bearing cones on trees by late fall; the cones remaining abscise sometime thereafter (Tomback 1981). Because cones do not abscise or release their seed in fall, bears may obtain pine nuts in 2 ways. Black bears may climb whitebark pine trees and break off cone-bearing brnahces to feed on cones (Tisch 1961, Mealey 1975, Forcella 1977); or both black bears and grizzly bears may raid squirrel caches to feed on pine nuts (Tisch 1961, Craighead and Craighead 1972, Blanchard 1978). The purpose of this study was to determine (1) the major source of pine nuts for bears, (2) why cone scales do not appear in bear scat containing pine nuts, and (3) what factors influence bear use of pine nuts.

Yellowstone National Park↗

USGS1987

Prospects for Yellowstone grizzly bears

Recent analyses of data on the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population of Yellowstone National Park and its environs suggest the likelihood of a continuing decline in numbers if losses of fully adult females are not reduced. The size of the population is not known, and a simple projection model has been used to identify some inconsistencies in the available index data. Population dynamics calculations, based on Lotka's equation or a stochastic model, indicate a continuing decrease in numbers, although continued observations through radio-telemetry are needed to verify these trends. The margin between stabilizing the population and a continued decrease appears to be roughly the loss of 2 fully adult female bears per year. At present, the risk of extirpation of this population over the next 30 years appears to be small. Continued monitoring of survivorship will be needed, particularly because "recovery" of the population may be mainly characterized by a shift in the pattern of mortality, from adults to subadults, and not necessarily a reduction in absolute number of losses.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS1994

Brown bear-human interactions associated with deer hunting on Kodiak Island

I compared distribution and range of brown bears ( Ursus arctos middendorffi ) with temporal and spatial distribution of Sitka black-tailed deer ( Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis ) hunting activity on westside Kodiak Island, Alaska, to examine impacts of deer hunting on bears. Mean number of bears that annually ranged ≤5 km from the coast, >5 km inland from the coast, or in both areas was 10, 8, and 11, respectively. Bears that exclusively or seasonally occupied the coast zone were usually classed as having moderate or high potential to interact with hunters because most hunter access and effort (>95%) was via the coast. Bears that ranged exclusively inland were considered unlikely to encounter hunters. Animals that ranged in both zones often (39%) moved inland during fall (Oct-Dec) and most bears (70%) denned in the inland zone. Females that denned near the coast entered dens later (x̄ = 22 Nov) than females that denned inland (x̄ = 12 Nov). Two radio-collared bears were known to raid deer-hunting camps and 9 other marked bears were observed by hunters or were located <200 m from hunting camps. Deer-hunter surveys revealed that more than two-thirds of the deer harvest occurred during October-November. About half of the hunters observed at least 1 bear during their hunt. Seven to 21% of the respondents reported having a threatening encounter with a bear and 5-26% reported losing deer meat to bears. Human-induced mortality to radio-collared bears occurred more often near the coast (5) than inland (3); 7 bears were harvested by sport hunters and 1 was killed (nonsport) in a Native village. Deer hunters killed 2 unmarked females in defense of life or property situations in the study area. High bear densities and concentrated deer-hunting activity combine to make conflicts unavoidable. Adverse impacts to bears can be minimized by maintaining low levels of human activity in inland areas and improving hunter awareness of bear ecology and behavior.

Alaska↗

USGS1994

Grizzly bear use of army cutworm moths in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

The ecology of alpine aggregations of army cutworm moths ( Euxoa auxiliaris ) and the feeding behavior of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) at these areas were studied in the Yellowstone ecosystem from 1988 to 1991. Army cutworm moths migrate to mountain regions each summer to feed at night on the nectar of alpine and subalpine flowers, and during the day they seek shelter under various rock formations. Grizzly bears were observed feeding almost exclusively on moths up to 3 months each summer at the 10 moth-aggregation areas we identified. Fifty-one different grizzly bears were observed feeding at 4 of these areas during a single day in August 1991. Army cutworm moths are a preferred source of nutrition for many grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem and represent a high quality food that is available during hyperphagia.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS1994

Chromatographic (TLC) differentiation of grizzly bear and black bear scats

While past work concluded that thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was inadequate for the separation of grizzly ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) and black bear ( U. americanus ) scats, our study found differences adequate for species separation. A key was constructed using 19 of 40 data points recorded on each( N )=356 profiles of 178) know-species scat. Accuracy was best for late summer scats (94%). Methods for specimen preparation, analysis, and reading the TLC profiles are discussed. Factors involved in scat variation were tested.

