International Bear News...Excellency U. Barsbold, Mongolian Minister of Nature and the Environ-ment,...

Quarterly Newsletter of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA)and the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group

International Bear NewsAugust 2005 vol. 14, no. 3

IBA website: www.bearbiology.org/www.bearbiology.com

14th IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Meeting summary and resolutions on pages 14-17.

© J

oh

n H

ech

tel

2 International Bear News August 2005 vol. 14, no. 3

Table of Contents

International Bear News, ISSN #1064-1564, quarterly newsletter of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA).Editor: Teresa DeLorenzo, Design: Cynthia Cheney, 10907 NW Copeland St., Portland, Oregon 97229-6145, USA.

Phone (503) 643-4008, Fax (503) 643-4072, Email [email protected], Website www.bearbiology.com/www.bearbiology.org.Back issues are available at www.bearbiology.com.

MembershipUse the form on the page 49 to order or renew memberships, make donations, and update member information.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this issue. Artwork is copyrighted — do not reproduce without permission.Thank you to CityGraphics and Imaging, Portland, Oregon, USA for generously discounting the cost of printing.

Deadline for the November 2005 issue is October 15, 2005.

Editorial Policy International Bear News welcomes articles about biology, conservation and management of the world’s eight bear species. Submis-sions of 750-1500 words are preferred, and photos, drawings and charts are appreciated. Submissions to [email protected] arepreferred, otherwise mail or fax to the address above. IBA reserves the right to accept, reject and edit submissions.

Council News 3 From the President4 Editor’s Thank Yous5 IBA’s New Experience and Exchange Grants Available

New Source for Bear Safety Videos/DVDs6 New Reporting for R&C Grants Program

IBA Members: Yellowstone Grizzly Decision Input SoughtOpinion 7 IBA Should Support Proposal to Remove Yellowstone Grizzly Bear from the

U.S. Threatened Species ListBear Specialist Group 10 Creating a Mexican Black Bear Expert Team

11 First Mexican Black Bear Workshop13 Bear Specialist Group Coordinating Committee

Polar BearSpecialist Group 14 14th Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

15 New PBSG Chair16 IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Resolutions

Eurasia 18 Asiatic Black Bear Restoration in Mount Jiri, South Korea20 Brown Bears Return to Mount Olympus22 Romania

Americas 23 Bolivia: Reason to Kill a Bear, “I did it because it was there.”24 Volunteers Needed in Ecuador

Crossing Borders for the First Mexican Black Bear Workshop25 Mexico Black Bear Pilot Study Initiated in Nuevo Leon Using GPS Collars26 Second Fatal Black Bear Mauling in the Northwest Territories, Canada27 Florida Update28 Five Cubs Increase Mississippi’s Bear Population 15-20 Percent29 18th Eastern Black Bear Workshop Thank Yous

Captive Bears 30 Naturalistic Large Enclosures for Polar Bears in Europe31 Grizzly Bear Vasectomy32 Rehabilitation and Release of Bears

Student Forum 33 We’ll See You in Italy!!IBA Student? The List Serve is for You!“Go to Your Room!”

35 Student Spotlight: First Mexican Black Bear Workshop StudentsBears in Culture 36 The Burned PawEvents 38 Italy 16th IBA Conference — Program — Call for Videos — Registration

44 American Zoo and Aquarium Association Annual ConferenceFirst European Congress of Conservation BiologyNinth Western Black Bear Workshop

45 Japan 17th IBA Conference47 Mexico 18th IBA Conference

IBA 48 IBA Officers & Council49 IBA Membership Application51 IBA Publications Order FormBack About IBA and Mission Statement

3International Bear News August 2005 vol. 14, no. 3

Council NewsFrom the President

Harry ReynoldsPO Box 80843Fairbanks, AK 99708, USAPhone (907) 479-5169Email [email protected]

Italy!!There is still time to make arrange-

ments to attend the 16th IBAinternational conference in Italy thatwill be held September 27-October 1,2005 (pages 38-43). This importantgathering of individuals committedto bears will be held in the spec-tacular setting of Riva del Garda inTrentino, where brown bears roam inthe Italian Alps. Each of our confer-ences provide opportunities to shareapplications of the most up-to-datetechniques to help focus efforts forconservation of bear populationsthroughout the world. As important,our meetings allow for the one-on-one discussion of ideas, brainstorm-ing of more effective approaches tocommon problems, and exposure tonew personal contacts. The value ofthis exchange cannot be overstated— it leads to more rapid transfer ofthe long term understanding and on-the-ground conservation measuresthat are crucial to management ofbears in all parts of the world, and tothe continued integral presence ofbears in diverse environments of theworld far into the future.

The organizing committee hasattracted a wide variety of presenta-tions for the conference. (Note thecall for videos on page 40.) Theconference will provide the firstopportunity for many members ofExpert Teams of the IUCN BearSpecialist Group to meet in personand to better assess conservationpriorities and strategies for bears.

