Abstract1. Human activities have dramatic effects on the distribution and abundance of wildlife. Increased road densities and human presence in wilderness areas have elevated human-caused mortality of grizzly bears and reduced bears' use. Management agencies frequently attempt to reduce human-caused mortality by managing road density and thus human access, but the effectiveness of these actions is rarely assessed.2. We combined systematic, DNA-based mark-recapture techniques with spatially explicit capture-recapture models to estimate population size of a threatened grizzly bear population (Kettle-Granby), following management actions to recover this population. We tested the effects of habitat and road density on grizzly bear population density. We tested both a linear and threshold-based road density metric and investigated the effect of current access management (closing roads to the public).3. We documented an c. 50% increase in bear density since 1997 suggesting increased landscape and species conservation from management agencies played a significant role in that increase. However, bear density was lower where road densities exceeded 0.6 km/km 2 and higher where motorised vehicle access had been restricted. The highest bear densities were in areas with large tracts of few or no roads and high habitat quality. Access management bolstered bear density in small areas by 27%. Synthesis and applications.Our spatially explicit capture-recapture analysis demonstrates that population recovery is possible in a multi-use landscape when management actions target priority areas. We suggest that road density is a useful surrogate for the negative effects of human land use on grizzly bear populations, but spatial configuration of roads must still be considered. Reducing roads will increase grizzly bear density, but restricting vehicle access can also achieve this goal. We demonstrate that a policy target of reducing human access by managing road density below 0.6 km/km 2 , while ensuring areas of high habitat quality have no roads, is a reasonable compromise between the need for road access and population recovery goals. Targeting closures to areas of highest habitat quality would benefit grizzly bear population recovery the most.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Range declines, habitat connectivity, and trapping have created conservation concern for wolverines throughout their range in North America. Previous researchers used population models and observed estimates of survival and reproduction to infer that current trapping rates limit population growth, except perhaps in the far north where trapping rates are lower. Assessing the sustainability of trapping requires demographic and abundance data that are expensive to acquire and are therefore usually only achievable for small populations, which makes generalization risky. We surveyed wolverines over a large area of southern British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, used spatial capture-recapture models to estimate density, and calculated trapping kill rates using provincial fur harvest data. Wolverine density averaged 2 wolverines/1,000 km 2 and was positively related to spring snow cover and negatively related to road density. Observed annual trapping mortality was >8.4%/year. This level of mortality is unlikely to be sustainable except in rare cases where movement rates are high among sub-populations and sizable untrapped refuges exist. Our results suggest wolverine trapping is not sustainable because our study area was fragmented by human and natural barriers and few large refuges existed. We recommend future wolverine trapping mortality be reduced by ≥50% throughout southern British Columbia and Alberta to promote population recovery.

No abstract

Under the North American Model of wildlife Conservation, wildlife managers are encouraged to update management approaches when new information arises whose implementation could improve the viability of wildlife populations and the wellbeing of animals. Here we detail an observation of several grizzly bears with amputated toes in southeast British Columbia between 2016-2020 and assemble evidence to inform management strategies to remedy the issue. During the capture of 59 grizzly bears, 4 individuals (~7%) had amputated toes on one of their front feet. The wounds were all healed and linear in nature.Further opportunistic record collection revealed that similar examples of amputated toes occurred beyond our study area in neighboring mountain ranges and internationally. We found evidence that seasonal overlap between the active season for grizzly bears and the fall trapping seasons-for small furbearers with body-gripping traps and for wolves with foothold trapswere frequently responsible for toe amputation. Photo evidence suggested that body-gripping traps were the main trap type associated with toe amputation. Multiple options to reduce or eliminate the incidental amputation of grizzly bear toes exist, and the options have varying degrees of expected efficacy and require differing levels of monitoring. One option is to delay the start of the marten trapping season until December 1, when most bears have denned, instead of opening the season on or prior to

Science and adaptive management form crucial components of the North American model of wildlife management. Under this model, wildlife managers are encouraged to update management approaches when new information arises whose implementation could improve the stewardship and viability of wildlife populations and the welfare of animals. Here we detail a troubling observation of multiple grizzly bear toe amputations in southeast British Columbia and assemble evidence to inform immediate action to remedy the issue. During the capture of 59 grizzly bears in southeast British Columbia, we noticed that four individuals (~7%) were missing some or all their toes on one of their front feet. The wounds were all well healed and linear in nature. Further opportunistic record collection revealed that this pattern of missing toes occurred beyond our study area, and that furbearer traps were responsible for toe loss. We documented a problematic seasonal overlap between the active season for grizzly bears and the fall trapping seasons for small furbearers with body grip traps and for wolves with leghold traps. Instead of opening these trapping seasons on or prior to November 1, when more than 50% of bears are still active, we recommend delaying the start of these seasons until December 1, when most bears have denned. Innovative solutions, such as narrowing trap entrances to exclude bear feet while still allowing entrance of target furbearers, have the potential to minimize accidental capture of bears but the effectiveness of these approaches is unknown. Solutions that do not involve season changes will require monitoring of efficacy and compliance to ensure success.