Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) COSEWIC assessment and update update status report: chapter 8

8. Existing legal protection or other status

8.1 International

Globally, the grizzly (brown) bear is listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (The World Conservation Union) as LR(lc): Lower Risk, least concern. The species is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), although populations in Bhutan, China, Mongolia, and Mexico are listed in Appendix I.

Grizzly bears in the conterminous 48 United States were listed in 1975 under the Endangered Species Act as Threatened (USFWS 1993). The US distribution is less than 2% of its former range, and the total of 5 or 6 population units is 800-1000 bears. Some US population units are contiguous with Canadian grizzly bear range.

8.2 Management in Canada

8.2.1 Alberta

In Alberta, the grizzly bear is Blue-listed (species may be at risk). The first goal of the Alberta grizzly bear management plan (Nagy and Gunson 1990) is to increase the provincial bear population to 1000. The plan identifies 13 Bear Management Areas (BMA). Bear densities were estimated from research data in 5 representative habitat regions, and were extrapolated across occupied bear range and adjusted as necessary. Calculated bear densities ranged from 4.0 –14.7 bears /1000 km2. The number of resident bears in each BMA and Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) was originally (1988) calculated as a function of the area of suitable habitat and the estimated bear density.

In this formula, the effect of land surface disturbance on grizzly bear habitat capability was estimated using current land-use maps. The actual surface area disturbed was doubled in the formula to buffer disturbance effects on bears. Results were considered to represent the maximum spring grizzly population in each BMA or WMU.

In subsequent years, the population estimate has been revised annually, based on the original anchor point calculated in 1988. The formula for revision of population estimates is based on the assumption that if total known man-caused mortalities are below the level judged to be sustainable, then the population will increase. In 2 areas where DNA-based inventories have been recently conducted (Mowat and Strobeck 2000; Boulanger 2001), population estimates were re-anchored at revised (higher) levels.

The maximum allowable man-caused mortality is 6.0% of the estimated grizzly bear population in each BMA. To account for non-hunting man-caused mortalities, the allowable annual licenced harvest is reduced by the ratio of legal kills to total kills. Unrecorded man-caused mortalities are estimated as 25% of the recorded kills. This results in a typical harvest quota of 2 - 4% of the estimated population in each BMA open to hunting. A further goal is to restrict the proportion of females in the total man-caused mortality to no more than 35%.

Legal grizzly bear hunting in Alberta is by residents only, during the spring, with licences available on a draw system. Bears in any group of >1 bear are protected. Baiting is prohibited, and kills must be registered.

Critique

The 46% population increase in Alberta over the period 1988-2000 (Table 6) is attributed largely to recovery following reduction of harvest mortality beginning in 1988 (Section 6.1). Although it is likely that some population recovery has occurred, the reported rate may be optimistic. Calculation of this rate of growth presumes that populations occurring below habitat carrying capacity will recover quickly when harvest mortality is relaxed. It also presumes that undocumented man-caused mortality has remained stable and has not compensated for the decline in hunter kills. Further, it presumes that populations are presently below habitat carrying capacity, thus permitting growth, with no provision for assessing the point when carrying capacity has been reached and population growth decelerates and ends. Actual changes in bear habitat quality are not monitored or incorporated into revised estimates of changing habitat suitability. Although documented mortality rates have declined since 1987, it is doubtful that general habitat quality has improved over the same period.

In the portion of the province consisting of BMAs 5, 13, and 16 as well as small additional areas with cumulative population potential of <20 (Nagy and Gunson 1990), the bear population is estimated to have doubled from 73 to 150 since 1988 (H.D. Carr, pers. commun.). BMA 5 is Kananaskis Country, a popular multiple-use area within a 1-hour drive of about 1 million people, where the grizzly population was estimated at 34 in 1990 with a potential for 43. BMA 13 consists of agricultural fringe areas estimated to be devoid of grizzly bears in 1990 and unable to support a resident bear population (Nagy and Gunson 1990). BMA 16 is the boreal forest of northeastern Alberta, with an estimated supportable population of 33 bears and where the population estimate in 1990 was 8. Because of generally poor habitat conditions in the rest of this area, most of the reported 77-bear increase presumably occurred in BMA 5 (Kananaskis Country). However, the Kananaskis bear population was estimated at 50 or less in 1998 (ESGBP 1998), and the reproductive rate observed in this area (0.19) is the lowest for any reported grizzly bear population in North America (Garshelis et al. 2001). Using Population Viability Analysis (PVA) modelling, Herrero et al. (2000) predicted that the grizzly population in the Central Rockies Ecosystem, including Kananaskis Country, is not secure, and the management goal of maintaining or increasing the population in this area is unlikely to be met. This portion of the province is 1 example of where the management model may be optimistic.