IBA WebmasterTully Hammill Retires

One of the great strengths of IBAis that it is an organization ofvolunteers, providing their services,commitment and energies becausethey believe in bear conservation.Tully Hammill is one of the veryimportant volunteers who help makeour organization function. As ourwebmaster, Tully has enabled us tocommunicate with each otherthrough the web and to provide IBA’sscience-based conservation messageto others. Tully is retiring in Septem-ber 2005 from his position with theUniversity of Washington, andbecause of his future plans will resignfrom his IBA position as well. Pleasejoin me in thanking Tully for his partin making IBA an effective voice forbear conservation and in wishinghim an enjoyable retirement.

As a result of Tully’s retirement,IBA is seeking a new volunteerwebmaster. Tully is very willing tohelp in the transition for a newwebmaster and to share his insightsregarding keeping our website avaluable tool for users around theworld.

My RetirementAfter almost 33 years of working

for the Alaska Department of Fishand Game, primarily as a brown bearresearch biologist, I’ve decided toretire on September 1, 2005. I plan todedicate most of my efforts for theremaining two years of my tenure asIBA president to further the goalsand programs of IBA. Note newcontact information above.

Japan ConferencePreparations are well underway

for the 17th IBA conference inKaruizawa Town, October 2-6,2006. Submissions for poster andoral presentations will be acceptedbeginning October 1, 2005 (dead-line March 31, 2006). The deadlinefor scheduling workshops isDecember 31, 2005. See pages 45-46for details.

Elections for IBA CouncilIn a separate mailing, all IBA

members will soon be receivingballots and candidate statementsfor the election of the IBA VicePresident–Eurasia and two Councilmembers. Elections for Councilpositions are held in conjunctionwith both the Americas conferenceand the Eurasia conference. Whilemembers who are candidates forCouncil may reside in any country,our bylaws require that candidatesfor Vice President–Eurasia and VicePresident–Americas be residentswithin those regions. Those electedwill represent members in conduct-ing the day-to-day business of IBA.Our effectiveness in advancing bearconservation depends on many ofthe decisions made by Council, soit is important that memberscarefully consider their votes. Inorder to be counted, completedballots must mailed in time toreach IBA Secretary Joe Clark beforeSeptember 27th when the confer-ence in Italy begins.


Council NewsFrom the President, cont’d.

Editor’s Thank YousThank you to everyone who

contributed to this issue, includingregular correspondents:

Charity BartoskewitzFred DeanDiana Doan-CriderMatthew E. DurninDave GarshelisLydia KolterDavid MatherBruce McLellanHarry ReynoldsRobin Rigg

Bears of the Gobi Desert,Mongolia

During November 2004, HisExcellency U. Barsbold, MongolianMinister of Nature and the Environ-ment, convened a workshop to assessthe most appropriate strategy forconservation of the remainingpopulation of 20-50 bears thatremain in the Gobi Desert (seeworkshop recommendations on theIBA webpage, www.bearbiology.org).The workshop was attended byMongolian scientists, experts, andconservationists as well as represen-tatives from IBA, the IUCN BearSpecialist Group, and the WildlifeConservation Society (WCS), amongother NGOs, and independentbiologists. There is a general lack ofinformation on population size andstability, movement patterns, andeven species status of Gobi bears. Ifthe present assessment of Gobi bearnumbers and status by Mongolianexperts is correct, then the popula-tion, at least in Mongolia, is at risk ofextinction.

Workshop recommendationsincluded the need for collectinggenetic samples to determine geneticrelationships with the nearest areasinhabited by brown bears; usingremote cameras to assess minimumnumbers of individual bears visitingthe three oasis complexes thatcomprise the known distributioncenters for the bears; and fitting asample of bears with GPS satellitecollars to determine movementpatterns between oases, and use ofareas beyond the oases.

To address one aspect of therecommendations, P. Zahler (WCS),B. Lhagvasuren (Mongolian Academyof Sciences), B. Mijiddorj (Great GobiStrictly Protected Area (GGSPA)) andI submitted a one-year researchproposal to the IBA Research andConservation Grants Program for

purchase of remote cameras andrelated equipment for deployment atoases to assess minimum numbers ofbears using these areas. As a result ofthe IBA grant award, we worked inclose cooperation with the UnitedNations Development Program(UNDP) and the Mongolian Ministryof Nature and the Environment topurchase three GPS satellite collars;and with a team of Mongolianbiologists, to capture and collar bearsand collect genetic material foranalysis. Team members included L.Amgalan (Mongolian Academy ofSciences), T. Tserenbataa (UNDP),Dovchiudorj (GGSPA), and DerekCraighead (Beringia South). Al-though we were responsible for allcosts while in the capital city ofUlaanbaatar, the team was providedwith in-country logistical supportonce we reached the countryside.Supplemental support was receivedfrom the independent researchinstitute, Beringia South, of Kelly,Wyoming, USA and its president,Derek Craighead, who has extensiveexperience with GPS satellite track-ing and data analysis, and who wasalso part of the team. Airfare wasprovided through a grant from BearTrust International.

