http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=0a5b4329-da81-49ea-868b-32ebd0db1752

Maps of Alberta bear areas out today

Kelly Cryderman, Calgary Herald

Published: Thursday, October 02, 2008Maps marking key grizzly habitats will be released today by the Alberta government as a prominent bear biologist says the population count of the iconic animal has fallen far short of original hopes.
With about 65 per cent of the province’s grizzly bear habitat surveyed over a period of four years, Gordon Stenhouse said there have been 230 grizzlies counted — leading to renewed calls for the bears to be designated a threatened or endangered species.
“Some politicians say we can’t decide yet because we don’t have all the numbers. That’s perhaps true. But it’s not looking very good,” said Stenhouse, who is leading the count for the Alberta government and is the grizzly bear program leader for the Foothills Research Institute.The land surveyed so far includes bear territory from the Montana border north to Highway 16.Results for another northern section of the province will likely be released in early 2009, he said, bringing the count closer to completion.
Last year, environmentalists raised fears that there are fewer than 500 of the animals roaming the province — half of what was estimated earlier in the decade.
“There’s still other parts of the province,” Stenhouse said Wednesday, “but the numbers are looking like there’s certainly far fewer than people expected.”
Maps to be released by the government today will show core and secondary bear habitats, Stenhouse said.
The government needs to manage human access in those areas, he said.
“Ultimately people have to work together. And that’s industry and your average person going out in the forest,” he said.
“There’s some people who believe we’re going to close off all these areas so people can’t go there, that bears are more important than people,” Stenhouse said.
“That’s not the case at all. It’s now discussions around how can we maintain grizzly bears in their habitat and still deal with the human and societal needs.”
Stenhouse noted that in 2002, the Endangered Species Conservation Committee believed there were fewer than 1,000 bears in the province and recommended the species be designated as threatened.
If the population is less than 500, the grizzly should be considered endangered, Stenhouse said.
Earlier this year, a provincewide ban on Alberta’s controversial grizzly bear hunt was extended to 2009. The previous three-year moratorium was set to end after this past spring’s hunting season.
At that time, the Alberta government said it wouldn’t order a status review that could classify grizzly bears as endangered until the full population count is completed.
At the Alberta Wilderness Association, Nigel Douglas called the results of the population count so far, “shockingly bad news for grizzly bears in Alberta.”
He said the bears are extremely sensitive to disturbances and Alberta should follow the lead of a park such as Yellowstone.
The American national park saw its grizzly bear population rebound over decades of work, in part because 1,000 kilometres of roads were closed inside and around the park.
All it takes is political will, Douglas said.
“The grizzly bears don’t need money, they just need to be left alone,” he said.
A spokesman for the department of Sustainable Resource Development would not comment when contacted Wednesday evening.
kcryderman@theherald.canwest.com
 

DEVELOPMENT: JUMBO VALLEY

Singer Cockburn joins fight against glacier resort

WENDY STUECK

October 2, 2008

VANCOUVER — Bruce Cockburn admits he hasn’t had the chance to explore the Jumbo Valley, tucked amid the peaks and glaciers of the Purcell Mountain Range in southeastern B.C.

But the singer-guitarist didn’t hesitate when a friend asked him to play at a benefit to support a group fighting the planned Jumbo Glacier Resort, which has been generating controversy since it was proposed in 1991 and dragged through an approval process that has moved at its own glacial pace.

(more…)

Article from: Daily Telegraph

,  October 03, 2008 10:55am (NOTE: the same story appeared in several Australian newspapers)

THE shooting of a bear that attacked an Australian tourist in the Canadian ski resort village of Whistler has sparked outrage among locals and animal lovers.

(more…)

Hanneke Brooymans, The Edmonton Journal

Published: 2:30 am

EDMONTON - The provincial government has angered and mystified conservationists and scientists by drastically downgrading its ambitions on the number of grizzly bears Alberta can support.

The province created a grizzly bear recovery team in 2002, back when it was thought there were 800 to 1,000 of the bears left.

