Polar Bear Diversionary Feeding Workshop Report

Transcription

1 June 8-9, 2011 Anchorage, Alaska

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Workshop Organizers and Sponsors USFWS Alaska Defenders of Wildlife Workshop Organizers and Report Editors Karla Dutton, Alaska Office, Defenders of Wildlife Susanne Miller, US Fish & Wildlife Service Dr. Terry DeBruyn, US Fish & Wildlife Service Workshop Facilitation Ann Rothe Alaska Conservation Foundation Workshop Logistic Support Frannie Elder and Karen Cain Report Prepared By Lisanne Aerts

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... ii SUMMARY Background Ecology of Ursids Climate Change Effects on Polar Bears Nutritional Ecology of Ursids Current Status of Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Monitoring and Conservation at Barter Island, Alaska Community Perspective on Diversionary Feeding Management of Whaling Remains: The Barrow Bone Pile Polar Bear Use of Whale Remains at Barrow Management of Whaling Remains, Kaktovik Management of Whaling Remains, Nuiqsut Use of Supplemental/Diversionary Feeding as a Tool in Wildlife Management Case Study: Montana Brown Bear Diversionary Feeding Program Case Study: Parks Canada Brown Bear Diversionary Feeding Program Case Study: North Slope Brown Bear Supplemental Feeding Case study: Black bears in Minnesota Case Study: Chukotka Diversionary Feeding of Polar Bears Summary What s Next? Appendix A Workshop Agenda Appendix B Workshop Presenters Appendix C Invited and Registered Workshop Participants February 29, 2012 Page i

4 Page Intentionally Left Blank February 29, 2012 Page ii

5 SUMMARY On June 8 9, 2011, the Defenders of Wildlife hosted an informational workshop on diversionary feeding of polar bears in Anchorage, Alaska. Because polar bears are facing environmental changes such as a reduction in sea ice habitat, an increasing use of coastal habitat has resulted along Alaska s Beaufort Sea coast, placing bears in close proximity to humans for extended periods of time thus increasing the likelihood of human-bear conflicts. The purpose of the workshop was to share information on the use of diversionary feeding as a potential management tool for reducing human-polar bear conflicts in Alaska. Diversionary feeding involves moving/placing food sources (such as marine mammal carcasses) away from human settlements to reduce human-bear conflicts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has oversight responsibility for polar bears in the United States, and in 2008 listed the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, due to ice habitat loss. Scientific studies indicate that the majority of polar bears using the coast during the open water season occur in areas where Inupiat hunters conduct bowhead whaling activities. Unused portions of whale remains provide a food source to polar bears at a time that they would otherwise likely be fasting. However, feeding on whale remains aggregates relatively large numbers of bears near human settlements or hunting camps at Barrow, Cross Island, and Kaktovik (on Barter Island), Alaska and human-bear conflicts have resulted. Defenders of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service share the common goal of reducing human-bear conflicts as a means of conserving polar bears. The idea was born to hold a workshop to bring together internationally recognized researchers and managers with knowledge about polar bear ecology, behavior, habitat use, and diversionary feeding, as well as local residents with knowledge of both polar bear and human use of coastal habitat. Approximately 55 people consisting of federal and local wildlife managers, biologists, researchers, village residents, non-profit organizations, and representatives from oil and gas industry attended. The meeting was facilitated by Ann Rothe, Alaska Conservation Foundation, and was held at the Days Inn in downtown Anchorage. February 29, 2012 Page 1

6 A WELCOME TO WORKSHOP PARTICICPANTS (Dr. Terry D. DeBruyn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Perhaps more than any animal, the polar bear captures the imagination of the American public the people of the Alaskan Arctic, but in a more practical way; because they you share the environment with polar bears. It is fair, I feel, to characterize polar bear conservation in Alaska as a success story at least perhaps until recently when things have changed due to a changing environment. What has made polar bear conservation a success story has been the cooperation of the polar bear conservation community you, the people from the North Slope, native villages, state and federal government, and NGOs people who care about polar bears and who share a common goal to protect polar bears, keep people safe, and ensure a traditional way of life. We are not here to debate climate change. Climate change is so well established that a detailed presentation of the evidence is no longer needed. In any case, it would not convince those that do not want to be persuaded. It s here in Alaska that the effects of climate change are evident; and those changes affect polar bears. We have documented an increase in the amount of time that polar bears are spending onshore during the extended open water period. This increased time on-shore has the potential to increase negative human-polar bear interactions resulting in a decrease in human safety and an increase in polar bear deaths. So, today, in our changing environment, the collective actions taken by and in our community are more important than ever for polar bear conservation. We are here today (and tomorrow) to hear about a potential conservation tool diversionary feeding. Carcasses of subsistence whaling remains exist annually in at least three locations in Alaska Barrow, Kaktovik, and Cross Island. These remains provide a food source for polar bears during the open water period. This may or may not be a good thing for polar bears because of the risk of increased human-polar bear interactions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is working proactively to be able to inform villages and others about potential management options for managing whale carcass remains. These options include: 1) status quo; 2) move them away from human settlements (diversionary feeding); or 3) remove the carcasses and dispose of them altogether. So, a question to answer is: Would moving whale remains (diversionary feeding) be useful as a potential tool to reduce human-bear conflicts by redistributing bears along the coast farther from human settlements during the open water period? To help us answer that question we are using this workshop to become better informed about the issue of diversionary feeding we are assembled here for the next two days to hear from the experts and from the people in coastal communities who are affected, so we all have the benefit of hearing a wide variety of perspectives. February 29, 2012 Page 2

7 THIS IS AN INFORMATION TRANSFER WORKSHOP. THIS IS NOT A DECISION-MAKING WORKSHOP. The workshop has been set up to start with a broad biological overview; then narrowing to the coastal community perspective and applied case studies. We will hear FACTS about: polar bear ecology, bear physiology and nutrition, habitat use and distribution patterns, diversionary feeding as a conservation tool and the problems diversionary feeding may cause. You will have the opportunity to ask questions to presenters as time permits following their presentations and then again on the second day during the panel discussion. So, thank you all for coming we are looking forward to your participation. The polar bear community is the best defense we have for preventing human-bear conflicts including polar bear mortality. Success in minimizing bear-human conflicts will require the whole community working together. Photo: Susanne Miler, USFWS February 29, 2012 Page 3

