Welcome To The Timmins Fur Council - www.timminsfurcouncil.com

A presentation to the Animal Use Issues session at the
68th International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Meeting
Winston-Salem, NC
March 26-29, 2003

There are those who believe that government decisions should be based solely on public sentiment and/or philosophical preferences. In any decision making process, the full spectrum of public opinion should be considered, but equally important, good science should also be taken into account. As wildlife managers, our role is to examine the science and to recommend the most appropriate action to achieve an identified management objective within the spectrum of opinion on a wildlife issue. The following presentation attempts to provide some of the science that can be used to make an informed decision with respect to rational and justifiable black bear management programming.

2 Management Strategies…

The events surrounding the cancellation of the spring bear hunt in Ontario prompted me to examine black bear hunting strategies in the event the anti-spring hunt movement came to Manitoba. I wanted to know what we could learn from Ontario’s decision to “eliminate the mistaken shooting of female bears with young cubs during the spring open hunting season,” and New Jersey’s decision to suspend the re-opening of a limited hunt which was intended to reduce the population to a desired density? Consequently or coincidentally, both jurisdictions are presently experiencing a growing trend in bear/human conflicts, while Manitoba, Minnesota and Quebec continue to experience a generally stable trend, with annual variations.

3 Hunting Strategies Survey

Why is that? Did these decisions, made after pressure from animal-rights groups, contribute to the growing trend in bear/human conflicts? Are the management decisions in Manitoba contributing to the stable trend? This led me to ask the question, is there a management strategy that is better at stabilizing bear/human conflicts, given the dynamics of the 21st century. To answer these questions, I decided to update a paper entitled “Baiting Black Bears: Hunting Techniques and Management Issues” originally researched and written by Craig McLaughlin and Howard Smith for the 10th Eastern Workshop on Black Bear Research and Management (1990). In that paper, the authors summarized the management strategies that were being used by 41 jurisdictions in the late 1980s. I designed a questionnaire to compare: the management strategies and the changes in population numbers in North America between the late 1980s and the start of the 21st century; and, the trend and level of problem bear incidents in that same time period.

Although all 63 jurisdictions in North America were surveyed, only 52 are represented by the following charts and maps. The 11 not represented did have reports of the occasional transient bear but did not have a resident black bear population.

Please Note: * Ontario is represented, but the values are not official.

4 Chart

“American black bears are doing well throughout most of their current range,” says Craig Hoover, deputy director of TRAFFIC North America. “On the whole wildlife management authorities responsible for black bear conservation should receive credit and acclamation for this success.”

The Estimated Growth of the Black Bear Population in North America from the late 1980s (625,060 – 770,425) through to the 21st Century (766,735 – 913,700) was 21 percent.

5 Combined Charts

Almost 65% of North America’s black bear populations are found in the 17 jurisdictions that have a spring season. In those 17 jurisdictions, black bear populations have increased by about 5-6%; while, the 21 jurisdictions with fall-only seasons, representing 30% of North America’s black bear populations, increased by over 60 percent. Populations in the remaining 14 jurisdictions without hunting seasons, increased by over 80 percent.

6 Combined Seasons and Trend Maps

As simplistic as the previous population growth charts were, and the following simplified maps are, together, they seem to imply that harvest strategies, including the timing of the harvest, can impact bear populations and, coincidentally or consequently, can be contributing to the rising trend in nuisance conflicts. If one were to super-impose the simplified trend in problems map over the simplified season pattern map, one can see a correlation.

The map also illustrates that hunting seasons seem to reflect cultural and regional attitudes rather than being based on biological factors. The seasons, baiting, and use of dogs summary maps illustrate this point…

fall-only vs. spring+fall = east+south vs. west+north / urban vs. rural …

Let me offer my thoughts as to why this may be occurring – a “macro” perspective.

7 Changing Dynamics

Prior to the 1980s, black bear populations were not allowed to establish in marginal and agricultural areas because rural inhabitants considered bears as vermin, and lived by the adage “if it has eyes, it dies.”

8 Dynamics Continued…

Over the last 20 years or so, bears have achieved the status of “Big Game” animal in most jurisdictions, and have become a valued sustainable resource. Bears have responded positively, in abundance and distribution, to conservative hunting seasons and hunting regulations. Bears are recolonizing prime habitat that was once cleared for agriculture and by forest operations. Land use practices have changed, from the family farm, to large-scale operations interspersed with the get-away “weekend urban-dweller.”

9 Dynamics Continued…

Human settlements, such as sub-divisions, satellite-communities, and recreational areas including the hospitality industry, have rapidly expanded to occupy prime bear range. People are no longer travelling to bear country; they are residing and recreating in the bear’s domain resulting in inevitable contact. What was once prime mature wooded stands, with an abundance of Quercus and/or Prunus habitat, has now been replaced with another high quality but dependable year-round food supply – garbage, bird feeders, fruit trees, compost, pet food, barbecues, gardens… Bears have embraced man’s occupation of the land and are choosing to become habituated.

10 Dynamics continued…

In 2002, Manitoba introduced an enhanced nuisance bear reporting system.

Preliminary figures identify recreational areas as the primary centers for nuisance activity across the province. Within these seasonal residential areas, garbage contributes 38 percent to the problem, while bird feeding accounts for a sizeable 36 percent, while bears feeding on oaks, cherries and apples account for another 23 percent. Bears may be returning to these areas to initially feed on acorns and berries to find the added benefit of associated human food sources. I propose that in some locations, it’s not about a lack of natural foods, it’s about a kid in a candy store. People have contributed to the creation of the “urban” bear and the associated problems they bring.

11 Urban Bear

Because bears are uniquely adaptive, they are able to thrive under these changes to the dynamics of the landscape. For example, a recent Nevada study has found that garbage bears are denning later than wild bears and are emerging slightly earlier due to the availability of human foods. Some of these garbage bears make regular forays to the dump throughout the denning period.

In Kenora Ontario, a recreational community of 16,000 located <50km from the Manitoba - Ontario border, a water tower maintenance worker counted 35 bears in a 6-block area, and it is estimated that on any given day, one can expect to find between 100 to 150 bears roaming the neighborhoods. In 2001, Kenora relocated 80 bears from a 250 km² area, while in the Whiteshell region of eastern Manitoba, a 6000 km² area with similar topography, habitat, and human land use and dispersion, 66 bears were trapped and relocated. Both regions were subjected to the same tent caterpillar infestation.

In one trap/relocation account, the same female with 3 cubs was relocated on three different occasions to three different release sites approximately an hour’s drive out of town; and in every instance, the family returned to Kenora. What life-skill do you think was being passed on to the offspring? Human habitation, in this case Kenora, is to be part of your home range. This example, and countless other similar examples across our continent, bring into question the effectiveness of relocation as a viable management tool for problem bears?

12 Black Bear Management

Bears are productive – in Manitoba, the age of first reproduction for females averages 4 years-of-age; mean litter size is 2.59 with an estimated survival rate of 80 percent; and females are able to produce litters every other year into their early-to-mid twenties. Longevity coupled with a recruitment rate of around 1cub/female/year, exceeds most big game species.

13 Seasons & Baiting Maps Combined

In fall hunting seasons, black bears are not the species of choice. Hunters traditionally seek ducks, geese, grouse, deer, elk, moose, etc… This is supported by the fact that in many jurisdictions black bear hunters represent less than 5 percent of all licence sales, whether it be for spring and/or fall season segments.

The spring season allows the hunter to focus on one species - the bear, since all other seasons are closed except for turkey. With this focus, there is a concerted effort rather than “if I happen to come across one” attitude. Fall-only seasons may not achieve a jurisdiction’s harvest objectives because of this lack of effort/focus, and/or in the absence of baiting.

14 Baiting

In jurisdictions that allow baiting but do not have a spring season, it may be difficult to lure bears when there is an abundance of natural foods in the fall. The result is a lower harvest as was the case in Minnesota in 2002 – 14 percent success, compared with 29 percent in 2001. Their preseason goal was 6,000 animals. Arkansas allowed baiting for the first time in 2001 in order to help that jurisdiction reach its harvest objective of 350 bears. In the past, they’d be lucky to harvest 150 to 200 animals. In Pennsylvania, an army of 110,000 hunters kills on average over 2,500 bears in a 3-day season that does not allow baiting – a whopping 3 percent success rate, and this is in an area that supports one of the most productive populations in North America. In contrast, a battalion of 3100 Manitoba hunters harvest on average 1800 animals over a 8-week spring and 6-week fall segments that allows baiting, for a 58% success rate.

Different dynamics require different strategies. Some argue that: “Hunting without bait in flat forest regions would be like asking a fisherman to fish without bait or lure, while in mountainous regions, baiting would be a call to lunch for grizzlies.”

15 Seasons & Baiting Maps Combined… Again

In the long-term, reducing the 1 to 5-year-old segment of the population, which contributes upwards of 70 percent of nuisance conflicts, goes a long way to manage the problem in advance of it becoming a problem. One less sub-adult in the spring, means one less sub-adult that may cause nuisance activity throughout the summer and early-fall, and one less dispersing sub-adult to carry forward its “food-conditioned” and/or “habituated” behaviour. In Manitoba, 65 to 88 percent of the spring harvest is 1 to 5-year-olds depending on the region. This segment is particularly vulnerable to baiting in the spring.

“Mother Nature” will ultimately have the final say on the severity of the nuisance problem in any given area and in any given year subject to biological and human carrying capacities. All things being equal, by timing the harvest in the spring, the number of nuisance animals/conflicts should be kept at manageable levels over the long term.