Bears: Their Biology and Management↗

USGS1986

Using climate data to predict grizzly bear litter size

A 5-year double-bind test was conducted to test the predictive capability of a previously published (Picton 1978) regression (Y= 2.01 + 0.042 x ), which described the relationship between the littler size of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) and an index of climate plus carrion availability (climate-carrion index). This regression showed an efficient in excess of 99% in predicting the observed grizzly bear littler size. The predictions made using the climate-carrion index had a mean absolute error of less than 25% of forecasts using other methods. The updated climate-carrion index regression, which includes all of the 16 years for which data are available, is Y= 2.009 + 0.042 x ( r = 0.078; P < 0.01; N = 16). We concluded that the climate-carrion index can be a helpful tool in predicting grizzly bear littler size. The relation of this information to the effects of the closure of Yellowstone Park garbage dumps is discussed.

Bears: Their Biology and Management↗

USGS1986

Denning of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone National Park area

Radiotelemetry was used to locate 101 grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) dens from 1975 to 1980; 35 dens were examined on the ground. Pregnant females denned in late October, and most other bears denned by mid-November. Duration of denning average 113, 132, and 170 days for males, females, and females with new cubs, respectively. Males emerged from mid-February to late March, followed by single females and females with yearlings and 2-year-olds. Females with new cubs emerged from early mid-April. Den sites were associated with moderate tree cover (26%-75% canopy cover) on 30°-60° slopes. Dens occurred on all aspects, although northerly exposures were most common. Grizzly bears usually dug new dens but occasionally used natural cavities or a den from a previous year. Males usually dug larger dens than females with young. Eight excavated and 2 natural dens of the 35 examined dens were used for more than 1 year.

Idaho;Montana;Wyoming↗

USGS1990

Human impacts on bear habitat use

: Human effects on bear habitat use are mediated through food biomass changes, bear tolerance of humans and their impacts, and human tolerance of bears. Large-scale changes in bear food biomass have been caused by conversion of wildlands and waterways to intensive human use, and by the introduction of exotic pathogens. Bears consume virtually all human foods that have been established in former wildlands, but bear use has been limited by access. Air pollution has also affected bear food biomass on a small scale and is likely to have major future impacts on bear habitat through climatic warming. Major changes in disturbance cycles and landscape mosaics wrought by humans have further altered temporal and spatial pulses of bear food production. These changes have brought short-term benefits in places, but have also added long-term stresses to most bear populations. Although bears tend to avoid humans, they will also use exotic and native foods in close proximity to humans. Subadult males and adult females are more often impelled to forage closer to humans because of their energetic predicament and because more secure sites are often preempted by adult males. Although male bears are typically responsible for most livestock predation, adult females and subadult males are more likely to be habituated to humans because they tend to forage closer to humans. Elimination of human-habituated bears predictably reduces effective carrying capacity and is more likely to be a factor in preserving bear populations where humans are present in moderate-to-high densities. If humans desire to preserve viable bear populations, they will either have to accept increased risk of injury associated with preserving habituated animals, or continue to crop habituated bears while at the same time preserving large tracts of wildlands free from significant human intrusion.

Bears: Their Biology and Management↗

USGS1990

Seasonal movements of adult female polar bears in the Bering and Chukchi seas

Ten adult female polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) were fitted with satellite telemetry collars during March 1986 in the Kotzebue Sound area of the Chukchi Sea. During March-April 1987, 2 of these bears were refitted with satellite telemetry collars and an additional 10 adult females were collared in the northern Bering and eastern Chukchi seas. Data for 1,560 point locations recorded through May 1988 indicated that female polar bears in the Bering and Chukchi seas were resident in western Alaskan waters from November through March, then moved northward with the receding pack ice during April and May. They remained in the northern and northwestern Chukchi Sea during June through September, often adjacent to the Soviet coastline. Satellite telemetry data indicated that 4 females marked in Alaskan waters of the Chukchi Sea apparently denned in the vicinity of Wrangel Island during winter 1987/1988. Denning in American territory of bears marked in the Chukchi and Bering seas has not been documented using satellite telemetry data. Some polar bears moved from the Chukchi Sea into the western Beaufort Sea during summer and fall, then returned to the Chukchi and Bering seas the following winter. Movements of bears from the Chukchi Sea into the central or eastern Beaufort Sea were not documented through spring 1988. These data document that polar bears occuring in the Bering and Chukchi seas are shared internationally between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Alaska↗