8 1. BACKGROUND Since the early 1990s, North Slope Borough community members and workers in the oil and gas fields noted that polar bears increasingly used the coastal shore during the open water season. Aerial surveys flown in 1999 and 2000 confirmed this observation and found highest densities of polar bears around Barter Island. Polar bears were also present at Cross Island and Barrow. The increasing numbers of polar bears can be attributed to several factors, of which loss of sea ice habitat due to climate change impacts from global warming is considered the most important. Presence of attractants, such as whale remains close to the North Slope communities, is also believed to play a role. There was also more human presence on the North Slope due to increase in oil and gas activities and reporting, research activity, and tourist operations. The potential for increase in polar bear and human encounters, with danger for both humans and polar bears was of concern to the communities, federal agencies, oil and gas companies, non-profit organizations, and others. The USFWS has federal oversight for polar bear conservation and is trying to reduce human-bear encounters in close cooperation with the North Slope communities. Subsistence whaling at Barter and Cross Islands, by the villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, respectively, attracts polar bears during the fall open water period to unused portions of bowhead whales [1]. Over the years, village residents have reported safety concerns in these locations, and a number of bears have been shot as a result (USFWS unpublished data). In other parts of North America, managers have successfully reduced conflicts between humans and bears by placing food sources in a manner that diverts bears away from areas with high human densities. The USFWS recently determined that evaluation of this management practice, known as diversionary feeding, merited consideration as a possible management tool for reducing human-polar bear conflicts in Alaska. However, to determine its effectiveness as a potential management tool, the USFWS realized that more information on bear ecology and behavior, diversionary feeding methods, successes and failures when used elsewhere, and the potential risks and benefits associated with diversionary feeding was necessary in order to make an informed decision regarding its implementation on the North Slope of Alaska. The goal of this workshop is to become better informed about diversionary feeding by sharing experiences from polar bear and other bear experts and people that share their living environment with the polar bear. 1 Miller, S., S. Schliebe and K. Proffitt Demographics and behavior of polar bears feeding on bowhead whale carcasses at Barter and Cross Islands, Alaska, OCS Study MMS , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, Anchorage, Alaska. 29pp February 29, 2012 Page 4

9 2. ECOLOGY OF URSIDS 2.1. Climate Change Effects on Polar Bears (Presented by Dr. Andrew E. Derocher, University of Alberta, Canada) Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are dependent on ice-covered seas and their distribution is as such related to the presence of ice. Polar bears live throughout the ice-covered circumpolar Arctic, mainly in areas with near shore annual ice over the continental shelf where biological productivity is highest. Some polar bear individuals are born at sea and will never set foot on land during their entire lifetime. However, under scenarios predicted by climate change models, these preferred sea ice habitats will to a large degree be substantially altered. What are the possible effects of climate change on polar bears and is there a possibility that they can adapt to these new conditions? To better understand what climate change means for the polar bear we need to take a closer look at the evolution of the polar bear, its ecology, and the current indicators or symptoms of climate change that have been identified through monitoring efforts. These aspects will briefly be discussed below. Polar bear evolution how did it define their ecology? Evolutionary, grizzly bears are the ancestral stock of polar bears. The evolution from grizzly bear to the current polar bear took about 150,000 years. These two species are therefore very closely related. Polar and grizzly bears have interbred in zoos, producing fertile offspring. The first evidence of wild polar grizzly bear hybrids were recently shot in the Canadian Arctic [2006]. So, hybrids are rare, but it is uncertain how this will develop over a longer term. The 150,000 years of evolution resulted in various adaptations in polar bear physiology and life history as summarized in the Table 1. The evolutionary history of the polar bear shows the very specific adaptations that have occurred over a long time period to adapt to life on sea ice Photo: courtesy of Andrew Derocher habitat. For a polar bear to have to rely on a living on land would mean a reverse evolution in a relatively short time period, which basically seems unattainable. February 29, 2012 Page 5

10 Adaptation Size Feet Claws Skull Litter size Home range Space usage Table 1. Summary of polar bear physiology and life history evolution Description Polar bears are two to three times larger in size than arctic grizzly bears. Fur on the feet of polar bears provides warmth and traction on slippery surfaces. Polar bear claws are designed for killing and gripping, whereas grizzly claws are designed for excavating. Polar bear skull is longer and narrower, adapted to catch prey [seals] in small breathing holes. Polar bears have commonly two cubs, compared to an average litter size of three in grizzly bears in most other regions. (Note North Slope Grizzlies have an average of two cubs. Dick Shideler, pers. comm. 2011) Standard duration of polar bear maternal care is at least two and a half years, because it takes time to teach cups to survive in the harsh arctic conditions. Small litter size makes polar bears more sensitive as a population. The polar bear home range size is about 200 times larger than that of the grizzly bear. This affects the rules that these species live with. Polar bears have a huge latitudinal range, their distribution reaches relatively far to the south. Polar bears are marine mammals that spend the majority of their time at sea. Grizzly bears are terrestrial. There are three different space use patterns in polar bears, e.g.: Entire life on sea ice, with summers on both annual and multi-year ice. Most years on annual ice, with summers on annual ice and on land. Diet Mixed strategy, with summers on land. Seals are the most important food resource of polar bears, whereas grizzly bears typically eat fish and plants on the North Slope. (Note along the Beaufort Sea coast grizzlies are dependent on vegetation, ground squirrels and to some degree ungulates. There are virtually no fish available to them. Dick Shideler, pers. comm. 2011) It is mostly the fat of seals that is of interest to the polar bears; the seal fat almost directly converts to their fat reserves. February 29, 2012 Page 6

11 Symptoms of climate change how does it affect polar bears? It is well documented that sea ice habitat is in decline. Research in the Canadian Beaufort Sea indicated several observations which may be symptomatic of climate change effects on polar bears (Table 2). Observation Increased home range Table 2: Observations of potential climate change effects on polar bears Description Polar bears have been observed ranging outside of their home ranges due to low ice conditions. This means that polar bear individuals have to walk more for feeding or reproduction, increasing their energetic demands. Longer fasting period Changing food availability Decreasing accessibility to onshore den locations Decreased cub survival Unusual mortality Declines in body condition and size Information from blood samples (serum urea and creatinine levels) showed that the proportion of bears fasting during springtime increased from 8% to 22% over a 20-yr period. This is likely due to earlier break-up and later freeze-up periods with less food availability. Based on research conducted in Western Hudson Bay, bears forced to use land habitat for 130 days survived into the following year, whereas bears having to use land for 150 days resulted in increased mortality. If bears must use land for up to 170 days, it is predicted that up to half would die. This means that in a place like Western Hudson Bay, over half the population could be lost in one year. Changing sea ice conditions will result in changing prey distribution and accessibility. Seals might still be present in open water, but polar bears need ice as a hunting platform. To date it is not clear yet how changes in prey species might affect their availability to polar bears. Female polar bears show fidelity to specific den habitat areas, most of which are on land near the coast. With increasing distance between the southern edge of the pack ice and the coast, it will become more difficult to access these preferred den habitat areas. Changes in den habitat usage have been noted in both Alaska and Norway. In several populations (Western Hudson Bay, Southern Beaufort Sea) the cub survival rate appears to be decreasing. More incidents of cannibalism have been reported in recent years and might be evidence of stress in polar bear behavior. Additionally, unusual drowning events have occurred along the Alaskan coast and may be indicative of swimming activity associated with increased distance of pack ice from shore. Declines in body condition have been noted in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) populations February 29, 2012 Page 7

12 In summary, numerous and widespread changes have been observed in polar bear behavior and physiology. The combined results of these changes lead to a population decline. Data from the Beaufort Sea have not shown such decline yet, however, the Hudson Bay population has already declined by 22% [2]. Similar trends, such as reduced cub survival have been noted in the Southern Beaufort Sea [3]. Future sea ice loss is the primary concern for polar bears; human pressures such as pollution, Arctic exploration, and hunting are also of concern. In terms of diversionary feeding, an important factor to consider is that at present, a relatively small proportion of bears in the SBS are using coastal habitat during ice retreat. However, if these numbers increase, will it be possible to provide an adequate food source for up to five times as many bears? If not, what will be the consequences to both bears and humans? 2.2. Nutritional Ecology of Ursids (Presented by Dr. Charles T. Robbins, Washington State University) Brown bears were the main focus of the nutritional ecology research of Dr. Robbins; however, some principles can be applied to all ursid species. Several questions related to nutrition and supplemental feeding of bears were discussed and summarized here. Why are bears so food focused and why do they get so fat? Photo: courtesy of Charles Robbins All bears are programmed to eat because being fat increases survival, e.g., allows bears to get through the hibernation period (brown bears) or through times with low food availability/access ibility (polar bears). Survival of cubs depends on body size which, in turn, is dependent on the body condition of their mother. Fatter mothers produce healthier cubs; healthier cubs results in better cub survival. That is one reason why bears, especially mothers with dependent cubs, are driven by a constant search for food. February 29, 2012 Page 8