16 Hunting is Being Discredited

Animal-rights activists have campaigned successfully to bring discredit to hunting. We need to recognize and promote the merits of hunting and its effectiveness as a legitimate population management tool. When groups argue that hunting is no longer necessary because “the environment takes care of itself” or that “bears can be successfully sterilized,” you may want to consider countering with the following facts:

Density-dependent processes ultimately regulate most populations, but in the case of bears, it does not apply. The bear is at the top of the food chain and has the capability to alter its life strategy to accommodate its ecological circumstances. With the rare exception in some parts of Mexico, people in some fashion control all bear populations in North America. There is no evidence to demonstrate that bears dispersing beyond the periphery of their range would perish from malnutrition or predation by another species. Bear populations, if left unchecked, will continue to expand to the point of being a nuisance and a threat to other species, not to mention to themselves. Similarly, this can also be said of household pet populations. At some point, the public would no longer tolerate this nuisance, resulting in the implementation of population control measures such as: hunting, dispatchment, or euthanization.

17 Same Objectives, Different Means

Managing authorities, like Manitoba Conservation, and organizations like humane societies practice basic population management but use different means to achieve the same results. Governments manage populations, and attempt to provide use within conservation limits; while humane societies manage individuals, based on the availability of space to care for pets.

18 Different Means continued…

At the end of the day, no matter what spin is put on it, an animal is dead either by the hand of a hunter, or by the hand of a veterinarian or caregiver. Even with subsidized spaying and neutering programs, millions of pets have to be put down each year. In 2001, there were as many bears harvested provincially as there were cats euthanized by one organization in the City of Winnipeg, population of ~620,000. “48 Hours”, a CBS News program, reported that in the United States, five million dogs and cats were “put to sleep” in 2001. Is it not preferable to regulate bear numbers using an effective management strategy, rather than killing them wastefully just because they are overabundant or a problem?

19 In Closing

An environmental assessment entitled “Black Bear Nuisance and Damage Management in Wisconsin” (2002) recognized that “responsible management, not passive preservation is necessary when managing agricultural and natural resources, or protecting property and human health and safety.” As stewards of the black bear, our goal should be to find a balance, between the needs of the bear, and the needs of stakeholders, while protecting life and property in a cost-effective manner. I believe this can be best achieved by implementing harvest strategies that maintain bear populations at or below cultural and/or biological carrying capacities coupled with a public awareness program that instructs people on what they can do to prevent bears from becoming urbanized – typically, Removing the Attractant, Removes the Bear. A strategy that is biologically based should achieve the goal while maintaining costs to taxpayers at manageable levels. But, if taxpayers deem the higher costs associated with maintaining populations above carrying capacity justifiable, and are willing to assume the liabilities associated with injuries or damages caused by an overabundance of black bears, then so be it.

From my perspective though, it’s all about balance.

20 In Closing continued…

We should not be reactive in our management approaches, but rather be pro-active by: promoting the merits of hunting as a legitimate population management tool; teaching the public to apply the principles of “Good Housekeeping” to reduce nuisance conflicts; implementing effective harvest strategies that maintain black bear populations at or below biological and/or cultural carrying capacities, and having in place monitoring programs that assess the effectiveness of the population management strategy. Such a program would not be limited to, but would include the following components: hunter questionnaires to assess whether harvest objectives are being reached; sample collection programs to monitor the structure of the harvest, and to assess reproduction by collecting reproductive tracts to monitor the reproductive status of harvested females, and to assess cub orphaning rates; an enhanced nuisance bear reporting system to document trends in behaviour, age and sex of offenders, number of cubs, number of relocations and dispatchments, and an estimate of the costs associated with managing for problem bears. When budgets allow for a study, instead of studying remote bears, we should be studying urban bears because of the direct and immediate management impact, and design studies that test the theory that the timing of the harvest is important in stabilizing both black bear populations and bear/human conflicts.

21 North American Project Update

I am in the final stages of completing an interactive PowerPoint presentation that will appear on our web-site. A visitor to the site will be able to view a map of North America with mouse-over buttons linking them to individual jurisdictions where they will be able to view a series of s that will include: a black bear distribution map, a black bear population estimate and harvest strategy chart, a problem bear complaints and action chart, a synopsis of their bear management including caveats, and a web-site address linking the presentation to the jurisdiction's web-site. In addition to being able to view individual jurisdictions, the user will be able to view summaries in the form of charts and maps, some of which you have seen today. If jurisdictions wish, they will be able to do their own analysis of the data and forward their summaries for inclusion. At this point, a little over a third of the jurisdictions have completed Stage 2 of their presentations. Jurisdictions that have completed Stage 2, are identified by a bright-green fill-color. If you believe this project would be of value to you and/or the public, you may wish to find out whether your jurisdiction has completed their presentation, and if not, request that it is completed.

Hank Hristienko
Co-ordinator of Big Game Monitoring and Black Bear Management Programs
Manitoba Conservation, Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch
March 2003