The last count as of this summer was 228 bears, and although there are still a couple of areas that haven’t yet been included in the tally, the final number is unlikely to rise to 400.  In order to keep a population of animals genetically healthy, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources says at least 1,000 mature animals are needed.

“It seems pretty clear we’re going to fall short of that,” said George Hamilton, a priority species manager with Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

Hamilton said the ministry will need to come up with population targets for grizzlies in each of the areas where they are found.

“We haven’t got those yet. And when we do, there’s a good chance they’re going to look a lot like whatever it is we have today.”

Robert Barclay was taken aback by that.

A biology professor at the University of Calgary, he was part of the grizzly bear recovery team, which was disbanded earlier this year.

“The word recovery means to me … not just maintaining what we have but bringing the number up to some higher target. If all we have is 300 bears, trying to maintain the population would be difficult for genetic and other reasons.”

Inbreeding could mean the bears would have trouble adjusting to changes in the environment or new diseases, he said.

Nigel Douglas, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association, said he was shocked by the government’s admission.

“That’s a horrendous attitude, to admit we’ve been making a mess of the management of grizzly bears and then say we’re going to settle for what we’ve got left.”

Hamilton said a key part of keeping bears in Alberta was managing access to their core habitat. The ministry plans to allow no more than 0.6 kilometres of road driveable by four-by-four trucks for each one square kilometre in these areas.

Hamilton said there is a correlation between road density and bear deaths.

The ministry has set up meetings over the next two weeks with off-highway vehicle groups, environmental and industry groups, municipal governments and hunting organizations to get ideas about how best to keep access issues under control.

A status review of the grizzly bear will likely be complete next year.

hbrooymans@thejournal.canwest.com

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1010/42/371379.htm

Thursday, October 02, 2008 Updated at 02 October 2008 0:08 Moscow Time.

(more…)

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/interior-news/news/28466549.html

Published: September 17, 2008 8:00 AM
Updated: September 17, 2008 10:47 AM Even hunters think the grizzly bear hunt is grisly.
A majority of British Columbians support a total ban on the trophy hunting of grizzlies, and this includes hunters.
A recent province-wide poll conducted by McAllister Opinion Research suggests that 73 per cent of the total population and 60 per cent of licensed hunters support a ban on trophy hunting of the iconic species, period.
“I’m shocked” said Janice Gilbert of Collingwood Bros, a local guide outfitting company.
“I don’t think it should be banned.”
“If outfitters are allowed to hunt a few bears a year, then I believe that is certainly not a bad thing” said Sieghard Weitzel of Outdoor Essentials, a local outdoor supply company.
A whopping 85 per cent of respondents disagree that hunting the bear makes B.C. safer.
“It [the hunt] employs a lot of people in our province and I’m one of them.” Gilbert said, “I think there’s a lot of grizzly bears.”
The poll also suggests that 73 per cent of the people agree with some biologists that B.C. does not have a scientifically reliable population estimate for grizzly bears. 

WASHINGTON, DC, September 15, 2008 (ENS) - The Bush administration’s authorization of increased snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park violates the fundamental legal responsibility of the National Park Service to protect the clean air, wildlife, and natural quiet of national parks for the benefit of all visitors, a federal court ruled today.

The administration authorized increased snowmobile use despite scientific conclusions by the National Park Service that the decision would multiply noise and unhealthy exhaust, which disrupt the experiences of visitors, and traffic that harms Yellowstone’s wildlife, including bison.

Judge Emmett Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today invalidated the Bush decision in a case brought by six conservation groups that together represent more than two million members.

A snowmobile tour at Yellowstone National Park (Photo courtesy National Park Service)

The groups sued the Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, National Park Service Director Mary Bomar and Mike Snyder, director of the Intermountain Region of the National Park Service over their new Winter Use Plan that allows 540 recreational snowmobiles and 83 snowcoaches to enter Yellowstone every day.

(more…)

September 16, 2008

Smith River landowner charged for feeding bears

By Tribune Staff

State and federal wildlife officials said Monday that they have had to destroy five black bears this month near the Smith River because the bears became conditioned to food handouts by an area landowner-outfitter.