It is also believed that grizzly bears have recently recolonized portions of their historic range in Alberta thereby increasing their distribution and provincial population size (H.D. Carr, pers. commun.). This assumption is based upon increases in reported incidents (e.g., nuisance complaints) involving grizzly bears, rather than on any measured change in population status. However, in most cases increased incident reports reflect increased human activity in bear habitat (Miller 1990b), and should not be used to substantiate population expansion or growth. More commonly, increased conflicts between bears and people correspond to bear population declines, rather than increases (Miller 1990b).

Estimates of undocumented mortality rates in Alberta (equivalent to 25% of documented mortalities) are probably too low. Based on McLellan et al. (1999), only about one-half of total grizzly deaths would have been recorded without the use of radiotelemetry.

Because of the rate and intensity of human-induced degradation of much of grizzly bear habitat in Alberta, maintenance of adequate protected areas and linkage zones will be essential. This is particularly important in the southern half of the province where bear distribution is restricted to a narrow strip that is dissected by at least 2 major transportation and development corridors (Crowsnest Pass and Bow Valley) and is therefore relatively vulnerable to fracture. Because some existing “protected areas” have themselves been severely degraded (Gibeau 1998; 2000), proactive measures will be required to maintain population viability.


8.2.2 British Columbia

Grizzly bears in British Columbia (BC) are blue-listed (S3: Vulnerable), indicating they are considered to be at risk because of characteristics that make them particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. The primary goal of the British Columbia Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy is to “maintain the diversity and abundance of grizzly bear populations and ecosystems throughout British Columbia” (Province of British Columbia 1995:23). Toward that goal, the first principle of grizzly bear management in British Columbia is to restrict total human-caused mortality to sustainable levels and to not reduce the viability or distribution of populations (Province of British Columbia 1999).

Elements of grizzly bear harvest management in British Columbia are described in Province of British Columbia (1995; 1999). Harvest management is predicated upon a habitat-based model of grizzly population size (Fuhr and Demarchi 1990). This model estimates historic, potential, and current habitat capability based on Provincial biogeoclimatic mapping. Current grizzly bear populations are estimated from the Fuhr and Demarchi (1990) model using progressive step-downs to account for habitat loss, alteration, displacement, and fragmentation, as well as historic levels of man-caused mortality in each Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU). Habitat capability ratings are generally revised every 3 years. Population estimates and harvests are kept at conservative levels in recognition of inherent uncertainty.

Total man-caused mortalities are capped at from 3 to 6% of population estimates, depending on average habitat capability. Unknown man-caused mortalities of 1-2%, and known non-hunting man-caused mortalities, are subtracted from this value to leave the area-specific harvest quota. No more than 30% of total man-caused mortality is to be female bears. No hunting is permitted in GBPUs designated Provincially as “Threatened” (population <50% of capability) until they have recovered. GBPUs with estimated populations <100 bears and that are not connected to other GBPUs are also closed to sport hunting.

All hunting has been conducted under limited entry permits since 1996, with spring or spring and fall seasons. Bait is prohibited, but dogs are allowed. It is illegal to hunt a grizzly bear less than 2 years old or any bear in its company, and harvested bears are subject to compulsory inspection.

In February 2001, the BC government announced a province-wide 3-year moratorium on grizzly bear hunting (BC M.O.E. 2001c). The moratorium was intended to provide an opportunity to collect bear inventory data and review conservation and management plans before potentially reinstating a hunting season. Since then, a general election installed a new government, and the moratorium, an election issue, was rescinded although hunting within some regions remains closed.

Critique

British Columbia uses an iterative process to monitor changes in habitat capability within grizzly bear range. Trends in habitat effectiveness are evaluated by regional wildlife biologists and land managers, and the process is probably as responsive as possible. The weakest link in the process is that population estimates are based on estimates of density that are extrapolated over large areas without supportive evidence. If density estimates are accurate, then the present rate of grizzly bear harvest is probably sustainable for current habitat conditions.

Assumptions of undocumented mortality rates in BC may be too low. In parts of BC, unreported mortalities may equal reported values (McLellan et al. 1999). In addition, First Nations kills in BC are not subject to compulsory reporting, so they remain an undocumented mortality source.

The intensity of industrial and other incursions into grizzly bear habitat is likely to continue in British Columbia. Maintenance of protected areas will be essential to ensure viability of the province’s grizzly population. Because of the cumulative stresses associated with intensive, varied land-uses along the southern fringe of the Province’s bear distribution, these peninsular ranges are especially vulnerable to fracture and isolation.


