Search

Avoiding humans will be more difficult and energetically costly for animals as outdoor recreation increases and people venture farther into wildland areas that provide high‐quality habitat for wildlife. Restricting human access can be an attractive management tool to mitigate effects of human recreation activities on wildlife; however, the efficacy of such measures is rarely assessed. In 1982, Yellowstone National Park identified areas important to grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) to help protect critical grizzly bear habitat and reduce the likelihood of human injuries by bears. Referred to as bear management areas (BMAs), human access is restricted in these areas for 2–8 months each year, with timing and type of restrictions varying by area. We examined 2 datasets to evaluate grizzly bear selection of BMAs and differences of bear density in BMAs and non‐BMAs. First, we used 17 years of recent global positioning system telemetry data for grizzly bears to assess their selection of BMAs during periods when human access was allowed, and when access was restricted. We used step‐selection functions to test the hypothesis that bears spend time in places that allow them to avoid people and select quality food sources. There was support that grizzly bears differentially select for BMAs regardless of whether human access was restricted at the time, compared with areas outside BMAs, and that selection changed with sex and season. Only males during the summer and hyperphagic seasons changed their selection of BMAs based on whether access restrictions were in place, and overall, male bears preferred unrestricted BMAs (BMAs without restrictions in place). Females preferentially selected BMAs regardless of whether the area had access restrictions in place only during the mating season. Individuals varied widely in their preference for BMAs and access restrictions. Bears likely choose to spend time in BMAs based on available food resources rather than restrictions to human access. Supporting this interpretation, our analyses indicated that a greater proportion of BMA in an area was associated with higher densities of grizzly bear. Thus, restrictions to human access likely help reduce the potential for human–bear interactions, accomplishing one of the original objectives for establishing the BMAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The quality and availability of resources are known to influence spatial patterns of animal density. In Yellowstone National Park, relationships between the availability of resources and the distribution of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) have been explored but have yet to be examined in American black bears (Ursus americanus). We conducted non‐invasive genetic sampling during 2017–2018 (mid‐May to mid‐July) and applied spatially explicit capture‐recapture models to estimate density of black bears and examine associations with landscape features. In both years, density estimates were higher in forested vegetation communities, which provide food resources and thermal and security cover preferred by black bears, compared with non‐forested areas. In 2017, density also varied by sex, with female densities being higher than males. Based on our estimates, the northern range of Yellowstone National Park supports one of the highest densities of black bears (20 black bears/100 km2) in the northern Rocky Mountains (6–12 black bears/100 km2 in other regions). Given these high densities, black bears could influence other wildlife populations more than previously thought, such as through displacement of sympatric predators from kills. Our study provides the first spatially explicit estimates of density for black bears within an ecosystem that contains the majority of North America's large mammal species. Our density estimates provide a baseline that can be used for future research and management decisions of black bears, including efforts to reduce human–bear conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In temperate regions of the world, food resources are seasonally limited, which causes some wildlife species to seek out nutrient‐rich resources to better meet their caloric needs. Animals that utilize high‐quality resources may reap fitness benefits as they prepare for mating, migration, or hibernation. American black bears (Ursus americanus) are omnivores that consume both plant and animal food resources to meet macronutrient needs. Black bears capitalize on high‐quality food resources, such as soft mast in summer and hard mast during autumn, but we know less about the importance of resource quality during spring. Therefore, we sought to understand the relationship between the spatiotemporal variation in the availability of food and resource selection of black bears during spring. We also aimed to infer potential changes in foraging tactics, from opportunistic foraging to more active selection. Although black bears are described as opportunistic omnivores, we hypothesized they select areas with high‐quality forage when available. We instrumented 7 black bears with GPS collars in 2017 and 2018 and estimated fine‐scale resource selection with integrated step‐selection functions. We found evidence that black bear movements were influenced by forage quality of vegetative food resources. However, we failed to find evidence that black bears actively alter their movements to take advantage of seasonal neonate elk. Although black bears represent a substantial cause of mortality for neonate elk, we found that black bears likely feed on neonates encountered opportunistically while traveling between patches of high‐quality forage. Few studies have shown evidence of an omnivorous species capitalizing on spatiotemporal variation in forage quality, yet our data suggest this may be an important strategy for species with diverse diets, particularly where resources are seasonally limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several of the world's bear species exhibit tree-rubbing behavior, which is thought to be a form of scent-marking communication. Many aspects of this behavior remain unexplored, including differences in rub tree selection between sympatric bear species. We compiled rub tree data collected on Yellowstone National Park's Northern Range (USA) and compared rub tree selection of sympatric American black bears (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bears (U. arctos) at local and landscape scales. During 2017 and 2018, we identified 217 rub trees and detected black bears at 117 rub trees and grizzly bears at 18 rub trees, based on genetic analysis of collected hair samples. Rub trees generally were located in areas with gentle slopes and close to existing animal trails. Trees selected by black bears were typically in forested areas, whereas trees selected by grizzly bears were in forested and more open areas. Use of rub trees varied seasonally and between sexes for black bears, but seasonal data were inconclusive for grizzly bears. Black bears showed preferences for certain tree species for rubbing, but we did not find evidence that rub tree selection by grizzly bears differed among tree species. Both bear species selected trees that lacked branches on the lower portions of tree trunks and the maximum rub height was consistent with the body length of the bear species that used the tree. Although the sample size for grizzly bears was small, identifying the species and sex of bears based on genetic analysis enhanced interpretation of rub tree use and selection by bears. Scent-marking by black bears and grizzly bears on similar rub objects in well-traversed areas likely serves to enhance communication within and between the 2 species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]