(more…)

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=42463205-cc4d-4fb3-a9ca-9533b4067948

Bear that attacked man was diseased:

official Canwest News Service Published: Saturday, September 13, 2008

(more…)

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ee1a636a-0755-4f3a-9cc4-6bf60aff2e5

(more…)

Associated Press

Sept. 5, 2008, 6:40AM

PANGUITCH, Utah — One Utah community is cheering a special bear — but don’t call him Smokey.Investigators say a large black bear raided a clandestine marijuana growing operation so often that it chased the grower away.“This bear is definitely law-enforcement minded,” said Garfield County Sheriff Danny Perkins. “If I can find this bear I’m going to deputize him.”Deputies found food containers ripped apart and strewn everywhere, cans with bear teeth marks, claw marks and bear prints across the Garfield County camp on Tuesday.Perkins said the operation on Boulder Mountain included 4,000 “starter” sacks of pot and 888 young plants.“This particular bear apparently was not going to give up and basically chased these marijuana farmers away,” Perkins said. “Our county is so tough on drugs that even the wildlife are getting in on the action.”http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/5985044.html

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnCntet-f7JELUXYjflv_lQKT7Pw
 

19 hours agoWildlife biologists are sometimes harming the animals they study with commonly used research methods, says a new paper already causing heated debate in the scientific community.
Bears that are captured, examined and then released are left with lingering muscle damage and long-term weight loss that increases with the number of times they are caught, said Marc Cattet, a University of Saskatchewan biologist and veterinarian who is the lead author of the paper in the August edition of the Journal of Mammalogy.
“It’s been a common misconception that the capture and handling of animals has short-term effects on animals but is unlikely to have any long-term effects,” he said Tuesday.
Cattet used data from two different bear research projects - one in Alberta on grizzlies and one in North Carolina on black bears. Both projects used padded leg-hold snares, barrel traps and helicopter darting to capture bears and collect data on their health and movements.
Cattet and fellow researchers used that data to analyze the bears’ blood for enzymes that are released by muscle damage during extreme exertion, struggle and stress.
About 70 per cent of the grizzlies captured by snares had higher than normal levels of such enzymes - in some cases up to 12 times higher. Levels were also high in nearly one in five of grizzlies darted from helicopters and in 14 per cent caught in barrel traps.
Black bears also had high muscle-damage enzyme levels in about two-thirds of those caught in snares and one-third of those trapped in barrels.
“We’d be damned sore if we were subjected to those kinds of procedures and if we had these levels of enzymes,” Cattet said.
Stiff and sore, the bears move around their territory less. The study shows grizzly movement dropped almost in half and black bears roamed 25 per cent less, with the effects lasting for up to five weeks.
That disruption seems to have long-lasting consequences. The weight of a nine-year-old grizzly captured three times averaged 14 per cent lower than normal, an effect that increases with the number of captures.
Recapture is a common research method. About a third of the grizzlies in the study had been recaptured up to eight times.
The effects of weight loss may linger into the next generation. Research in polar bears suggests underweight sows deliver underweight cubs.
Although Cattet’s research focused on bears, there’s no reason to believe the findings wouldn’t apply to other mammals commonly studied through capture and release, such as caribou, he said.
“We’re all mammals. We’re all built of the same materials. We function in the same way. It’s a no-brainer.”
Cattet points out that not only does capture-and-release harm animals, it distorts data scientists are in the field to collect.
“There’s a good chance that what you’re doing may actually affect your results.”
However, capture-and-release is a standard and necessary study method because it’s the only way to get certain information. It’s deeply engrained in wildlife biology and Cattet said he’s already experienced resistance to his conclusions.
“There will be people that will embrace it,” he said. “On the other end of the spectrum, I think there’s going to be some hostility, too.
“For some people, it’s going to be perceived that this paper is a direct affront to their way of life and it’s not going to be received well. I know from discussions over the past three to five years some people just don’t want to hear it.”
Even getting his paper published was a struggle, he said.
“In the review process there were some individuals that just didn’t want it published.”
Northern aboriginals have also raised concerns about wildlife research practices.
Last December, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. - the group that oversees the Nunavut land claim - passed a unanimous resolution calling on the federal and territorial governments to stop all wildlife research that involves excessive handling of wildlife.

