Science and Management of Rocky Mountain Grizzly Bears

Abstract

The science and management of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Rocky Mountains of North America have spawned considerable conflict and controversy. Much of this can be attributed to divergent public values, but the narrow perceptions and incomplete and fragmented problem definitions of those involved have exacerbated an inherently difficult situation. We present a conceptual model that extends the traditional description of the grizzly bear conservation system to include facets of the human domain such as the behavior of managers, elected officials, and the public. The model focuses on human‐caused mortality, the key determinant of grizzly bear population growth in this region and the interactions and feedback loops among humans that have a major potential influence on bear mortality. We also briefly evaluate existing information and technical methods relevant to understanding this complex human‐biophysical system. We observe not only that the extant knowledge is insufficient for prediction (and in some cases for description), but also that traditional positivistic science alone is not adequate for dealing with the problems of grizzly bear conservation. We recommend changes in science and management that could improve learning and responsiveness among the involved individuals and organizations, clarify some existing uncertainty, and thereby increase the effectiveness of grizzly bear conservation and management. Although adaptive management is a promising approach, we point out some key—as yet unfulfilled—contingencies for implementation of a method such as this one that relies upon social processes and structures that promote open learning and flexibility in all facets of the policy process.

Does higher owner participation increase conflicts over common land? An analysis of communal forests in Galicia (Spain)

“…Mattson et al (1996) highlighted the importance of training the owners of natural resources in land management. Others demonstrated that major conflicts can arise if land is not properly managed (Skutsch 2000, Hellström 2001).…”

Distribution Patterns of Five Mammals in the Jomon Period, Middle Edo Period, and the Present, in the Japanese Archipelago

“…Frequencies of encounters is a function of how many humans are in bear habitat, their access to it, and reasons for being there. Lethality of encounters is affected by whether humans are armed, the economic value of bears (e.g., negative value for being an agricultural pest, positive value for meat and bear parts), and other cultural factors (Mattson et al 1996). Population numbers may never be accurately known, but the assumed trend in a population can be inferred by a suite of factors including changes in the spatial distribution of animals, the degree animals occupy all high quality habitat, changes in the abundance of bear sign (including sightings) and bear parts in markets, and the frequency and locations of mortalities and agricultural depredation.…”

“…Timing of research and monitoring projects should cover the range of annual variation in whatever is investigated (Mattson et al 1996). Studies of bear habitat should include occasional catastrophic events such as bamboo die-offs and the El Niño effect that causes widespread changes in the phenology of foods eaten by giant pandas and spectacled bears.…”

“…Clearly specifying sources of risk and uncertainty in monitoring methods and scientific data. The greater the uncertainty the more conservative standards must be set for success [e.g., initially set a limit of allowing no more than 1% total human-caused mortality to a threatened grizzly bear population (calculated as a three year running average) and then revising limits according to the results of monitoring data (see Mattson et al 1996)]. 2.…”

Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates.

“…On-theground implementation of management plans for many species of carnivores, especially the larger species, requires coordinated actions among different state and Federal agencies, tribes, private landowners, and neighboring countries (Clark et al 1996a, Mattson et al 1996, Servheen and Sandstrom 1993. The formation of working groups with representation by diverse constituencies are a step in the right direction Zielinski 1995, Servheen andSandstrom 1993).…”