grizzly bear monitoring in the bow river watershed · grizzly bear monitoring in the bow river...

GRIZZLY BEAR MONITORING IN THE

BOW RIVER WATERSHED

A progress report for 2002

This is a continuation of research formally directed under the umbrella of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project

By

Michael L. Gibeau1 and Saundi Stevens2

This paper contains preliminary results of an on-going study and should not be citedwithout permission from the authors.

1Grizzly Bear Specialist, Parks Canada, Box 213 Lake Louise, Alberta. T0L 1E0.

2Artemis Wildlife Research, 637 3rd St. Canmore, Alberta. T1W 2H9.

March 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4WEBSITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4POPULATION STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CAPTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4TELEMETRY DATA SET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A REPORT ON COMPARISON OF SELECT HEALTH DATA . . . . . . . 13HOME RANGE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2Grizzly Bear Monitoring in the Bow River Watershed: 2002 Progress Report Gibeau & Stevens

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A very successful ninth field season would not have been possible without the dedication of fieldbiologists C. Campbell, S. Ciancone, C.Hague and S. Stevens. A. Dibb and S. Donelanprovided assistance and coordination of field staff. C. Mamo, I. Ross, the Banff National ParkWarden Service and Alberta Sustainable Resource Developement conducted trapping. Dr.Todd Shury provided veterinary care. Several Alberta Conservation Officers and Banff NationalPark Wardens provided invaluable safety backup, field assistance and logistical support throughall stages of monitoring. Exemplary flying skills were provided by Alpine Helicopters of Canmoreand fixed wing pilot M. Dupuis of Wildlife Observation Air Services.

Although the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project is over, the Steering Committee continues tohelp implement and guide this research. Steering committee participants contribute eithermoney, time or both toward the objectives. Financial support for the 2002 field season wasgenerously provided by:

Alberta Sustainable ResourceDevelopmentAlberta Community Development Calgary ZooFederal Government of Canada

Species at Risk ProgramDepartment of Foreign Affairs

Skiing Louise Ltd.Parks CanadaUniversity of CalgaryWarner Guiding and Outfitting Ltd.Y2Y/Wilburforce FoundationFoothills Model Forest

BACKGROUND

Grizzly bears are recognized in North America as an important indicator species, acting in therole of an umbrella species. They require large-scale landscapes in a relatively unimpairedstate. High levels of human activity and development pressures in the Central Canadian RockyMountains are currently impacting habitat fragmentation, displacement, and mortality of largecarnivores including grizzly bears. As demands on the land increase, the cumulative effects fromindividually minor, yet collectively significant uses occurring over space and time continue tomount with the potential loss of viability for grizzly bear populations

The management plans for the four mountain National Parks identifies grizzly bears to be anindicator species for the assessment of ecological integrity. Over the past 8 years the Universityof Calgary through what has been called the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project has led aresearch program that has provided extensive factual information among stakeholders,governments, and the general public concerning the status of grizzly bears in the CanadianRocky Mountains. With that research phase winding down there is a need to continuemonitoring into the future to track population trends, and to assess the effects of land usedecisions. This work needs to continue and Parks Canada has taken a leadership role incoordinating and financially supporting grizzly bear population monitoring.

We now have a significant investment in a data set relative to the regional grizzly bearpopulation. Within the management plans for the four mountain National Parks grizzly bears areconsidered an indicator of ecological integrity. Monitoring is essential to assess theeffectiveness of Management Plan actions.


GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of our research is to provide agencies with the necessary knowledge to ensure thelong-term conservation of grizzly bears in the Central Rockies Ecosystem and the Bow RiverWatershed, in particular. Program objectives include:• Provide information that will support management programs to ensure viable grizzly bear

populations over time.• Identify habitat and landscape conditions that contribute to or limit viable and regionally

connected grizzly bear populations.

Population trend monitoring, that is, monitoring trends in the grizzly bear population throughlandscape-scale data collection of the two most important demographic parameters,reproduction and survival rates, will form the core of grizzly bear research at this time. Thecurrent program is designed to generate information on grizzly bear population status andtrends, by conducting data collection in the field, and through computer analysis and modeling. The monitoring program will ensure continuity in a long term data set and provide a data base tosupport additional research priorities as funding and resources come available. The monitoringis part of an adaptive management strategy to manage bears and people, and ultimately toimprove ecological integrity.

During 2002 our research continued to focus on gathering basic reproductive and mortality datafor analysis of demographic parameters. Preliminary research findings in the Bow RiverWatershed suggest that the grizzly bear population here has the lowest reproductive rate andlongest inter-litter interval known to any bear population in North America (Garshelis et al. 2001). Also, recent analysis of micro-satellite DNA has established that there are genetic differences inthe grizzly bear population between the north and south sides of the Trans Canada Highway(Michael Proctor pers. Comm.). These recent findings may indicate that female grizzlies couldbe experiencing environmental stress. Two important questions arise from these findings; first,to what extent does the Bow River Valley continue to function as a major movement corridor forbears providing connectivity between habitats? Secondly, why do we have this low reproductiverate?