8.2.3 Yukon

Grizzly bears are considered a species of Special Concern in the Yukon. “The conservation of grizzly bears, as an integral part of northern ecosystems and biodiversity, is the primary principle of grizzly bear management” in the Yukon (Yukon DRR 1997:1). Populations were estimated for 22 management units in the Yukon, based on interviews with outfitters and on density estimates from 16 northern interior field studies. Adult sex ratio is assumed to equal 50:50, and of the estimated number of adult females, annual man-caused mortality of adult females of 2% is allowable. Conversely, the allowable man-caused mortality of males is 6%. From these man-caused mortality quotas, Defence of life or property (DLP) kills are subtracted to leave the allowable resident sport harvest. Any remaining balance is allocated to outfitters for non-resident hunters.

A point system is in place that provides incentives for selective harvesting of male grizzly bears by outfitters (Smith 1990). Outfitting areas are allocated a quota of grizzly bear points, and each harvested female and male bear accounts for 3 points and 1 point, respectively, against this quota. Resident hunters are also encouraged to harvest male bears, although the point system does not apply to resident harvest.

Females accompanied by young, and young up to and including 2 years of age, are protected. Baiting is prohibited and all kills must be reported.

Critique

Field studies have been adequately representative to provide point estimates of bear density across the Territory, but monitoring is constrained to harvest characteristics rather than populations. However, unless Territorial population estimates are grossly inflated, mean annual harvest rates (1.1-1.3%) and total man-caused mortality rates (1.3-1.6%) are low and sustainable. Because human population and economy have declined since 1997, habitat pressures in Yukon should not increase substantially on the short term. The sex-weighted point system is innovative and provides protection for female bears. However, it has potential to result in male overharvest, and the system does not apply to resident harvest.


8.2.4 Northwest Territories

In the Northwest Territories (NWT), grizzly bears have been assigned “Sensitive” status, indicating that they are not at risk of extirpation but that they may require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk (RWED 2000). Grizzly bear hunting in the Mackenzie Mountains is available only to NWT residents, and there is a lifetime bag limit of 1 bear. Population estimates for the region are based on a single field study (Miller et al. 1982). The number of licences available to residents is unrestricted, but demand and harvest are low (A. Veitch, pers. commun.). There is no open season for grizzly bear hunting in the majority of the NWT, where bear population density is believed to be low.

In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), grizzly bear management goals are “to maintain current population size by ensuring that the total number of bears removed through harvest, defense kills, and illegal hunting each year is sustainable; to allow recovery of populations in the event that over-harvest occurs by reducing quotas or closing areas for hunting; and to maintain current areas of grizzly bear habitats” (Nagy and Branigan 1998:4). Bear population estimates are based upon 7 field studies conducted within and adjacent to the ISR. The annual total allowable harvest (includes DLP kills) quota is established as 3% of the estimated sub-regional population of bears older than 2 years. The benchmark for female harvest is 33%. Quotas are administered, and tags are issued, by the Aklavik Hunters and Trappers Committee. In 1 management area, there is a maximum quota of 3 bears, but the third tag is available only if the first 2 bears killed are males. Residents and non-residents may hunt in the ISR.

Throughout NWT, cubs and bears accompanied by cubs are protected, as are bears in dens. Kills must be reported.

Critique

Relatively good population inventory data exist for the ISR, and the co-management plan regulates harvest with conservative quotas. However, because the absolute number of bears killed annually is quite large, the consequences of undetected declines in population size would be great. Population monitoring should be implemented.

Although mean annual harvests in the Mackenzie Mountains are low and non-resident hunting is prohibited, the population estimate for the area is outdated and should be revised. Grizzly bear hunting seasons are closed in the rest of NWT, but rapidly increasing rates of habitat alteration associated with resource development, combined with very low density and vulnerable populations, requires that bear population and habitat requirements be evaluated and considered.


8.2.5 Nunavut

Grizzly bear management in Nunavut is evolving. Population estimates are lacking throughout the Territory (B. Patterson; M. Campbell, pers. commun.). Currently, harvest quotas are recommended by the Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development, and administered by local Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTO). Tags are issued at HTO discretion, and can be used by local subsistence hunters or sold to non-resident hunters as part of a guided hunting package. Cubs and bears accompanied by cubs are protected, and kills must be reported.

Critique

Because grizzly bears in Nunavut are managed as a game species, inventory data are required to ensure that harvests are sustainable. In addition, the potential for sudden and intense growth in resource extraction activities requires that adequate protection be implemented for grizzly bear populations and habitat.

Page details

Date modified: