Translocations and human‐carnivore conflicts: problem solving or problem creating?

Fontúrbel, Francisco E.; Simonetti, Javier A.

doi:10.2981/10-091

Cited by 59 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[42, 69, 71, 72]), and translocated bears typically have higher mortality rates and lower survival than non-translocated bears [41, 42]. Within Alberta the overall success rate of translocations and relocations of problem grizzly bears is only 30.5%, with translocated individuals re-offending, homing, or suffering increased mortality [73].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature vs. Nurture: Evidence for Social Learning of Conflict Behaviour in Grizzly Bears

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The propensity for a grizzly bear to develop conflict behaviours might be a result of social learning between mothers and cubs, genetic inheritance, or both learning and inheritance. Using non-invasive genetic sampling, we collected grizzly bear hair samples during 2011–2014 across southwestern Alberta, Canada. We targeted private agricultural lands for hair samples at grizzly bear incident sites, defining an incident as an occurrence in which the grizzly bear caused property damage, obtained anthropogenic food, or killed or attempted to kill livestock or pets. We genotyped 213 unique grizzly bears (118 M, 95 F) at 24 microsatellite loci, plus the amelogenin marker for sex. We used the program COLONY to assign parentage. We evaluated 76 mother-offspring relationships and 119 father-offspring relationships. We compared the frequency of problem and non-problem offspring from problem and non-problem parents, excluding dependent offspring from our analysis. Our results support the social learning hypothesis, but not the genetic inheritance hypothesis. Offspring of problem mothers are more likely to be involved in conflict behaviours, while offspring from non-problem mothers are not likely to be involved in incidents or human-bear conflicts themselves (Barnard’s test, p = 0.05, 62.5% of offspring from problem mothers were problem bears). There was no evidence that offspring are more likely to be involved in conflict behaviour if their fathers had been problem bears (Barnard’s test, p = 0.92, 29.6% of offspring from problem fathers were problem bears). For the mother-offspring relationships evaluated, 30.3% of offspring were identified as problem bears independent of their mother’s conflict status. Similarly, 28.6% of offspring were identified as problem bears independent of their father’s conflict status. Proactive mitigation to prevent female bears from becoming problem individuals likely will help prevent the perpetuation of conflicts through social learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature vs. Nurture: Evidence for Social Learning of Conflict Behaviour in Grizzly Bears

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Human‐mediated movement of wildlife is a management tool used for re‐introduction, assisted migration, population control (the addition or removal of individuals), and human–wildlife conflict mitigation (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] ). As human populations continue to expand into remaining wildlife habitat, recurring and, in some cases, increasing conflict is expected to intensify the need for human‐mediated movement of wildlife (Miller et al , Fontúrbel and Simonetti , Voyles et al ). Translocation is defined by IUCN () as the deliberate and mediated movement of wild individuals or populations from one part of their range to another and is a widely employed response to human–wildlife conflict (Linnell et al ) because it is often considered the most humane action and the one most sensitive to the conservation status of the species (Linnell et al , Pinter‐Wollman et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting the success of grizzly bear translocations