STUDY AREA

The study area of interest remains unchanged from year 1 with the approximately 11,400 km2

Bow River Watershed, from its headwaters to approximately where it meets the prairies, as thecore study area. The greater study area defined by the movement of radio-collared bears isabout 22,000 km2 or roughly twice the size of the core study area. At the largest scale ourresearch encompasses the 42,000 km2 Central Rockies Ecosystem (Komex International 1995).

METHODS

Methods for both the capture and monitoring of bears remain unchanged from the detaileddescription found in the year 1 progress report (Gibeau and Herrero 1995) and the captureprogram report (Stevens et al. 1999). 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 give infrequent, but relatively unbiased data regarding location. Thisfacilitates understanding of home range, movements and habitat use. Ground-based researchallows intensive monitoring of grizzly bear activities related to development features such astowns, highways, campgrounds and trails. Mortality is monitored using both aerial and ground-based telemetry. The radio-telemetry monitoring area includes lands under several differentjurisdictions.

RESULTS WEBSITE

Most of the ESGBP publications (plus considerable other related material) can be found atwww.canadianrockies.net/grizzly where it is also available for downloading.

POPULATION STUDIESCAPTURE

Springtime trapping efforts in 2002 were concentrated in the Spray River Valley and in thevicinity of Lake Louise ski area of Banff National Park (Table 1). Emphasis was placed oncapturing adult females for reproductive/mortality monitoring and recapturing bears whosetransmitters and GPS collars were due for replacement. A separate spring trapping effort inKananaskis Country was made by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development officials inresponse to the G8 Summit of Leaders at Kananaskis Park Lodge in June. One additional bearwas captured during management actions (Table 1).

Table 1. Grizzly bear capture data in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 2002.

ID Sex AgeEstimate

Weight (kg) Area Comments

75 M 8a 102 Kananaskis R.



78 M 13a 236 Wind Valley recapture of bear #34


80 F 7a 101 Kananaskis R.



82 M 3a 73 Spray R.

83 F 1a 34 Lake Louise

84 M 1a 37 Lake Louise

84 M 1a 65 Lake Louise recapture


ID Sex AgeEstimate

Weight (kg) Area Comments

86 M 7a 127 Spray R.

59 F 8a 88 Lake Louise replace GPS collar

73 M 4a 88 Lake Louise recapture

42 M 14a 145 Spray R.

70 F 5a 75 Canmore replace GPS collar

85 M Adult 250 est. Elbow R. incidental

88 F 10a 127 Elbow R. management capture

* certainty code a= +/- 0 years, b= +/- 1-2 years, c= +/- 2-3 years

TELEMETRY DATA SET

Aerial and ground monitoring from early April until November produced 1600 point locations forthe 2002 field season. Of these 331 (21%) were from the air and 1269 (79%) from groundmonitoring. Aerial locations were biased toward early morning hours. Ground locations werebiased to where observers could travel easily. In 2002, we obtained an additional 1884 pointlocations of an adult female grizzly bear equipped with a GPS collar in Banff National Park. InKananaskis Country, 2 adult male and 1 subadult female were equipped with GPS collars andcombined, provided an additional 1528 point locations to the database.

Since the project began in May 1994 a total of 77 individuals have been handled (Table 2). Ofthose, 22 have died, and 24 are currently radio collared. The sex/age breakdown of the currentradio collared sample is as follows:

12 adult females 7 adult males 3 subadult females 3 subadult males

Table 2. Status of all grizzly bears captured in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, as of November 2002.

ID1 Sex Ageclass2

Age-firstcapture 3

Monitoring Periodday/month/year

Fate Cause 4 Recentsighting

10 M AD 13a 07/05/94-12/06/96 and 19/04/97-10/06/98 lost drop collar11 M SA 4b 20/05/94 - 03/9611 AD 03/96 - 23/07/97 lost drop collar12 M AD 13b 19/05/94 - 05/10/94 dead self defense13 M SA 5a 20/05/94 - 03/9513 AD 03/95 - 15/11/01 lost drop collar14 M AD 9a 19/05/95 - 24/10/96 lost no signal - b