13 Additionally, research has shown that bears energy intake is controlled by leptin production. Leptin (Greek for leptos, which means thin) is a protein hormone that plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, including appetite and metabolism. Essentially, leptin signals whether a bear should quit eating; the absence of leptin leads to uncontrolled food intake. Leptin levels found in blood plasma of bears are low most (60-80%) of the year, which explains why bears are so motivated to eat [2]. Are there successful supplemental feeding programs for bears and what makes them successful? Supplemental feeding refers to a food source that is provided to wildlife by humans in addition to their natural food. Historically, supplemental feeding mostly consisted of situations where private citizens tried to attract bears with garbage for bear viewing purposes, or bears were attracted to garbage dumps near human settlements. These are poor examples of supplemental feeding because the food is often not nutritious, and often, dangerous situations are created. One example of successful supplemental feeding occurred in the mid-1980s in Washington where black bears were inflicting damage to western hemlock and Douglas fir commercial forests, leading to costs of up to $20 million per year [3]. The first response to this problem was the unlimited killing of bears by professional hunters using bait, hounds, snares, and shooting. Because of the poor reception of this type of lethal control, a seasonal, supplemental feeding program was initiated in Food was available to bears in the form of a pellet diet provided from barrel feeders. Virtually all black bears in the area were using the feeders, and it reduced the damage inflicted by bears on commercial forests. Economically it made sense because the cost for the bear food was about $150,000 per year and resulted in protection of 1 million acres of commercial forests [3]. What determines a bear s dietary selection? Dietary selection in bears is mainly energy-based, balancing diet quality and foraging efficiency. The diet quality is determined by the proportional intake of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. Body mass gain by bears on a fruit diet is much slower than for bears on a salmon diet. However, results from one study [4] indicate that when mixing various food sources, the relationship between weight gain and energy intake changed. It appeared that a benefit exists for brown bears in combining protein-rich food sources with carbohydrates, and bears appear to naturally select a mixed diet when available. 2 Jansen and Robbins, unpublished 3 Partridge ST, Nolte DL, Ziegltrum GJ, Robbins CT (2001). Impacts of supplemental feeding on the nutritional ecology of black bears. J Wildl Manage 65: Ziegltrum, G.J. (2004). Efficacy of black bear supplemental feeding to reduce conifer damage in western Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 68: Ziegltrum, G. (2006). Cost-effectiveness of the black bear supplemental feeding program in western Washington. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 34: Robbins et al Optimizing protein intake as a foraging strategy to maximize mass gain in an omnivore. Oikos 116: February 29, 2012 Page 9

14 Due to their lower energy requirements, smaller bears can gain weight easier with a larger percentage of berries in their diet. Bigger bears, with higher energy requirements, need more fat to sustain their body weight and will lose weight if their diet only consists of berries (low harvesting rate) and vegetation (low diet quality). The preferred, and most beneficial, diet is a mixture of carbohydrates with fats and protein, with a significant lower proportion of the protein (e.g., 18% protein 72% fat). Bears in captivity with high foraging efficiency have also been shown to choose a very high fat diet. Could polar bears do well on natural plant-based diets, e.g., berries and vegetation? Some bears do well on mostly vegetative diets; however, because polar bears evolved into a very specialized niche that depends on seals and other marine mammals for nutrition, the body size of polar bears can only be obtained from a high fat diet. If being fed only berries, polar bears would need to eat approximately a third of their body weight each day. This means that a polar bear of 1,000 pounds would need to eat 330 pounds of blueberries each day, which is virtually impossible. Bears on a meat diet require about 10% of their body weight, and about 2-5% of their body weight when on a high fat diet. If considering a supplemental feeding program, black bears may do fairly well because of their smaller size and dietary preferences. Brown bears would probably do less well, and it is likely that it would be most difficult Photo: courtesy of Charles Robbins to successfully implement supplemental feeding programs for polar bears because they would require a large amount of a consistently available source of food that is high in fat. All bears may eat less preferred food, but it would take them longer and require more energy to adequately maintain their body weights. Supplemental feeding programs Bears are creatures of habit; they will not forget food source locations and generally will come back to the site(s) where they previously obtained food. If a supplementary feeding program is implemented it should ideally be designed around the bear s energy requirements and knowledge of its ecology, dietary needs, and availability of food in its natural environment. Again, for polar bears, this would mean a food source high in fat content. February 29, 2012 Page 10

15 Another factor to keep in mind is that supplemental feeding may create an artificially elevated population of big, productive animals that would not otherwise be able to exist without the added food source. If the supplemental foods were later removed, it will be much more difficult for such large bears to revert back to a diet based only on natural foods, especially if their natural diet mainly consists of berries and vegetation. Bears would likely have to be killed because they might become problem bears as they search human settlements for additional food to meet their energetic requirements. In conclusion, as long as any organized supplemental feeding program is based on an understanding of bear ecology, the outcome for the bears could be positive. However, difficult decisions must be made about balancing costs, short and long-term goals, public expectations, public involvement, and what is best for the bear population that is targeted Current Status of Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea (Presented by Dr. Jeff Bromaghin, U.S. Geological Survey) Research has been conducted on the southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) population of polar bear since the 1960s. The primary focus of this research has been monitoring population status and trends, bear movements and distribution, use of sea ice habitat, bear feeding ecology and contaminants. The current focus is on improvement of population assessments and projections, understanding the mechanisms that drive population trends, and evaluating polar bears behavioral responses to the changing environment. Photo: Christopher Putnam, USFWS As mentioned earlier, polar bears are highly dependent on sea ice for mating, denning, rearing young, and foraging. Historically, most polar bears remained on the ice yearround. Recent modeling efforts to determine polar bear habitat preference indicate that polar bears generally prefer ice over shallow waters of the continental shelf, and ice concentrations February 29, 2012 Page 11