Milligan¹,

Brown²,

Hobson

et al. 2018

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluations of wildlife translocation can be traditional assessments of survival and reproductive success or can be expanded to include valuable but seldom used measures of behavior and physiology in reference to baseline data from a resident population. In Alberta, Canada where grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) are listed as a threatened species, there has been research on resident grizzly bear populations but limited follow‐up of translocated individuals associated with management actions. We determined an outcome for 110 grizzly bear translocation events (77 failed events, 33 successful events) between 1974 and 2014. We used logistic regression to investigate the effects of individual bear characteristics, management strategies, and habitat factors on translocation success. A translocation event was successful if the bear did not require further management action and if the bear survived at least one year without homing. We also compared the home range size, habitat selection, and denning behavior of translocated bears to the resident population over time to assess the long‐term effects of translocation. The odds of translocation success were higher if bears were moved early in the year and decreased by 47% for each unit increase in the level of mortality risk (based on road density, water, and edge features) at the release site. The odds of homing decreased substantially at translocation distances >100 km, but bears translocated outside the Bear Management Area (BMA) of capture had annual home ranges that were 3.25 times larger on average than resident bears. Translocated bears were initially selecting high quality habitat similar to areas used by resident bears, but this behavior appeared to decline after the first year of translocation. Den entry dates, den exit dates, and the denning period of translocated bears did not differ significantly from resident bears. Our findings can aid managers in making more informed decisions when considering translocation as a tool for managing human–bear conflict or supporting grizzly bear conservation efforts. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…Use of anthropogenic food resources can lead to behavioral adaptations and changes to bear ecology Berger 2003a, Baruch-Mordo et al 2014) and result in increased human-bear conflict (Oka et al 2004, Baruch-Mordo et al 2008. In urban areas, human-bear conflict poses unique challenges as traditional mitigation approaches such as euthanasia, translocation, and hazing can be (1) unpopular among urban residents (Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005, Manfredo 2008, Messmer 2009), (2) ineffective at preventing future conflicts , Landriault et al 2009), and (3) expensive and time-consuming to implement (Hristienko andMcDonald 2007, Fontú rbel andSimonetti 2011). Furthermore, wildlife managers generally agree that compared with bear removal, removing attractants provides a better and long-lasting solution to conflict (Spencer et al 2007, Baruch-Mordo et al 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Urban environments offer wildlife novel anthropogenic resources that vary spatiotemporally at fine scales. Property damage, economic losses, human injury, or other human-wildlife conflicts can occur when wildlife use these resources; however, few studies have examined urban wildlife resource selection at fine scales to guide conflict mitigation. We studied black bears (Ursus americanus) in the urban area of Aspen, Colorado, USA from 2007 to 2010 to quantify bear foraging on natural and anthropogenic resources and to model factors associated with anthropogenic feeding events. We collected fine-scale spatiotemporal data by tracking GPS-collared bears at 30-min intervals and backtracked to bear locations within 24 hours of use. We used discrete choice models to assess bears' resource selection, modeling anthropogenic feeding (use) and five associated random (availability) locations as a function of attributes related to temporally changing natural (e.g., ripe mast) and human (e.g., garbage) food resources, urban characteristics (e.g., housing density), and land cover characteristics (e.g., distance to riparian area). We backtracked to 2,675 locations used by 24 bears and classified 20% as foraging locations. We found that bears foraged on both natural and anthropogenic food sources in the urban environment, with 77% of feeding events being anthropogenic. We documented inter-and intra-annual foraging patterns in which bears foraged extensively in urban areas when natural food production was poor, then switched to natural food sources when available. These patterns suggest that bears balance energy budgets and individual safety when making foraging decisions. Overwhelmingly, garbage was the main anthropogenic food source that bears used. Selection of foraging sites was not only influenced by presence of garbage but also by proximity to riparian habitat and presence of ripe anthropogenic fruit trees. We found that while 76% of the garbage containers at random locations were bear-resistant, 57% of these bear-resistant containers were not properly secured. We recommend conflict mitigation focus on reducing available garbage and anthropogenic fruit trees, particularly near riparian areas, to make urban environments less energetically beneficial for foraging. Additionally, deploying bear-resistant containers is inadequate without education and proactive enforcement to change human behavior to properly secure garbage and ultimately reduce human-bear conflict.

show abstract

Translocations and human‐carnivore conflicts: problem solving or problem creating?

Cited by 59 publications

References 44 publications

Nature vs. Nurture: Evidence for Social Learning of Conflict Behaviour in Grizzly Bears

Nature vs. Nurture: Evidence for Social Learning of Conflict Behaviour in Grizzly Bears

Factors affecting the success of grizzly bear translocations

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About