ID1 Sex Ageclass2

Age-firstcapture 3



15 M AD 6a 20/05/94 - 31/10/02 active16 M SA 5a 16/08/93 - 03/9416 AD 03/94 - 05/07/96 dead removed to zoo17 F AD 10a 02/06/94 - 12/07/96 lost drop collar 10/9918 F AD 6a 30/05/94 - 19/10/02 lost drop collar19 M AD 6b 13/05/94 - 14/05/94 dead accidental20 M AD 11a 14/05/94 - 07/07/94 lost drop collar21 M SA 3a 21/05/94 - 26/07/95 dead problem wildlife22 M AD 14a 21/05/94 - 28/05/94 dead legal hunting23 M SA 3a 28/05/94 - 08/08/96 dead problem wildlife24 F SA 5a 31/05/94 - 03/9524 AD 03/95 - 31/10/02 active25 M AD 6a 31/05/94 - 21/09/94 lost drop collar 07/9526 F AD 18a 08/06/94 - 21/09/99 dead self defense27 F SA 2a 13/06/94 - 15/09/95 lost no signal - b 06/9928 F AD 22a 08/06/94 - 09/08/96 dead natural29 M SA 2a never collared30 F AD 9a 28/09/94 - 31/10/02 active31 F AD 7c 25/06/94 - 27/04/96 lost drop collar32 F AD 13b 04/06/94 - 18/10/97 lost drop collar33 F AD 19a 14/06/94-22/09/99 and 03/08/00-31/10/02 active34 M AD 6a 17/05/95-05/11/96 and 20/05/02-15/08/02 lost drop collar35 F SA 4a 17/05/96 - 20/09/97 dead treaty Indian36 F AD 8a 23/07/93 - 31/10/02 active37 F AD 10a 27/06/94 - 30/06/02 lost drop collar38 M D 1a never collared39 F SA 3a 10/05/95 - 18/08/96 lost no signal - b40 F AD 15c 15/05/95 - 03/06/00 dead natural41 F AD 12a 28/05/95 - 09/05/01 lost no signal - b42 M AD 7a 30/05/95-06/10/00 and 08/06/02 active43 M SA 5a 24/05/96 - 05/10/96 dead illegal44 M SA 4a 13/06/95 - 23/08/96 dead treaty Indian45 M D 4a 19/05/98 - 22/06/99 lost drop collar45 AD 03/06/00 - 31/10/01 lost drop collar46 F AD 11a 15/06/95 - 31/10/02 active47 F AD 9a 02/06/96 - 31/10/02 active48 F D 2a 02/06/96 - 06/9748 SA 06/97 - 10/09/97 lost no signal - c48 AD 01/06/02 - 31/10/02 active49 M D 2a 02/06/96 - 06/9749 SA 06/97 - 29/05/98 lost no signal - b 10/9950* M SA 4a 17/06/96 - 20/06/96 lost no signal - a51 M AD 8a 23/05/97-10/06/98 and 25/06/01-30/05/02 dead natural52 M AD 7b 16/05/97 - 01/08/02 lost drop collar53 M SA 3a 15/05/97 - 20/10/98 dead illegal54 M AD 15a 03/06/97 - 10/10/99 lost no signal -c55 F AD 6a 07/06/97 - 10/09/99 lost drop collar 10/9956 F D 3a 26/05/97 - 06/9856 SA 06/98 - 03/0056 AD 03/00 - 30/09/01 dead accidental57 F SA 5a 17/05/97 - 03/9857 AD 03/98 - 31/10/02 active58 M AD 9a 08/06/97 - 23/09/97 dead problem wildlife59 F D 3a 26/05/97 - 06/9859 SA 06/98 - 03/0059 AD 03/00 - 31/10/02 active


ID1 Sex Ageclass2

Age-firstcapture 3



60 F D 3a 26/05/97 - 06/9860 SA 06/98 - 03/0060 AD 03/00 - 17/08/00 dead accidental61 F AD 12a 11/06/97 - 20/08/99 lost no signal -c or a62 F AD 8a 12/06/97 - 29/06/01 lost no signal - b63 F AD 7a 08/06/99 - 01/06/02 lost no signal - b64 F AD 10a 03/06/99 - 01/06/02 lost no signal - b65 F D 4a 15/05/98 - 06/9965 SA 06/99 - 03/0065 AD 03/00 - 06/08/00 lost drop collar 07/0266 F SA 4a 13/06/99 - 03/0166 AD 03/01 - 31/10/02 active67 M SA 3a 13/06/99 - 10/10/99 dead accidental 06/0068 M SA 5a 03/08/00 - 03/0168 AD 03/01 - 29/05/02 dead treaty Indian69 F SA 3a 14/09/00 - 02/07/02 dead treaty Indian70 F SA 3a 14/09/00 - 31/10/02 active71* F SA 3a 19/07/01 - 31/10/02 active72 F AD 8a 18/06/01 - 01/07/02 lost no signal - b73* M SA 3a 09/09/01 - 01/09/02 lost no signal - b74 M SA ? 07/09/01 - 31/10/02 active75 M AD 8a 13/05/02- 31/10/02 active76 M AD 7a 15/05/02- 31/10/02 active77 M AD 4a 19/05/02- 31/10/02 active79 M AD 7a 20/05/02- 01/09/02 lost drop collar80 F AD 7a 28/05/02- 31/10/02 active81 F SA 4a 29/05/02- 31/10/02 active82 M SA 3a 09/06/02- 11/06/02 dead accidental83 F SA 1a 31/05/02- 04/06/02 dead accidental84 M SA 1a 31/05/02- 31/10/02 active85 M AD 20/10/02 - 31/10/02 active86 M AD 7a 11/06/02 - 31/10/02 active88* F AD 10a 23/10/02 - 31/10/02 active

1 * denotes management related capture2 D = dependent, SA = subadult, AD = adult (>5 years old)3 certainty code from tooth analysis: a = +/- 0 years, b = +/- 1-2 years, c = +/- 2-3 years4 (a) High probability that disappearance was related to death, (b) High probability that disappearance was unrelated to death, (c)No indication of which of the above 2 choices is more likely

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

Observations from the research team as well as records from Banff National Park and AlbertaNatural Resources Service established a minimum unduplicated count of females with cubs forthe year (Table 3). Over time, a minimum count of sows with cubs (Table 4) can be establishedand used as a trend indicator (Knight et al. 1995). In this report, we changed our analysis fromthe previous 6 year running average to an 8 year running average (Table 4) based on 2 femalebreeding cycles of 4+years; a cycle which better represents the litter interval of female grizzlybears in the Bow River Watershed.