16 of 50% or more [5]. The model is useful tool in accurately predicting where polar bears will go. Although the availability of optimal polar bear habitat varies annually, a downward trend over the last 30 years has been noted. Summer ice is more often retreating beyond the continental shelf over deeper waters, making polar bear access to seals more limited. This reduction in optimal habitat is predicted to continue [5]. Research on the SBS stock in Alaska documented several responses by polar bears to this reduced availability of habitat (Table 3). Observation Survival rates Table 3. Documented polar bear responses to reduced availability of habitat Description Polar bear survival rates decreased in years of low ice between the years of and were more pronounced for cubs-of-the-year and young animals than for adult males and females. Ice concentrations were important covariates in all analyses, implying that the presence (or absence) of suitable ice habitat affects survival rates [6] Body size and body condition Habitat use Seasonal use Foraging ecology Polar bear skull width, body mass and body condition also declined from 1982 to 2006 and was linked to sea ice. It was concluded that reduced availability of ice habitat limits nutritional intake and leads to poorer body condition [7] Preliminary findings of 23 years of telemetry data ( ) show no change in the proportion of female bears coming to shore. About 11% of collared females were observed to come to shore. Although the percentage of collared female bears that visit shore has been similar over the years, the total period of time that they remain on land is increasing. Preliminary results indicate that female polar bears spent an average of 9 days on land from , compared to an average of 34 days on land from It is unclear if the information of collared females is representative of males and sub-adults. Preliminary results from a study on bears that summer on land indicates that not all sub-adult and adult female bears that fed on whale carcasses gained weight. Data comparing body condition between bears that spend time on land and those that remain on ice are currently being analyzed. 5 Durner GM, Douglas DC, Neilson RM, Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Stirling I, Mauritzen M, Born EW, Wiig Ø, DeWeaver E, Serreze MC, Belikov SE, Holland MM, Maslanik J, Aars J, Bailey DA, Derocher AE (2009) Predicting 21st century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecol Monogr 79: Regehr EV, Hunter CM, Caswell H, Amstrup SC, Stirling I (2010) Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to sea ice. J Anim Ecol 79: Rode KD, Amstrup SC, Regehr EV (2010) Reduced body size and cub recruitment in polar bears associated with sea ice decline. Ecol Appl 20: February 29, 2012 Page 12

17 2.4. Polar Bear Monitoring and Conservation at Barter Island, Alaska (Presented by Susanne Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) The overall status and trends of the SBS polar bear population has been described in the previous section. The following information provides a closer look at a few areas within the SBS population range where polar bears are known to concentrate, and the polar bear monitoring that has been conducted in these areas, as well as current conservation efforts that are underway at Barter Island. Feeding Ecology Study at Cross and Barter Islands In the early 1990s, the USFWS started receiving reports that bear use of coastal areas was increasing. Aerial surveys initiated in 1999 confirmed that the highest proportion of polar bears using Alaska s northern coast occurred at Barter Island, and to a lesser extent, at Cross Island. Barter Island is home to the Inupiat village of Kaktovik; Cross Island is used seasonally by the village of Nuiqsut whalers for fall bowhead whaling. Photo: Susanne Miller, USFWS Concern over the increase of polar bear use of coastal areas, in combination with increasing human presence from oil and gas operations in polar bear habitat, led to the initiation by USFWS of a polar bear feeding ecology study at Barter and Cross islands in It was funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) with the primary objective being to collect baseline information February 29, 2012 Page 13

18 on the number, age, sex, activity patterns, and habitat use of polar bears using hunterharvested whale remains ( bone piles ) during the fall open water period. At Cross Island, the annual harvest quota is four bowhead whales; unused whale remains are deposited at a bone pile area located < 1 km from the hunter s cabins. Study results from indicate that, an average of six bears were observed to use the island during the fall open water period (minimum count of 0, maximum count of 13). Bears of all age and sex classes made use of the bone pile, with a slightly higher proportion of single adults. Bears used these feeding sites during all times of the day and night. At Barter Island, the annual harvest quota is three bowhead whales. Harvested whales are first towed onto a beach near the village where they are processed and later distributed within the community. Unused whale remains are deposited at a bone pile located approximately 2-3 km east of town. During the study, bear numbers were higher on Barter Island than on Cross Island. On Barter Island an overall average 36 bears were observed (minimum of 3, maximum of 65). Like on Cross Island, all age/sex classes of bears were observed using the bone pile, but with a higher proportion of bears in family groups (females with dependent young) than at Cross Island. Bone piles were mainly visited during the night by polar bears. Because of the high use of Barter Island by polar bears, the USFWS has continued bear monitoring during September over subsequent years. We anticipate that diminished sea ice and learned behavior could result in extended seasonal use of Barter Island by polar bears in future years. Barter Island Bear Interaction Study Photo: Susanne Miller, USFWS Since brown bears were also using the whale remains on Barter Island, and humans frequently visit the bone pile to view bears as well, an interaction study was conducted in to characterize interactions that polar bears have with other bears (both polar and brown) and with humans. Specifically, interactions that involved an overt response, e.g. aggression, fleeing, were recorded. The FWS s primary goal for collecting this information was to share it with community residents and develop strategies that will minimize human-bear conflicts in the area. February 29, 2012 Page 14

19 nne Miller, USFWS Preliminary findings [8] indicate that most interactions initiated by polar bears involving an overt response were with humans, as opposed to other polar bears or brown bears. A typical scenario involved the approach by curious cubs or sub-adults of a vehicle parked at the bone pile to view bears, and the vehicle s humans subsequently responding with some type of deterrence action, such as honking the horn, revving the engine, or re-positioning the vehicle, then resulting in the cubs fleeing. Interactions initiated by brown bears involving overt responses by polar bears typically occurred when brown bears approached the bone pile (often in a neutral manner), causing polar bears to flee and often not returning to feed. Few approaches by brown bears involved aggressive acts towards polar bears; however, in those cases brown bears mostly won. Interestingly, preliminary analysis of data indicates that a higher proportion of aggressive interactions occurred when brown bears interacted with other brown bears. Human-initiated interactions that resulted in an overt response by a polar bear typically involved approaches of vehicles that were driving rapidly up to the bone pile, thereby displacing bears. Polar bears seemed to respond to ATVs at farther distances than to vehicles. Unlike polar bears response to brown bears, vehicle-caused displacement of polar bears was often temporary, e.g., bears came back after the disturbance was eliminated (vehicle was Photo: Susanne Miller, USFWS parked, or left the area). How do these results fit into a bigger picture? Despite the obvious attraction of hunter-harvested whale remains to polar bears that use coastal areas during fall months, the density of polar bears on shore is not related only to the presence of whale remains. Data from aerial surveys [9] indicate a correlation between the distance from the pack ice to shore with the density of bears on shore. Likewise, a correlation exists between ringed seal density and polar bear density; the Barter Island area appears to have a higher ringed seal density than elsewhere along the Alaskan Beaufort coast. These factors, in addition to the presence of whale remains, could be why polar bear numbers are higher near Barter Island than in other areas along the coast. 8 Miller et al. in prep. 9 Schliebe et al February 29, 2012 Page 15

20 Aerial survey results also show that the overall proportion of animals that use the shore is about 3-4% of the population, with a maximum of 8% observed during [9]. This means that the majority of polar bears stay on the ice and only a small proportion of the overall population use the shoreline. However, the animals that are on shore stay until shore-fast ice freezes up; hence, if freeze-up occurs later in the season over the coming years, we can expect polar bears along the coastline for longer periods of time. Addressing Human-Bear Conflicts Because of the relatively high numbers of polar bears from the SBS population that occur at Barter Island, addressing humanbear conflicts is important from both an ecological and management perspective. Since 2007, the USFWS has conducted bear counts at Barter Island during the fall open water period. Additionally, the USFWS has focused its efforts on developing a community-based conservation program aimed at reducing conflicts between humans and polar bears. A significant step towards Photo: Susanne Miller, USFWS community involvement in bear conservation occurred in 2008 when the Native Village of Kaktovik received a tribal grant to develop a human-bear interaction plan, which included three components: 1) minimize attractants close to the village, 2) develop a deterrence program, ( patrols ) and 3) conduct education and outreach regarding human-polar bear conflicts. This resulted in the hiring of a local coordinator to implement the program, and later, the formation of the local Kaktovik Polar Bear Committee, a group of citizens concerned with polar bear issues. Since the grant s inception, meat storage and handling during fall whaling season has also improved, and this year, the community will be furthering its efforts to minimize attractants by testing bear resistant meat storage containers provided by WWF and Defenders of Wildlife. If successful, these containers could be distributed throughout the community to additional residents. In terms of deterrence, polar bear patrols were successfully implemented and have been very effective in keeping bears out of village limits. Efforts to improve and standardize training for patrols are ongoing, in partnership with the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management and USFWS. One of the primary sources of conflict occurs when people visit the bone pile, which is accessible by vehicle, to view bears. In 2010, the Kaktovik Polar Bear Committee put up a barrier around the bone pile to try to prevent visitors from encroaching too closely on feeding bears. Polar bear viewing by tourists is an emerging commercial activity near February 29, 2012 Page 16

21 Kaktovik and elsewhere on the North Slope. Community residents as well as wildlife managers noted that limited guidance or oversight of commercial polar bear viewing was in place, and sometimes conflicts occur. Professional viewing standards were needed that take into account human safety. In 2010, USFWS worked with the Kaktovik Polar Bear Committee, the North Slope Borough and others to develop guidelines that helped ensure that viewing is conducted in a manner that is legal, safe, and consistent throughout the state. When considering the bone pile s potential long-term use as a supplemental food source for polar bears, seeral issues should be taken into account as summarized in Tabe 4. Table 4. Issues that need to be taken into account when considering bone piles as supplemental food source for polar bears. Consideration Availability of meat Description The amount of meat that is available to polar bears at the bone pile varies annually. Generally there are always some remains available to polar bears annually, with a limit of 3 bowhead whales as an annual quota. While the exact poundage or caloric equivalency is unknown, it is clear that remains from three whales will only sustain a limited number of polar bears, especially considering competition from brown bears; Human habituation versus food conditioning Site fidelity of individual bears to feeding location Polar bears feeding at the bone pile generally appear to be habituated to human presence; however, individual bears habituation to humans or noise, and the factors that affect habituation, have not been well studied, e.g., we know little about polar bears that may want to use the bone pile but chose not to because of either the presence of humans or brown bears. Regardless, managers must think about the potential results of polar bears learning to feed near a village, and how that affects the bear s behavior as they travel through other human settlements. Whether the same bears return to bone piles year after year remains unanswered. Our study design prevented us from monitoring known individuals over subsequent years; however, of 5 radio-collared female polar bears observed at Barter Island in 2002, at least one family group (female with triplets) was known to return to the feeding site the following year; unfortunately, movement data for the rest of the collared bears was inconclusive. February 29, 2012 Page 17

22 3. COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE ON DIVERSIONARY FEEDING 3.1. Management of Whaling Remains: The Barrow Bone Pile (Presented by Billy Adams, North Slope Borough) Whale remains, or bone piles, at Barrow are a product of the fall whale hunt just like at Barter and Cross islands. Before 1977, animals were butchered annually right in front of the village on the beach, and bones were left in place (3-4 whales per year). In 1977, a moratorium was placed on the fall bowhead whale harvest in Barrow. The moratorium lasted about a decade; fall whaling resumed in the 1980s. Spring whaling was and is always the preferred whaling season, but when spring harvests became less reliable, fall whaling activity increased with transfer of strikes from other villages. The current quota for Barrow is 22 whales per year. With an increase in harvest came an increase in bear problems. Sea ice retreat and its influence on bear abundance onshore during the fall started to become apparent in 1992, the year when the bone pile was established at Point Barrow. One year, more than 200 bears were observed in the vicinity of Barrow during summer and fall. Bears stranded on shore because ice had receded well off shore. Barrow community members realized that the practice of shooting bears that came to town could not continue with this higher number of bears. Before 1992, unused portions of the whale, such as bones and guts, were pushed into the ocean for wildlife consumption. This didn t work well as prevailing ocean currents and winds around Barrow brought the bones back on land and spread them out over various places, which resulted in more polar bear problems. In 1991, whale remains were placed in the old landfill, however numerous bears were attracted to the site, and eventually whale remains were moved to Nuvuk (Point Barrow). Point Barrow was chosen because it was one of the three traditional village sites before what is now the town of Barrow. Nuvuk was the place where bowheads were traditionally harvested in spring (March-June) and fall (September-October). Bowhead bones were used to construct homes and gathering places. Because of the long-standing tradition of depositing bowhead whale remains at this location, it seemed to be a good choice for the bone pile. Nowadays, instead of butchering the whales at the beach in front of town, fall butchering has moved further from town to the NARL landing strip, and bones are transported from there to Point Barrow. The Barrow Whaling Captain Association (BWCA) is responsible for the bone pile and the NSB Public Works department provides the equipment to move the whale remains. After freeze-up when the ice is strong enough, bones are moved out on the ice where they eventually sink when the ice melts in spring/summer. February 29, 2012 Page 18

23 Possible concerns and benefits of bone piles are as follows: Some question exists as to whether bone piles are any different than beached marine mammal carcasses, or whether they should be considered an anthropogenic food source that could cause polar bears to become foodconditioned. Conditioning bears to specific use areas is a concern Attract unwanted wildlife (gulls, foxes) may be a concern Bone piles could be places to meet mates, which could be a possible benefit Polar Bear Use of Whale Remains at Barrow (Presented by Jason Herreman, North Slope Borough) A pilot study was initiated by the NSB and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2010 to test a non-invasive method of monitoring polar bears using hair samples recovered at the Barrow bone pile. Genetic information was obtained from polar bear hair collected from a barbed wire fence that was erected around the bone pile. The purpose of this study was to test if this non-invasive monitoring method could provide information on the annual and seasonal use of carcass sites by bears. Specific questions of interest were: Are the same individuals visiting the site or different ones? Are the individuals that use the bone piles related? What is the age/sex of these individuals? Are visitation rates high enough to use this technique for mark recapture analyses? How does the use of bone piles by polar bears compare to their use of beached whales? Photo: Jason Herreman, NSB February 29, 2012 Page 19

24 The fence was set up right after fall whaling in October The method appeared to be highly successful for collecting samples; as of May 27, 2011 a total of 649 samples were collected. There was no evidence of polar bear injuries despite the occurrence of scuffles, a startling event, and numerous bears on the pile at once (sometimes up to 20 bears). It was interesting to note the bears developed different entrance techniques, independent of sex or age class, e.g., some crawled underneath the fence, others stepped over the fence. The fence did require routine maintenance. Photos: Jason Herreman, NSB Preliminary results indicated a peak in use in January. Another (smaller) peak in use of the bone pile occurred in May when whales are landed during the spring hunt. The presence of polar bears appeared to be influenced by light conditions and presence of people in the area. Polar bears were present during all hours of the day during fall and winter, when light conditions are low throughout the day. During spring, polar bears were mainly present in the morning and late evening hours (except for large adult males). During the weekend when more people are around, less bears were present. Bears used the bone pile for 2-3 weeks when ice was present, and for a longer period when no ice was present. The first 200 samples that have been analyzed indicate that 97 individual bears used the bone pile, with a recapture rate of 35%. Reliable results were not obtained for about 17% of the hair samples. Plans for next season are to expand the sample sites to the Cooper Island guillemot colony and the Kaktovik bone pile. Additionally, if freshly beached marine mammal carcasses wash up, a similar fence will be set up and hair samples will be collected in a similar manner. In recent years, increasing numbers of walruses haul out on land and are vulnerable to increased mortality due to disturbance events that can result in large-scale stampedes and crushing of animals, especially calves. These mortality events are a potential food resource for bears and may also provide additional hair sampling sites in the future, if the current walrus trend continues. February 29, 2012 Page 20

25 3.3. Management of Whaling Remains, Kaktovik (Presented by Carla Sims-Kayotuk and Nora Jane Burns, Kaktovik) Barter Island has been used traditionally for many years but in about 1964, the village of Kaktovik was established at its current location. Polar bears visited the community in earlier years, but it seems that they occur more often now than in previous years. Whales have been caught regularly since the mid-1960s; nowadays whalers usually catch three per year, and only during the fall. In the past, whale remains were deposited at the same location as where they are deposited now because that site is about as far away from the community as it can get. Prior to 1980 the remains were taken out to sea in the wintertime and dumped in the ocean. This posed some logistical challenges however, and since 1980 the bones have been left at the current site. The community decided that this was the best place to provide safety from bears for the community, as it was the farthest location away from town but still accessible by road. One year (2001) the community moved the bone pile to the south side of the island because of concern over too many gulls at the bone pile becoming a hazard for aircraft that use the nearby landing strip. However, that caused polar bears to pass through the village to get to the south location, and it also attracted brown bears from the mainland. So the following year, the whale remains were deposited back at the original location. Polar bears still visit the south side, maybe remembering that there was food in earlier years. Another way that Kaktovik deals with the danger of polar bears in the village is the Polar Bear Patrol. When polar bear problems arise, the Patrol is called to deal with the situation. Most polar bears arrive on the island in August when whaling season starts. Sometimes the bears come into the village looking for food and at these times the Polar Bear Patrol is most active. Through the hazing activities of the Patrol, less bears are coming to the community. The village of Kaktovik has worked with USFWS to make sure this program is successful and it has been working well so far. Kaktovik residents typically would see brown bears only on the mainland. The bone pile in the south definitely attracted brown bears that then also found and used Kaktovik s garbage dump. We had experience and knowledge of polar bears and their behavior, but we didn t know much about brown bears. Polar bears that roamed through town in the early years were harvested, because we didn t see that many around and it was a treat to have one to eat. Nowadays we count on Patrol to scare them out of town, and only shoot them if necessary. Some people also still take them for subsistence. February 29, 2012 Page 21

26 3.4. Management of Whaling Remains, Nuiqsut (Presented by Takuliq Hepa on behalf of Cross Island community) Cross Island only has fall whaling, like in Kaktovik. During the whaling season Nuiqsut hunters reside in cabins on this small island. Increasing numbers of bears appear on the island during whaling season and have caused problems for hunters when they were in their cabins during night. These bears tended to be harvested for safety reasons, and this became a problem due to the larger numbers of bears on the island. This year, the NSB, USFWS and others have worked together with the hunters to establish bear patrols on Cross Island. The purpose of these patrols is to keep watch for polar bears that might approach too close to the cabins, and haze them away. Fortunately, people are usually only present on Cross Island during the fall whale hunt, which is a relatively short period of a few weeks. Our knowledge of how polar bears use whale remains at Cross Island only comes from the period when people are present. In some years Nuiqsut whalers bury whale remains however it is likely that bears would still be able to smell these remains. More recently, equipment has been made available to move the whale bones to sites farther away from the cabins. February 29, 2012 Page 22

27 4. USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL/DIVERSIONARY FEEDING AS A TOOL IN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Photo: Susanne Miller, USFWS What is diversionary or supplemental feeding? The terms diversionary and supplemental are often used differently in many contexts. According to the dictionary there is a clear distinction. Diversionary means to draw attention away from the principal concern. Supplemental means something added to complete a thing, or make up for a deficiency. Because of the strong drive that bears have to obtain food, and the potential consequences related to human-bear safety, managers need to make sure that they adequately consider the factors that may affect bear behavior during an encounter, prior to developing a diversionary feeding program. These factors include: Environmental factors such as nutrient availability, season, time of day, amount of cover, and presence of con-specifics Bear-related factors such as species, sex/age class, degree of habituation to humans, an individual's social status in the bear hierarchy, and its genetic disposition Human-related factors such as a bear's previous experience with humans, group size, and human responses during a bear encounter. February 29, 2012 Page 23

28 Bears have the need to continually search their environment to find food that gives them adequate nutrition. Bears may become: 1) human-habituated a bear s response to humans is lessened when no consequence occurs, and/or 2) food conditioned - bears learn to associate humans with food/food source. An example of human habituation is when bears feeding on natural food sources such as salmon are able to easily tolerate people who come Photo: Susanne Miller, USFWS to view them and behave in a predictable, nonthreatening manner. In this case, there is no association between their food source and humans, and bears have learned that people are not dangerous, just part of the environment. In contrast, bears that receive food rewards either directly from humans (e.g., being hand-fed) or from human sources (e.g., at a campground dumpster) can become dangerous when in close proximity of people. This has led to several fatalities in Yellowstone Park and other areas. Because bears learn quickly and are very food-motivated in their behavior, food conditioning can occur after just one or two events. Managers must ask themselves: what degree of responsibility do we have to the public as bear managers? Management actions can become a liability, as is currently the case where a federal agency is being sued for failing to close a campground after a serious human-bear incident occurred. If an entity is responsible for developing a human-bear interaction plan, that plan should clearly outline responsibilities of all involved in management action. A study of human fatalities resulting from brown bears during indicates that of 12 human fatalities, 10 involved food-conditioned bears. If aggressive behavior is allowed to escalate during encounters with food-conditioned bears, serious problems may arise. Managers need to be able to identify bears with escalating aggression and be prepared to step in. The use of bear-resistant food containers has helped lessen damage to property and has helped to prevent bears from getting into trouble. While the bone piles on the North Slope may not be a problem at Barter Island, but somewhere down the line, bears that feed there could become a problem for someone else. Generally, the further away the bone piles are from people, the less likely bears are to interact with people, and therefore, the less likely they are to become food-conditioned Case Study: Montana Brown Bear Diversionary Feeding Program (Presented by Mike Madel, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks) In the lower 48 states, brown bears were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in As a conservation effort, a diversionary feeding program of brown bears was started in 1988 on the Rocky Mountain Front (RMF) in February 29, 2012 Page 24