USGS1990

Predatory behavior of grizzly bears feeding on elk calves in Yellowstone National Park

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) were observed preying on elk calves ( Cervus elaphus ) on 60 occasions in Yellowstone National Park, with 29 confirmed kills. Some bears were deliberate predators and effectively preyed on elk calves for short periods each spring, killing up to 1 calf daily. Primary hunting techniques were searching and chasing although some bears used a variety of techniques during a single hunt. They hunted both day and night and preyed on calves in the open and in the woods. Excess killing occurred when circumstances permitted. One bear caught 5 calves in a 15-minute interval. Elk used a variety of antipredator defenses and occasionally attacked predacious bears. The current level of this feeding behavior appears to be greater than previously reported. This is probably related to the increased availability of calves providing a greater opportunity for learning, and the adaptation of a more predatory behavior by some grizzly bears in Yellowstone.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS1990

Bear use of cutthroat trout spawning streams in Yellowstone National Park

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) and black bears ( U. americanus ) prey on spawning cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki , formerly known as Salmo clarki ) in tributary streams of Yellowstone Lake. These tributary streams were surveyed from 1985 to 1987 to determine the presence and level of trout spawning activity and bear use. Indices were developed to enumerate spawner density and levels of bear use. Of 124 known tributaries of Yellowstone Lake, 48% had a spawning run. Of these spawning streams, 93% had associated bear activity, and 61% had associated evidence of bear fishing. Bears were apparently using more spawning streams and fish compared to 10 years earlier. Bear use of cutthroat trout spawning streams appeared to be largely a positive function of volumetric spawner density. We hypothesize that abundance and quality of stream-side vegetation relative to other foraging options influenced bear use. Intra- and interspecific avoidance among bears was suggested by patterns of spawning stream use. Less bear use of spawning streams than expected occurred within 1 km of park developments.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS2002

Bear reintroduction: Lessons and challenges

Reintroduction is defined as an attempt to establish a species in an area that was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or become extinct. Historically, one of the most successful programs was the reintroduction of 254 American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) from Minnesota to the Interior Highlands of Arkansas in the 1960s; that population has grown to >2,500 today. More recent efforts have involved fewer but better monitored animals and have sometimes employed techniques to improve site fidelity and survival. In Pennsylvania, for example, pregnant female American black bears were successfully translocated from winter dens, the premise being that the adult females would be less likely to return because of the presence of young cubs. That winter-release technique was compared to summer trapping and release in Tennessee; winter releases resulted in greater survival and reduced post-release movements. Homing has not been a problem for small numbers of brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) reintroduced to the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem in Montana and Idaho and to the mountains of Austria and France. Reintroduction success appears to be correlated with translocation distance and is greater for subadults and females. As with any small population, reintroduced bear populations are susceptible to environmental variation and stochastic demographic and genetic processes. Although managers have focused on these biological barriers, sociopolitical impediments to bear reintroduction are more difficult to overcome. Poor public acceptance and understanding of bears are the main reasons some reintroduction programs have been derailed. Consequently, the public should be involved in the reintroduction process from the outset; overcoming negative public perceptions about bear reintroduction will be our greatest challenge.

Ursus↗

USGS2015

Resilience and risk: a demographic model to inform conservation planning for polar bears

Climate change is having widespread ecological effects, including loss of Arctic sea ice. This has led to listing of the polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) and other ice-dependent marine mammals under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Methods are needed to evaluate the effects of climate change on population persistence to inform recovery planning for listed species. For polar bears, this includes understanding interactions between climate and secondary factors, such as subsistence harvest, which provide economic, nutritional, or cultural value to humans. We developed a matrix-based demographic model for polar bears that can be used for population viability analysis and to evaluate the effects of human-caused removals. This model includes density-dependence (the potential for a declining environmental carrying capacity), density-independent limitation, and sex- and age-specific harvest vulnerabilities. We estimated values of adult female survival (0.93–0.96), recruitment (number of yearling cubs per adult female; 0.1–0.3), and carrying capacity (>250 animals) that must be maintained for a hypothetical population to achieve a 90-percent probability of persistence over 100 years. We also developed a state-dependent management framework, based on harvest theory and the potential biological removal method, by linking the demographic model to simulated population assessments. This framework can be used to estimate the maximum sustainable rate of human-caused removals, including subsistence harvest, which maintains a population at its maximum net productivity level. The framework also can be used to calculate a recommended sustainable harvest rate, which generally is lower than the maximum sustainable rate and depends on management objectives, the precision and frequency of population data, and risk tolerance. The historical standard 4.5-percent harvest rate for polar bears, at a 2:1 male-to-female ratio, is reasonable under many biological and management conditions, although lower or higher rates may be appropriate in some cases. Our modeling results suggest that harvest of polar bears is unlikely to accelerate population declines that result from declining carrying capacity caused by sea-ice loss, provided that several conditions are met: (1) the sustainable harvest rate reflects the population’s intrinsic growth rate, and the corresponding harvest level is obtained by applying this rate to an estimate of population size; (2) the sustainable harvest rate reflects the quality of population data (e.g., lower harvest when data are poor); and (3) the level of human-caused removals can be adjusted. Finally, our results suggest that stopgap measures (e.g., further reduction or cessation of harvest when the population size is less than a critical threshold) may be necessary to minimize the incremental risk associated with harvest, if environmental conditions are deteriorating rapidly. We suggest that the demographic model and approaches presented here can serve as a template for conservation planning for polar bears and other species facing similar challenges.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2022

The role of satellite telemetry data in 21st century conservation of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

Satellite telemetry (ST) has played a critical role in the management and conservation of polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) over the last 50 years. ST data provide biological information relevant to subpopulation delineation, movements, habitat use, maternal denning, health, human-bear interactions, and accurate estimates of vital rates and abundance. Given that polar bears are distributed at low densities over vast and remote habitats, much of the information provided by ST data cannot be collected by other means. Obtaining ST data for polar bears requires chemical immobilization and application of a tracking device. Although immobilization has not been found to have negative effects beyond a several-day reduction in activity, over the last few decades opposition to immobilization and deployment of satellite-linked radio collars has resulted in a lack of current ST data in many of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations. Here, we review the uses of ST data for polar bears and evaluate its role in addressing 21 st century conservation and management challenges, which include estimation of sustainable harvest rates, understanding the impacts of climate warming, delineating critical habitat, and assessing potential anthropogenic impacts from tourism, resource development and extraction. We found that in subpopulations where ST data have been consistently collected, information was available to estimate vital rates and subpopulation density, document the effects of sea-ice loss, and inform management related to subsistence harvest and regulatory requirements. In contrast, a lack of ST data in some subpopulations resulted in increased bias and uncertainty in ecological and demographic parameters, which has a range of negative consequences. As sea-ice loss due to climate warming continues, there is a greater need to monitor polar bear distribution, habitat use, abundance, and subpopulation connectivity. We conclude that continued collection of ST data will be critically important for polar bear management and conservation in the 21 st century and that the benefits of immobilizing small numbers of individual polar bears in order to deploy ST devices significantly outweigh the risks.

Frontiers in Marine Science↗

USGS1995

Biological consequences of relocating grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem

Relocating grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) from human/bear conflict situations has been a standard management procedure. Using data from Yellowstone National Park, we present components of situations that may affect the outcome of a relocation. Survival rates of transported bears were lower ( l x = 0.83) ( P = 0.001) than those not transported ( l x = 0.89). Survival was largely affected by whether the bear returned to the capture site ( P = 0.029). Return rate was most affected by distance transported ( P = 0.012) and age-sex group ( P = 0.014). Return rates decreased at distances -75 km, and subadult females returned least ( P = 0.050) often. Because of low survival and high return rates, transporting grizzly bears should be considered a final action to eliminate a conflict situation. However, transporting females must be considered a viable management technique because transports of some individuals have resulted in contributions to the population through successful reproduction.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