Table 3. Unduplicated grizzly bear females with cubs of the year in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta,1993 - 2002.

Family Identification

Most CubsObserved

Location # ofSightings

A - 1993 1 Bryant Creek 2B - 1993 2 Fatigue Creek 1C - 1993 2 Moraine Lake 1D - 1993 2 Cascade River 1E - 1993 2 Elbow R. / Nahahi Ridge 3F - 1993 2 Kananaskis Lakes 4A - 1994 2 Lower Cascade River 1B - 1994 1 Moose Mtn. / Elbow R. 2C - 1994 2 Mt. Indefatigable 4D - 1994 1 Bryant Cr. / Mt. Nestor 2

Bear #28 1994 1 Upper Cascade River 2Bear #30 1994 3 Baker Lake / Pipestone R. 5Bear #36 1994 1 Upper Bow River 2Bear #46 1994 2 Pipestone River 1Bear #47 1994 2 Kananaskis Lakes 2

A - 1995 2 West Bragg Cr / Powderface 3B - 1995 2 Skogan Pass / Wasootch 3C - 1995 2 Upper Spray / Albert R. 3

Bear #17 1995 1 Cascade River 13Bear #18 1995 3 Bryant Cr. / Assiniboine 10Bear #26 1995 2 Nakiska / Evans Thomas 6Bear #31 1995 2 Highwood River 3Bear #32 1995 3 Forty Mile Cr. / Elk Lake 12Bear #33 1995 3 Cascade River / Stoney Cr. 14

A - 1996 1 Cascade R. / Grassy Ridge 1B - 1996 3 Mid Spray River 1

Bear #24 1996 2 Highwood Pass 25Bear #36 1996 2 Upper Bow River 8Bear #37 1996 2 Elbow / Sheep Rivers 3

A - 1997 2 Wind Valley 2B - 1997 3 Elbow Lakes 2A - 1998 1 West Bragg Creek 2B - 1998 2 Palliser Range 2C - 1998 1 Pipestone River 1

Bear # 33 1998 2 Cascade River 4Bear # 41 1998 1 Simpson River 4Bear # 47 1998 2 Kananaskis Lakes 3Bear # 55 1998 1 Cascade River 9Bear # 57 1998 2 Plateau Mtn 6Bear # 18 1999 1 Bryant Creek 4Bear # 26 1999 2 Nakiska 1Bear # 36 1999 2 Upper Bow River 5Bear # 56 2000 1 Lake Louise 10Bear # 37 2000 2 Elbow River 3

A - 2000 2 Elpoca Cr. 2Bear # 30 2001 3 Lake Louise 4Bear # 47 2001 2 Kananaskis Lakes 5Bear # 56 2001 2 Lake Louise 85Bear # 57 2001 2 Plateau Mtn 4Bear # 62 2001 2 Cascade River 2Bear # 66 2001 2 Bow River 3

A - 2001 2 Lake Louise 2B - 2001 3 Cascade River 2

Bear # 24, 2002 1 Highwood Pass 8


Family Identification

Most CubsObserved

Location # ofSightings

Bear # 36, 2002 2 Bow Summit 6Bear # 46, 2002 1 Pipestone/Baker 2Bear # 59, 2002 1 Lake Louise 8Bear # 65, 2002 1 Lake Louise 18Bear # 72, 2002 2 Moraine Lake 32

A - 2002 1 Highwood River 1B - 2002 2 Cascade River 2

Table 4. Number of unduplicated females with cubs of the year (COY), and 8 year running averages inthe Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 - 2002.

YearFemalesw/COY

Total # COY

Mean littersize

8 year running averages

F w/COY # cubs Litter size

1993 6 11 1.8

1994 9 15 1.6

1995 9 20 2.2

1996 5 10 2.0

1997 2 5 2.5

1998 8 12 1.5

1999 3 5 1.6

2000 3 5 1.6 5.6 10.4 1.9

2001 8 18 2.2 5.9 11.3 1.9

2002 8 11 1.4 5.8 10.8 1.9

Reproductive success of radio collared females was determined through year to year visualobservations between 1994 and 2002 (Table 5). Year to year cub survivorship can be trackedby referring to the table and comparing the number of cubs observed in a given year to theprevious years observations. Reproductive data from collared females is being used toconstruct an estimate of whether the sample population is increasing or decreasing.

10

Table 5. Reproductive status of known female grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 2002. (* denotes cubs dispersed)

Female Location Age at first Cubs In# capture 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002

17 Cascade River 10 0 1yoy 1 off air 2yoy 218 Bryant Creek 6 0 3yoy 2 2 2* 1yoy 1 1 ?or0/off air24 Highwood Pass 5 0 0 2yoy 2 2* 0 0 0 1yoy26 Nakisa 18 2* 2yoy 1 0 0 2yoy/died 027 Cascade River 2 0 0/off air - - 2yoy 228 Cascade River 22 1yoy 0 0/died30 Lake Louise 9 3yoy 3 3 3 3* 0 0 3yoy 3yly31 Highwood River 7 0 2yoy off air32 Cascade River 13 1* 3yoy 3 3* off air33 Cascade River 19 2* 3yoy 2 2* 2yoy 2 2 2* 035 Evan Thomas 4 0 0 0/died36 Upper Bow River 8 1yoy 0 2yoy 1 0 2yoy 2 2* 2yoy37 Sheep River 10 1* 0 2yoy 1 0 0 2yoy 2 2/off air39 Kananaskis River 3 0 0/off air40 Spray River 15 0 0 0 0 0 0/died41 Brewster Creek 12 0 0 0 1yoy 1 1 1/off air46 Pipestone Creek 10 2yoy 2 2 2 2 2* 0 0 1yoy?47 Kananaskis Lakes 7 2yoy 2 2 2* 2yoy 2 2 2yoy 2yly48 Kananaskis Lakes 2 0 0/off air 2yoy ? 2yly55 Cascade River 6 0 1yoy 1/off air 156 Lake Louise 3 0 0 0 1yoy>0 2yoy/died57 Cateract Creek 5 0 2yoy 2 2 2yoy ?59 Lake Louise 3 0 0 0 0 0 1yoy>060 Lake Louise 3 0 0 0 0/died61 Spray River 12 0 0 0/died ?62 Cascade River 8 0 0 0 0 2yoy/off air63 Yoho R. 7 0 0 0 0/off air64 Healy Creek 10 0 0 0 0/off air65 Pipestone River 4 0 0 0/off air 1 yoy66 Cascade River 4 0 0 2yoy 069 Wind Valley 3 0 0/off air died70 Wind Valley 3 0 0 071 Bow Valley 3 0 072 Lake Louise 8 0 2yoy/off air80 Kananaskis 7 081 Kananaskis 4 088 Lake Louise 10 0 2 2yr old?


To better understand and report causes of grizzly bear mortalities occurring in the study area, wehave refined the division of mortality types. Our current division is based largely on theclassification of mortalities reported in McLellan et al. (1999) and include Natural, Human andUnknown causes (Table 6). Mortalities classified as Human-Caused were further categorized byLegal Harvest, Government Action, Citizen Action, Misidentification, Accidental, Illegal, TreatyIndian and Research. Government Action describes where a bear was killed, by a governmentwildlife official as a management problem, for the apparent reason that the bear was attracted togarbage, agricultural livestock/ feed, or where public safety was threatened. Citizen Action,describes where a bear was killed, by anyone other than a government official, out of self-defenseor because the bear was attracted to garbage or agricultural livestock/feed and the person thoughttheir safety was threatened. The mortalities we classified as Self-defense were exclusivelyattributed to ungulate hunters encountering grizzly bears.

Since 1993, we have documented a total of 39 grizzly bear mortalities, 34 of which were human-caused, in the Bow River Watershed (Table 6). There were 7 known mortalities within the studyarea in 2002 (Table 7). Two radio collared bears and one unmarked bear were killed by TreatyIndian, #51 died of natural causes and #83 was hit by a vehicle on the Trans Canada highway nearLake Louise in June. Two bears were predated on while captured in snares during spring thetrapping session.

Table 6. Age-sex class for known grizzly bear mortalities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993-2002.

Cause of Death

Age-Sex class

Total

AdultFemale

AdultMale

SubadultFemale

SubadultMale

Adultsex

unknown

Subadultsex

unknown

Maleage classunknown

Femaleage classunknown

Natural 2 1 1 4Human Caused Legal Harvest 1 1 Government Action Safety 2 1 1 4 Agriculture 1 1 2 Garbage 1 1 Citizen Action Self-Defense 1 1 1 1 4 Agriculture 1 1 2 Garbage Misidentification 1 1 Accidental Railway 2 2 Highway 1 1 1 3 Other 1 1 Illegal 2 2 Treaty Indian 2 3 2 1 8 Research 1 1 1 3Unknown 1 1Total: human-caused 6 7 7 12 0 0 1 1 34Total: all deaths 8 8 7 12 0 2 1 1 39


Table 7. Summary of grizzly bear mortalities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 - 2002.

BearIdentification

Date Location Sex Age KillType

AFWS #21055a 08/19/93 West Spray-408b M 3 GSc

Research #19 05/13/94 Kananaskis-648 M 6 REResearch #22 05/28/94 Albert R.-B.C. M 14 LHAFWS #25161 09/29/94 Fortress Mt-408 M subadult MIResearch #12 10/04/94 Simpson R.-B.C. M 13 CSResearch #21 07/26/95 Elkford B.C. M 4 GGAFWS #25722 08/20/95 Sarcee Reserve M unkn TIinvestigate fall/95 3 Point Cr.-406 ? unkn UNBNP L952104 09/25/95 Lake Louise F&yly adult GSC - 1995 10/12/95 Albert River F adult GSAFWS #34990 06/04/96 Morley M adult TIResearch #44 08/23/96 Stoney Reserve M 5 TIResearch #28 08/24/96 Cascade River F 24 NAResearch #23 08/08/96 James River M 5 GAResearch #43 10/10/96 Grease Creek M 5 ILBNP97-1567 fall 1996 Spray Lake ? subadult UNResearch #35 09/20/97 Evan Thomas Cr. F 5 TIResearch #58 09/23/97 James R. M 9 CABNP 1998 06/05/98 Bryant Cr. ? subadult NAAFWS #36480 07/18/98 Kananaskis R. F adult AHResearch #53 10/20/98 Trap Cr. M 4 ILAFWS # 09/??/98 Pekisko Cr. M adult GAAFWS # 17883 09/??/99 Kananaskis R. M subadult AOResearch # 26 09/21/99 Nakiska F 23 CSAFWS # 42771 10/28/99 Highwood R. F subadult TIResearch # 40 06/03/00 Spray R. F 20 NAResearch # 60 08/17/00 Lake Louise F 6 ARAFWS # 47901 09/25/00 Elbow R. M subadult CSAFWS #49086 05/09/01 Pekisko Cr. F CAResearch #67 05/17/01 Lake Louise M 5 AHResearch #56 09/30/01 Lake Louise F 7 ARAFWS #47916 10/24/01 Elbow R. F Subadult CSAFWS #50495 05/27/02 Eden Valley M Subadult TIResearch #68 05/29/02 Eden Valley M 7 TIResearch #51 05/30/02 Red Deer R M 13 NAResearch #83 06/04/02 Lake Louise F Subadult AHBNP 06/08/02 Spray R F Subadult REResearch #82 06/11/02 Spray R M Subadult REResearch #69 07/02/02 Eden Valley F 5 TI

a Registration or file numberb Wildlife Management Unitc GS=government action-Safety, GA=government action-Agriculture, GG=government action-Garbage, CS=citizen action-Self defense,CA=citizen action-Agriculture, CG=citizen action-Garbage, NA=natural, LH=legal harvest, TI=treaty Indian, MI=misidentification,IL=illegal, AR=accidental-Railway, AH=accidental-Highway, AO=accidental-Other, RE=research, UN=unknown

There was one grizzly bear translocation out of the study area in 2002, as a consequence of anagricultural related conflict. Since 1993, there have been 10 translocations from the Bow RiverWatershed (Table 8).


Table 8. Summary of grizzly bear translocations in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 - 2002.

BearIdentification

Date Translocation Sex Age

From ToAFWS #407801a 09/04/93 Canmore-410b Owl Crk-339 M SubadultResearch #23 10/21/94 Sundre-318 Mitsue-350 M 3B.C. GF75 09/26/95 Lake Louise Kinbasket L F 9 & 1ylyResearch #50 06/17/96 Canmore-410 Highwood-404 M 4Research #16 07/05/96 Banff Calgary Zoo M 8AFWS 07/29/97 PLPP-648 White Goat-738 M SubadultAFWS 09/15/00 Nakiska-408 Calgary Zoo F 18Research #68 08/02/01 Canmore-410 Lost Cr. M 6AFWS 08/27/02 Ghost-412 Nordegg-430 F adult

aRegistration or file numberbWildlife Management Unit

A REPORT ON COMPARISON OF SELECT HEALTH DATA

Comparison of select health data between the Eastern Slopes (ESGBP) and the FoothillsModel Forest Grizzly Bear Projects (FMFGBP)

Investigators: Marc Cattet, Nigel Caulkett, Mike Gibeau, Steve Herrero, Janice Bahr, Judith VanCleef, and Gordon Stenhouse.

The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP) began in 1994 in response to a need forscientific understanding of grizzly bears within an area called the Central Rockies Ecosystem(Herrero 2001). This area encompasses about 40,000 km2 and includes Banff, Yoho and KootenayNational Parks as well as Kananaskis Country and surrounding provincial lands in Alberta andBritish Columbia. Annually, a trapping and monitoring team has captured and fitted VHF radiotransmitters onto grizzly bears within the Bow Valley Watershed and surrounding area. About 25grizzly bears each year have had active transmitters. The sample of bears has been purposelybiased to include more females than males because of the females’ critical role in reproduction. Monitoring has been conducted from air and ground with an attempt to locate all bears about onceper week. In addition, there has been intensive daily monitoring of selected female bears. Theproject was designed to generate at least 100 reproductive years of data regarding adult femalegrizzly bears, a goal that has been reached in recent years (Herrero 2001).

