Prepared for
Parks Canada,
Mountain Parks (1998)

Mike Gibeau,
Resources and the Environment Program, University of Calgary

Background

̊ Translocation of bears has been a common short-term solution and an alternative to the immediate destruction of “problem” bears for the last thirty years. The object was to prevent further nuisances and mortality however, evidence now questions the effectiveness of this management practice.

Considerations

̊ A successful translocation should mean more than not having the bear return or create a problem elsewhere. Success should mean the bear has adapted to its new surroundings, has learned to forage successfully, has not been killed or displaced by resident bears and is able to reproduce successfully.

̊ Bears moved outside of their home range seldom re-establish themselves as wild bears.

̊ Mortality is thought to be higher for translocated bears. This is due to intra specific conflicts with resident bears or ultimate destruction by the agency due to a high rate of repeat conflicts.

̊ Most bears exhibit typical displacement behaviour when moved long distances and seldom take up residence in the new area. They will spend several years searching for and establishing a stable new home range.

̊ Bears translocated out of the ecosystem are considered as a biological loss (mortality) to the population of origin.

̊ In the past, highly habituated or food conditioned bears are typically the animals proposed for translocation because all other management options have been explored and either failed or been rejected.

̊ Translocating problem or habituated bears to an unfamiliar location raises the probability that the bear will be involved in human/wildlife conflict in the new location. This increases the liability to the agency.

̊ There is a possibility that breeding age female grizzlies (due to their biological importance and smaller home range requirements ) could be re-established in suitable vacant bear habitat as an ecological restoration.

Situation Analysis

̊ Translocated bears have larger home ranges, a lower survival rate, and a lower reproductive rate than non translocated bears.

̊ Previously translocated bears are more likely to return, indicating that if a bear causes a nuisance once, it has a high probability of continuing nuisance behavior.

̊ Preliminary results from the West Slopes Study provide some of the strongest evidence to date that translocation as a management practice, at least in many areas, is doubtful at best and unethical at worst.

̊ One of the key alternatives to translocating bears will be a pro-active management program that stems the habituation process before bears become a nuisance.

̊ Attempts to deter bears that are already habituated or have been rewarded by unnatural foods (eg human food and garbage) have met with limited results.

̊ Recent advancements in bear management including hazing and aversive conditioning combined with on site or within home range releases have shown promise if conducted pro-actively.

Conclusions

̊ Translocating problem bears outside of their home range has limited biological value and the practice may have a negative impact. Moving problem bears increases the agencies liability.

̊ Management of bear-human conflict needs to be dealt with more pro-actively to prevent the need for management removal of bears from the system. This requires Parks Canada to reinvest in an expanded and dedicated Bear Management Program.

Contact Information;
Mike Gibeau,
Carnivore Specialist
Mountain District National Parks
403-609-1166

Another Report for Parks Canada
A Summary Analysis of Translocating Bears

Prepared for
Parks Canada, Mountain Parks
Mike Gibeau
Resources and the Environment Program, University of Calgary

Robin Munro
Foothills Model Forest

July 1999

Translocation of bears, or the deliberate movement of individuals from one place to another, usually a more remote site, is a common short-term solution and has been used as an alternative to the immediate destruction of “problem” bears. The object is to prevent further nuisances and mortality, however, there is growing doubt both among the management and scientific communities as to how effective this management practice is in achieving this objective. In addition, as a high profile management action translocations have inherently high liability costs as well as high financial costs. Together these factors have raised concerns as to the future role of translocations as a means of handling problem bears.

Although this analysis is written without specific citations, I rely heavily upon a recent comprehensive literature review compiled by R.H. Munro for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks (Munro 1995). Relevant portions of that report are attached in Appendix 1.

There is a small body of published literature which summarizes the biological consequences of “nuisance” bear translocations, including both grizzly and black bears. Most evaluations of bear translocations have examined factors affecting the success of preventing returns or nuisances elsewhere, and have provided descriptions of the age-sex class make up of the bears involved in conflicts. Only a few studies to date, have tested whether or not translocation affect survival rates, reproductive rates, and whether or not it is a feasible method of reducing bear mortality. There have been no studies to date, which address the impacts on the resident population in the areas where translocated bears are released.

Some of the important factors reported to affect return rates of translocated bears include: 1) distance moved, 2) age-sex class of the bear, 3) number of times transported, and 4) physiographic barriers. Although the literature includes important and valuable information, many of the conclusions that can be drawn are clouded by interactions among the above variables and, to a large degree, the varying definitions of a successful translocation. Success should mean more than not having the bear return or create a problem elsewhere. A successful translocation should mean the bear has adapted to its new surroundings, has learned to forage successfully, has not been killed or displaced by resident bears and is able to reproduce successfully.

The literature to date suggests a number of overall conclusions. Most bears need to be moved great distances to prevent return, and even then most studies reported 60-70% return rates. Female bears were more likely to be successfully translocated than males. Previously translocated bears are more likely to return, indicating that if a bear causes a nuisance again after its first translocation it will continue nuisance behavior. Translocated bears have larger home ranges, a lower survival rate, and a lower reproductive rate than non translocated bears.

One area in which bear translocations have been successful is in the re-establishment of bear populations. Situations in which translocations are used to re-establish depleted populations are very different from situations in which translocations are used to handle problem bears in two very important ways. Firstly, the bears chosen for re-establishing populations are not habitual nuisance bears, and secondly the bears are placed in an area that are devoid of any resident bears. This is generally not the case for problem bears.

Although the majority of data is inconclusive and confounded by a variety of variables and a weak definition of “success”, the most convincing evidence suggests that translocated bears in many areas have a high rate of return and reduced survivorship, and in some areas reduced reproductive rates. Furthermore, preliminary results from the West Slopes Bear Study also shows that although the grizzly bears moved have not returned, these translocations are less than successful. The preliminary results from the West Slopes Study provide some of the strongest evidence to date that translocation as a management practice, at least in many areas, is doubtful at best and unethical at worst.

Garbage and community sanitation problems are a reoccurring theme among several of the data sets. Consequently, the primary focus of any management program should be on eliminating the source of the problem and educating the public with regards to bear attractants, One of the key alternatives to translocating bears will be a pro-active management program that stems the habituation process before bears become a nuisance. Attempts to deter bears that are already habituated or have been rewarded by unnatural foods (eg human food and garbage) have met with limited results. However, recent advancements in bear management including hazing and aversive conditioning combined with on site or within home range releases have shown promise if conducted pro-actively. This is a long-term and continuous process but if the investment is undertaken, the number of bears killed/translocated each year will be considerably reduced and hopefully translocations will eventually become a non-issue.