29 Montana to reduce human-bear conflicts. It is probably the longest running diversionary feeding program in the U.S. and has been successful in reducing conflicts between ranchers and bears that occurred when brown bears, after leaving their winter dens in early spring, were attracted to ranches where winter-killed livestock carcasses provided a protein-rich food source. Over time, individual bears became less prone to flee when disturbed, leading to an increasing potential for conflict. The objectives of the diversionary program were to relocate livestock carcasses further away from the vicinity of ranch operations to decrease potential conflicts, while at the same time maintaining important spring protein sources for bears on the RMF. Photo: courtesy of Mike Madel Since the start in 1988, the livestock carcass redistribution program has been conducted annually in cooperation with ranch landowners. During that time over 2200 livestock carcasses have been redistributed to more remote locations with limited or no human access, ranging from 26 to 202 carcasses per year (with an average of 96 carcasses per year). Bear movements shifted from human settlements to more remote areas, thereby decreasing human-bear conflicts, especially during spring months. Additionally, electric fencing was used by many farmers to protect sheep bedding grounds and beehives, which often attracted brown bears. No correlation was apparent between grizzlies feeding on livestock carcasses and the same bears being prone to prey on livestock. It is likely that bear conflicts will increase over time if the livestock redistribution program is abandoned, or if carcasses are removed from RMF lands traditionally used by bears to search for carrion. February 29, 2012 Page 25

30 What made this program successful? Aspect Availability of traditional protein resource Accessibility of remote areas, random distribution Standardized carcass placement Monitoring livestock boneyards Intensive education and cooperation by landowners Description Springtime losses of wildlife and later, livestock, have historically provided a traditional food resource for brown bears. About 150 ranchers continue to maintain bone yards, so a lot of food is available for bears. Diversionary feeding shifted the location of the food, but did not lessen the amount of food available to the bears. Livestock bone yards were redistributed to remote areas away from ranches and human access. Livestock carcasses were distributed randomly to decrease the potential for food conditioning to a specific location. Livestock carrion was placed across the bear s range at an average density of one carcass equivalent per 2 km² (one carcass equivalent equals one adult cow or ten calves) to prevent concentrating bears in a given area(s). Specific guidelines were developed in cooperation with landowners adjacent to redistribution areas to standardize carcass placement methods and minimize potential hazards. Bone piles were signed to warn visitors of bear activity. Carcass redistribution sites were visited every 2-3 weeks to collect information on carrion use, consumer species, and consumption rates. Most of the land where conflicts occurred is in private ownership (ranches). An intensive education and learning program for ranchers and communities was implemented.. Probably the largest concern with a diversionary feeding program is whether or not such a program inflates the target population beyond its carrying capacity. In Montana, the goal for the species was to increase population size and to restore it to all portions of its former range. Carrying capacity remains unknown. We believe that at present, the grizzly population is increasing at a rate of about 3% annually, and it appears that increased reproductive cycles are also occurring (bears are giving birth to cubs every two years). The population is also expanding beyond the mountain regions to prairie regions, which are considered part of its former range Case Study: Parks Canada Brown Bear Diversionary Feeding Program (Presented by Hal Morrison, Parks Canada) In 1998 a diversionary feeding program was implemented in the Lake Louise area, Alberta, Canada. This program was modeled after the Montana diversionary feeding program. The objective was to reduce the amount of grizzly bears in Lake Louise, a town February 29, 2012 Page 26

31 of about (mostly seasonal) residents, and the adjacent ski hill area, for a 2-3 week period in early spring. Lake Louise is within Banff National Park which is home to about 60 brown bears. In spring, bears come to the valley bottom where they graze on a variety of early emergent vegetation including dandelion at the campground, ski hill, and parking lots, and can also gain access to garbage. Not many feeding options exist other than scavenging on winter kill ungulates. About 150 road kills per year occur in the area; previously, these carcasses were moved to carrion pits or shipped off to a renderer. Under the diversionary feeding program, approximately kilogram of these carcasses Photo: courtesy of Hal Morrison are collected and transported out of the valley bottom in spring into the surrounding mountains by helicopter and punched off to avoid human scent being associated with the drop-off sites. This protocol has since been modified in 2011 with landing at the sites and placing remote cameras. Diversionary feeding locations had to be close to the areas intended to draw the bears away from and yet inaccessible to people, as public safety is a large concern. Carcass sites were located at least 500 meters apart, preferably at sites of high elevation and with presence of cover vegetation. Randomized placement proved difficult because only a limited number of sites were available that matched the site selection criteria. Large communication efforts exist to increase bear awareness and discuss garbage handling practices. Was the program successful? Human-bear conflicts have declined since inception of the program; however, it was difficult to assess whether the diversionary feeding program reduced the number of bears and human-bear conflicts in the Lake Louise town and ski hill area because: February 29, 2012 Page 27

32 Other measures physically separating bears and people were simultaneously implemented, such as placement of electric fences around the ski hill base area and the Lake Louise campground tent sites Natural food for bears was simultaneously eliminated in areas of high human use, for example electric fence enclosure at the ski hill base lodge facility and campgrounds. Trans Canadian Highway construction placed a physical barrier (fencing) between diversionary feeding sites and the conflict area. These factors confound study results which showed substantial fluctuations in the local bear population during the time of the program. Human-bear conflicts have been reduced but the use of electric fencing may have been the primary reason. In conclusion, diversionary feeding was a useful tool for helping reduce conflicts in the Lake Louise area. However, diversionary feeding seems to become more popular as a perceived solution for any bear-related problem without full consideration of the consequences. If using diversionary feeding for bear management, the purpose needs to be clear. For example, in our area, spilled grain and vegetation on the railway attracts grizzly bears and results in substantial bear kills. Some people pushed for implementing diversionary feeding to deal with this issue. In this case, diversionary feeding along the extended distance of the railroad track is not really feasible and diverts attention from the real problem, which is grain and vegetation on the railway Case Study: North Slope Brown Bear Supplemental Feeding (Presented by Dr. Dick Shideler, Alaska Department of Fish and Game) A different situation occurred on Alaska s North Slope, an area that is the northern edge of grizzly bear distribution in the United States. The habitat consists of primarily coastal tundra; bears feed primarily on vegetation, with limited protein sources available compared to other parts of the state (e.g., ground squirrels, ungulates but no fish). An industrialized area (oil and gas fields) and associated human settlement (Deadhorse) with a very transient human population also exists within the North Slope grizzly s range. Bear awareness and waste management were relatively well controlled in the oilfields but less so in the Deadhorse area. Historically, garbage attracted bears and provided a supplemental food resource for bears. However, in 1999 a significant effort to reduce attractants was initiated. The landfill was surrounded by a chain link fence and by 2001 an electric fence was added and bear-proof bins were deployed around work sites, processing facilities and camps in the oilfields and Deadhorse, preventing access to human waste. A hazing program was introduced to deter bears out of human activity areas and problem bears (e.g., bears that broke into or entered occupied buildings, bears that showed aggression toward humans) were lethally removed. February 29, 2012 Page 28

33 Body size and growth rates of food-conditioned bears were significantly higher than bears feeding entirely on naturally available foods ( natural food bears ). Removing access to supplemental food made it more difficult for food-conditioned bears to survive because they could not get enough natural food to maintain their large body size. Almost all food-conditioned bears were shot in Deadhorse the first two years after access to supplemental foods was removed. Post-weaning mortality of food-conditioned bears was 91%, which is much higher than naturally occurring. Only two foodconditioned females survived after 2002 and both were among the smallest body size of adult females. Photo: Dick Shideler, ADFG A study was initiated comparing characteristics and demographics between foodconditioned and natural food bears. Food-conditioned bears were defined as bears that fed on anthropogenic food sources for 3 or more days in a given year. Between 1991 and bears were captured and marked, of which 24 were classified as foodconditioned and 95 were classified as natural food bears. Results indicated the following: Food-conditioned females had higher body weights and skeletal measurements in spring; they started the season bigger and grew faster. This is significant because larger bodied bears need food sources that will allow them to maintain their body weights. No significant difference in home range size was observed between foodconditioned and natural food bears. A higher proportion of food-conditioned bears left dens earlier (about two weeks) and entered dens later than natural food bears. Early in the season less food is available, so bears used readily available and predictable anthropogenic food at the landfill and garbage bins for supplemental feeding. Reproductive rate was higher for food-conditioned bears; litter size was slightly higher in food-conditioned bears but age at first reproduction was significantly higher. Cubs of food-conditioned bears had a higher rate of survival to weaning (65%). February 29, 2012 Page 29

34 Of the food-conditioned bears, 21/24 were of the same genetic line, indicating that mothers had taught their cubs to feed on supplemental food. Sources of mortality between food-conditioned and natural food bears differed; more food-conditioned bears died in conflict situations. All but one of the 24 food-conditioned bears was shot in a conflict situation whereas no natural food bears died in conflict situations. The only food-conditioned female bear that survived was able to revert back to natural foods once access to supplemental food was removed; her body weight was similar to those of the natural food bears. Photo: Dick Shideler, ADFG Was management approach effective? Garbage reduction was necessary to prevent bears from approaching human use areas but eventually resulted in deaths of almost all food-conditioned bears due to conflicts with humans. Hazing of food-conditioned bears was only effective over the short term because bears had a physiological (not only behavioral) reason for obtaining supplemental food. Measures were effective in preventing new bears from becoming foodconditioned. The downsides to supplemental feeding are that it can influence the bear s behavioral characteristics, demographics and physiological requirements. It s important to realize February 29, 2012 Page 30

35 that if you start with a supplemental feeding program, it is difficult to quit without bears being lethally affected; therefore, it will never be a short-term solution to bear issues, rather, it must be implemented with a long term commitment Case study: Black bears in Minnesota (Presented by Dr. Lynn Rogers, Wildlife Research Institute) In Minnesota the issue of habituation and foodconditioned black bears is a big concern. In one area where a campground was located near a subdivision and bear density was relatively high, bears were frequently being removed annually as bears encroached on human space. Although controversial, Dr. Lynn Rogers began to Photo: courtesy of Lynn Rogers intentionally habituate and food-condition black bears to find out if bears would become more aggressive toward humans to obtain food. Dr. Rogers began to intentionally feed beef fat to bears within a ¼ mile of the campground. From his experiences he concluded that both habituation and food conditioning is very location- and situation-specific. Contrary to what has been noted elsewhere in this report, he believes that bears do not necessarily carry over experience from one situation to the next. If given a choice, black bears in his area always selected natural foods. If a high abundance of natural food was present, fewer problems with bears occurred. However, when natural food was scarce, bears were attracted to garbage which can increase encounters with humans. Introducing a less preferred food helped keep bears away from human areas during times when preferred foods weren t available. As soon as natural food was available, introduced food was not of interest anymore and the bears that he observed moved away. The driving force behind problem bears is hunger. The term habituation and foodconditioning should be used carefully and in the right context. Hunger is what makes bears food-conditioned, and they learn quickly where to find food. It is hunger that can get bears in problems, not whether they are habituated or food-conditioned. This February 29, 2012 Page 31

36 means that taking away supplemental food sources when natural food is available might not lead to problems, but taking it away when natural food is scarce does Case Study: Chukotka Diversionary Feeding of Polar Bears (Presented by Geoff York, World Wildlife Fund, on behalf of Sergei and Vladilen Kavriy, Chukotka Russia Umky Patrol.) The situation in eastern Russia is similar to elsewhere in the Arctic: the loss of summer sea ice is changing the distribution and movements of ice-associated animals. An increase in conflicts has been observed because more polar bears come ashore and into the villages. Also, there are more walrus hauling out in large groups immediately adjacent to coastal villages, making them more vulnerable to human disturbance and leading to stampedes that result in deaths of many animals, especially calves. These carcasses provide an attractant to polar bears which has the potential for negative outcomes, both Photo: courtesy of Sergei and Vladilen Kavriy for humans and animals. The inhabitants of Chukotka knew that active planning was needed to manage the increased risk from polar bears to human safety. In 2006, the Village of Vankarem approached WWF for support to reduce human-bear conflicts. They established the first Umky Patrol, whose mission was to initiate a large-scale education effort regarding bear safety, and to deter bears from villages. Additionally, they improved attractant management by moving walrus carcasses further away from town, and limiting human access to haul-outs to reduce disturbance events. WWF provided logistic support to the patrols in terms of snow machines, fuel, and a travel budget for additional training and outreach support that continues today. Since 2006, the Umky Patrol has engaged communities, scientists, and conservationists to effectively manage emerging resource issues and build the capacity for more positive human wildlife interactions in Russia. While umky is the Chukchi word for polar bear, the Patrol is equally concerned with walrus as the two species are intricately linked. Since it s inception, patrol groups have expanded across Chukotka to neighboring villages and in 2010, an exchange program was initiated to share concerns and success stories between Chukotka and Alaska. The Umky Patrol s goals are to: February 29, 2012 Page 32

37 Establish new protected areas Improve management of attractants Limit disturbance at walrus haul-outs (including boat and aircraft traffic) Use hazing to reduce conflicts with bears Condemn poaching Monitor polar bears and walruses Conduct education. Funding and fuel levels dictate the number of carcasses that can be moved, and the distance over which the carcass can be transported. Moving carcasses removes conflict, but effort in making people more aware on how to behave around bears is believed to be more important. The Umky Patrol s activities and schedule are as follows: In September and October, effort is focused on primarily on protection of walrus haul-outs to minimize disturbance and on moving carcasses to at least 1-8 km from the villages. In November and December mainly polar bear activity occurs, meaning heavy patrolling of human areas and an emphasis on education (which also occurs year-round). Some successes that were achieved since 2006 are: Through a referendum, Vankarem village voted for protection of the local walrus haul out; thereafter, the regional government approved the establishment of Cape Vankarem as a designated protected area. The Umky Patrol ultimately plans to create a network of regional protected areas for all sites where walruses form haul-outs in autumn. No additional human injuries or fatalities occurred since the Umky Patrol was established. Also no known cases of poaching have occurred in areas where the Patrol operates. In cooperation with researchers and managers, better monitoring protocols were developed. One aspect of subsistence hunting of walrus that reduces disturbance in the Vankarem area is that the hunt is mostly traditional, using spears. This is a less expensive method, and also allows the hunters to carefully approach walrus haul-outs and selectively take animals without causing too much disturbance. February 29, 2012 Page 33

38 Photo: courtesy of Sergei and Vladilen Kavriy Future plans are to reduce attractants within towns and to continue looking for opportunities to share experiences with other coastal Arctic communities. Some challenges are the lack of funding and access to adequate equipment, and for proper maintenance of equipment. Ideally, funding will become more diverse in the future and will include government support. Another challenge is to overcome the cultural reluctance to tell people what to do, for example how to store their food. Some solutions can be found, such as providing bear-resistant dumpsters, but these cost money and financial resources are very limited. February 29, 2012 Page 34