A major research priority of the ESGBP has been to describe and understand grizzly bearpopulation demography, an analysis based on 9 years of survival and reproductive data focusingon adult females. While results of the demographic analysis are preliminary and unpublished(Garshelis, Gibeau and Herrero, unpublished data) a particularly striking finding in Eastern Slopesgrizzly bears is their especially long interval between litters (4.4 years) relative to that determined inother studies (typically about 3 years for interior grizzly bear populations). In addition, thereproductive rate of Eastern Slopes grizzly bears is lower than that measured in other grizzly bear


studies, i.e., 0.21 versus 0.23 to 0.43 in five other studies. Although comparable demographiccharacteristics cannot yet be determined for grizzly bears of the Foothills Model Forest Grizzly BearProject (FMFGBP), circumstantial evidence to date suggest grizzly bears in the FMF populationhave a shorter interval between litters and a higher reproductive rate than Eastern Slopes grizzlybears. In effort to seek potential explanations for low cub production by Eastern Slope grizzlybears, a comparison of select health parameters was made between Eastern Slopes and FMFbears. The parameters considered were body condition as a reflection of nutrition and reproductivehormone levels as a reflection of reproductive function. The working hypothesis has been thatreduced reproductive output in Eastern Slopes grizzly bears is a result of low energy uptakecausing diminished reproductive function.

Using the definition of body condition as the “combined mass of fat and skeletal muscle in ananimal relative to its body size”, we estimated and compared the body condition of grizzly bearscaptured in both projects by the Body Condition Index or BCI (Cattet et al. 2002). BCI values arecalculated as the standardized residuals from the regression of total body mass against a linearmeasure of size, body length, and range in value from –3.00 to +3.00. Eastern Slopes grizzlybears tended to be in poorer body condition than FMF grizzly bears captured at the same time ofyear, a difference that was most notable among adult males (Table 1.2.1).

Table 1.2.1. Comparison of Body Condition Index (BCI) values between the Eastern Slopes andFoothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Projects for grizzly bears captured during either May or June.

Body Condition IndexA (mean ± SE; [n])

Sex (Age Class) ESGBP FMFGBP Statistical SignificanceB (p)

Female (all ages) -0.43 ± 0.13 [22] -0.13 ± 0.13 [37] 0.14ns

- subadult (< 5 yrs) -0.59 ± 0.38 [6] -0.25 ± 0.25 [16] 0.48ns

- adult (³ 5 yrs) -0.37 ± 0.11 [16] -0.04 ± 0.13 [21] 0.08ns

Male (all ages) -0.16 ± 0.23 [21] +1.00 ± 0.22 [23] < 0.001***

- subadult (< 5 yrs) -0.45 ± 0.35 [9] +0.47 ± 0.29 [10] 0.06ns

- adult (³ 5 yrs) +0.05 ± 0.31 [12] +1.41 ± 0.29 [13] 0.004**

A Mean BCI values were compared between studies using a t-test for two independent samples.B Statistical significance was assigned when the probability of a Type I error was equal to or less

than 0.05. Non-significant = ns, p £ 0.001 = **, and p £ 0.001 = ***. As an index of reproductive function, blood serum concentrations of various reproductive hormoneswere compared between grizzly bears captured in the two studies (Tables 1.2.2 and 1.2.3). In bothsexes, luteinizing hormone (LH) concentrations were significantly lower in Eastern Slopes bearsthan in FMF bears. In mammals, LH is secreted from cells of the anterior pituitary gland andstimulates development of the ovaries in females and the testes in males. Further, LH stimulatessecretion of sex steroids from the gonads – estrogens (including estradiol) from the ovaries andtestosterone from the testes. Diminished secretion of LH can result in failure of gonadal function


which manifests in females as cessation of reproductive cycles and in males as failure inproduction of normal numbers of sperms. Although information is lacking on normal serumconcentrations of LH in grizzly bears, these results cannot be used to rule out the possibility ofdiminished reproductive function in Eastern Slopes bears, especially when considered inconjunction with body condition results (Table 1.2.1). In mammals, the function of the reproductivesystem is dependent on the availability of energy in the environment. In several species, fastingand caloric restriction have been shown to cause the suppression of LH secretion, a mechanismthat probably prevents energy being wasted for reproduction (Caprio et al. 2001, Gong 2002).

Table 1.2.2. Comparison of reproductive hormone concentrations between the Eastern Slopes andFoothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Projects for female grizzly bears captured by leg-hold snareduring either May or June.

Serum ConcentrationA (mean ± SE) Statistical

Hormone (Units) ESGBP (n = 14) FMFGBP (n = SignificanceB (p)

Progesterone (ng/ml) 2.54 ± 0.63 2.82 ± 0.35 0.67ns

Estradiol (pg/ml) 10.6 ± 1.2 13.5 ± 1.0 0.11ns

Luteinizing hormone (ng/ml) 0.13 ± 0.05 0.39 ± 0.08 0.006**

Testosterone (ng/ml) 0.28 ± 0.05 0.29 ± 0.04 0.89ns

A Mean hormone concentrations were compared between studies using a t-test for twoindependent samples.B Statistical significance was assigned when the probability of a Type I error was equal to or less

than 0.05. Non-significant = ns and p £ 0.01 = **.