By Jeff Gailus, Whistler Question, August 28, 2008

It would be easy to characterize Whistler’s bear problem as a problem with bears, but such a conclusion would be wrong. No, our bear problem is not really about bears at all. It is about the habits of people, and in particular our tradition of carelessly discarding food scraps and other ursine edibles from our tables.

So far this year, eight black bears have been killed in and around Whistler for breaking into houses in search of food. Last year we experienced Whistler’s first recorded injury of a person at the paws of a bear, followed by two more bear-initiated injuries this year, sustained when Whistlerites surprised bears that were rummaging through their pantries and garbage bins. There is fear in the air, and exasperation. It is an untenable state of affairs, and if current trends continue, it will get worse before it gets better.

The stakes are getting increasingly high for bears and people alike. As bears become more food-conditioned and habituated, their interactions with people become more frequent and potentially more dangerous. Many of the bolder bruins are learning that buildings contain food, and they are increasingly inclined to climb through windows and walk through doors in search of an easy meal.

Concerned with the gravity of the situation, I made a visit to see Dr. Stephen Herrero, one of the world’s foremost experts on bears and bear-human conflicts. He is a tall, lanky man whose quiet demeanor has served him well during his 40-year career in the often controversial world of bear conservation. I listened as he recounted a recent trip to pre-Olympic China, where he helped locals develop plans to reduce unwanted conflicts with bears. Next month he’s headed to Hokkaido, in northern Japan, to do the same. In both cases, like everywhere, the answer involves changing the behaviour of people, not bears.

Seizing the moment, I asked him about Whistler’s bear problem.

“I have no doubt it’s a problem that can be solved,” he said in his quiet and respectful way. “But they are going to have to learn to live with the bears.”

Dr. Herrero points to Yosemite National Park in California as the closest parallel to the Whistler situation. Like Whistler, Yosemite is awash in black bears. Ten years ago, garbage dumps, trash cans, tents and coolers were easy pickings for Yosemite’s ingenious ursids. According to Dr. Herrero, they had become so food conditioned “they would break into anything and everything,” including cars and buildings.

The situation grew out of control. Bears injured people at alarming rates, and park rangers killed alarming numbers of black bears trying to keep the public safe. Eventually, park officials installed bear-proof storage lockers at campgrounds and a bear-proof waste management system everywhere. They hired more staff to provide visitor education and enforce food storage orders. As far as the bears were concerned, human food and garbage had all but disappeared, and once the most incorrigible offenders had been removed, human-bear conflicts and property damage dropped by 90 percent.

To its credit, Whistler already uses many of the strategies necessary to follow in Yosemite’s footsteps. Aversive conditioning teaches bears that they are not welcome in and around our communities, and a combination of public education and strong, well-enforced bylaws encourages residents and visitors to keep garbage out of the maws of bears. The missing piece of the puzzle is a bear-proof solid waste management system that prevents bears from accessing garbage. In order to be effective, such a system must be convenient and easy to use for every member of the community. Having to drive your garbage a mile or more to the nearest bear-proof disposal site is neither easy nor convenient for many people, which means the rate of compliance will always be inadequate.

It’s time to stop talking about whether to commit to an effective communal bear-proof garbage management system and to band together as a community and figure out how to make it happen before the world descends on our doorstep in 2010.

The reality is there is no other option. Humans are obviously here to stay, and getting rid of the bears would require an all-out war involving poison and pump-action shotguns that public opinion simply will not support.

Without a truly bear-proof waste management system, bears will continue to break into homes and put people’s lives at risk. In the end, nobody wins, and Whistler will become yet another symbol of intolerance and unsustainability rather than an inspiring example of how people can work together to coexist with the natural world of which they are inextricably a part.

Jeff Gailus is an award-winning writer, member of the Get Bear Smart Society, and frequent visitor of Whistler’s beautiful black bears.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/theyre-changing-hats-at-buckingham-palace-to-save-the-black-bear-913906.html

(more…)

(more…)