Table 1.2.3. Comparison of reproductive hormone concentrations between the Eastern Slopes andFoothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Projects for male grizzly bears captured by leg-hold snareduring either May or June.

Serum ConcentrationA (mean ± SE) Statistical

Hormone (Units) ESGBP (n = 16) FMFGBP (n = SignificanceB (p)

Luteinizing hormone (ng/ml) 0.07 ± 0.04 0.33 ± 0.09 0.01*

Testosterone (ng/ml) 0.85 ± 0.26 0.91 ± 0.22 0.86ns

A Mean hormone concentrations were compared between studies using a t-test for twoindependent samples.B Statistical significance was assigned when the probability of a Type I error was equal to or less

than 0.05. Non-significant = ns and p £ 0.05 = *.

Results from a comparison of body condition and reproductive hormone concentrations betweenEastern Slopes and FMF bears cannot be used to disprove the hypothesis that reducedreproductive output (long interval between litters and low reproductive rate) in Eastern Slopesgrizzly bears is a result of low energy uptake (especially in males) causing diminished reproductive


function. Future research directions should include the assessment of body condition in a largersample of adult bears, especially adults, and the assessment of reproductive function in female andmale adult bears. Ideally, assessment of reproductive function should involve ultrasonographicexamination of the gonads of both female and male bears, and spermatologic examination ofsemen samples collected from males. This data should be evaluated in relation to circulatingconcentrations of reproductive hormones measured in blood serum samples taken at the time ofexamination. LITERATURE CITED

Caprio, M., E. Fabbrini, A.M. Isidori, A. Aversa, and A. Fabbri. 2001. Leptin in reproduction. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism 12: 65-72.

Cattet, M.R.L., N.A. Caulkett, M.E. Obbard, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2002. A body condition index forursids. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 1156-1161.

Gong, J.C. 2002. Influence of metabolic hormones and nutrition on ovarian follicle development incattle: practical implications. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 23: 229-241.

Herrero, S. 2001. A brief summary of the status of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project(ESGBP). Unpublished report prepared March 10, 2001. 9 pp.

HOME RANGE ANALYSIS

We calculated multi-annual (1994-2002) home ranges for male and female grizzly bears by meansof the 95% fixed kernel technique with a smoothing parameter using the Animal Movementsextension in ArcView (Hooge and Eichenlaub, 1997). Home ranges were estimated using aerialtelemetry locations. For bears with fewer than 30 aerial relocations, we supplemented the data setwith ground telemetry relocations (maximum 1location/day). Home ranges were not estimated forbears with fewer than 30 aerial and ground relocations combined. We generated 33 female grizzlybear home ranges (Figures 1, 2 and 3) and 16 male grizzly bear home ranges (Figures 4, 5 and 6). Female grizzly bears in the study area averaged a home range size of 520 km2 (Table 9) and malehome ranges averaged 1405 km2 (Table 10).

Table 9. Multi-annual home range areas (km2) for female grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed.

FEMALE # AREA (KM2)

17 152

18 554

24 468

26 551


FEMALE # AREA (KM2)

27 102

28 409

30 624

31 177

32 429

33 797

35 380

36 805

37 1413

39 214

40 447

41 620

46 900

47 1042

48 282

55 440

56 718

57 884

59 389

60 305

61 539

62 433

63 348

64 404

65 278

66 895

70 332

71 436

72 410

AVERAGE 521


Table 10. Multi-annual home range areas (km2) for male grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed.

MALE # AREA (KM2)

10 2190

11 1410

13 1968

14 1490

15 1731

16 1338

34 2212

42 992

45 845

51 2740

52 1821

53 495

54 1012

73 1165

74 563

84 501

AVERAGE 1405


Figure 1.


Figure 2.


Figure 3.


Figure 4.


Figure 5.


Figure 6.


LITERATURE CITED

Garshelis, D., M. Gibeau, and S. Herrero. 2001. Preliminary demographic analysis of Eastern Slopes GrizzlyBears through year 2000. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, University of Calgary, AB.

Gibeau, M. and S. Herrero. 1995. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project: 1994 Progress Report. University ofCalgary, AB. 26 pp.

Komex Intl. 1995. Atlas of the Central Rockies Ecosystem. Komex Intl., Calgary, A.B.Knight, R.R., B.M. Blanchard, and L.L. Eberhardt. 1995. Appraising status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear

population by counting females with cubs-of-the-year. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:245-248.McLellan, B., F. Hovey, R.D. Mace, J.G. Woods, D.W. Carney, M.L. Gibeau, W.L. Wakkinen, W.F. Kasworm.

1999. Rates and causes of grizzly bear mortality in the interior mountains of British Columbia,Alberta, Montana, Washington and Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(3):911-920.

Stevens, S., C. Mamo, M. Gibeau, T. Shury. 1999. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project Capture Program1994-1998. A report to the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project Steering Committee. University ofCalgary, Alberta. 10pp.

grizzly bear monitoring in the bow river watershed · grizzly bear monitoring in the bow river...

Documents