During June 10-July 10, 2005, wewere able to set out remote camerasat eight oases and collect about 30hair or scats for genetic analysis.Despite problems encountered withtraps that had not been used in

many years, we were able to capturetwo bears, and place one satellitecollar and one VHF collar on these.We also provided training in theuse of remote cameras for rangers ofthe GGSPA.

This effort provides a goodexample of how IBA grant fundscan serve as leverage to enable aconservation effort to be accom-plished and provide trainingopportunities at the same time. Theend result we strive for is conserva-tion of bear populations for thefuture.


Council News

Ole Jakob SorensenProgram ChairNorth Trondelag University CollegeFaculty of Social Sciencesand Natural ResourcesBox 2501N-7729 Steinkjer, Norway.Phone +47-74112052Fax +47-74112101Email [email protected]

The committee appointed tooversee IBA’s new Experience andExchange Grants (IBN May 200514(2):6) has started to work out theguidelines for this program. We arecurrently working to have theguidelines and application formready to be presented at the 16thinternational bear conference in Italyin late September (pages 38-43).

This grants program will mainlybe designed for young biologists andresearchers who desire to gaintechnical and practical trainingeither by visiting ongoing researchprograms, thereby seeking experi-ence to be implemented in his/herown research area, or by havingmore experienced researchers jointhem on site to help create orimprove ongoing research, manage-ment, or conservation programs.Though we anticipate that mostapplications will fall into one ofthese categories, other types ofexperience and exchange applica-tions will be considered.

A unique aspect of this program isthat it always will include coordina-tion and cooperation between twoparties, the one travelling and a host.That connection and the mutualinterest and goals of the two partiesmust be clear in the application. Thehost must in some way demonstratethat they are ready to assist practi-

IBA’s New Experience and ExchangeGrants Available

cally, technically and maybe also,but not necessarily, financially to thecommon effort.

For people interested in lookinginto this grant possibility in 2005 or2006, the time has come to startplanning. The 2005 startup fundingfor this program will be awarded latein the fall of 2005, for use most likelyin 2006. Application requirementswill be finalized by late Septemberand posted on the IBA website(www.bearbiology.com), with anapplication deadline of November 1,2005.

Applications for 2006 grants istentatively set for March 1, 2006.

Grants will be awarded for up toapproximately US$1,500.

We realize that the first two yearswill be a time of learning for thisprogram committee. Guidelines andschedules may change as we learnmore about how to best design andimplement these grants. Anyonewho thinks they might be interestedin finding opportunities to apply forthis grant are welcome to contactany of the committee members formore information, both before andafter we present our final guidelinesat the conference in Italy and on theIBA website.

The other committee members are:Glen Contreras (USA)

[email protected] Goldstein

(Venezuela)[email protected]

Petra Kaczensky (Germany)[email protected]

Karen Noyce (USA)[email protected]

John HechtelRegional Refuge ManagerSouthcentral AlaskaAlaska Department of Fish and Game1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 4Palmer, AK 99645, USAPhone (907) 746-6331Fax (907) 746-6305Email [email protected]

Magic Lantern, the old distributorof the Safety in Bear Country videos/DVDs is now out of business. All ofthe video/DVD products, Staying Safein Bear Country, Working in BearCountry and the new Living in BearCountry are now available throughDistribution Access at:

http://www.distributionaccess.comor

the toll free order desk phone:1-888-440 4640.

Copies of the videos Staying Safe inBear Country and Working in BearCountry are also available from theIBA. Use the order form on page 51or the website: www.bearbiology.com.

New Source forBear SafetyVideo/DVDs

© C

ath

erin

e N

ork

in


Council News

Frederick Dean, ChairIBA Research and ConservationGrants Committee810 Ballaine RoadFairbanks, AK 99709, USAEmail [email protected]

The Research and ConservationGrants Committee is requesting thatfinal reports on research and conser-vation grants include informationthat is needed for fundraising by theEconomic Development Committee.All grantees should check the IBAwebsite (www.bearbiology.com) thisfall for new information regardingfinal report preparation. Anyonepreparing a final grant report is askedto include the following additionalinformation:

• A one or two sentence descrip-tion of the project.

• A summary of the results oroutcome of the project in three orfour sentences.

• A statement explaining therelevance and importance of thework to bear conservation.

• An explanation of what has beendone and what additional plans thereare for informing the many groups towhom the information is important,i.e. local people, appropriate agencyand organization workers, the scien-tific and conservation communitiesregionally and globally.

It is best that the above informa-tion is in the author’s own words,and will save much writing time forthe grants committee.

• A list of financial and in-kindcontributors, showing the amountsof money or value of materials andservices. Please include the percent-age of the total project cost repre-sented by the IBA grant.

This information will be helpful inreviewing future proposals, and willhelp raise funds to expand theoverall grant fund.

New Reporting forR&C Grants Program

Karen NoyceIBA Vice President, AmericasMinnesota Departmentof Natural Resources1201 East Highway 2Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USAPhone (218) 327-4133Email [email protected]

In mid-August of this year, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service will offi-cially announce its proposal toremove the grizzly bear in theYellowstone ecosystem from the U.S.Threatened Species list. This pro-posal, if passed, would transferresponsibility for managing thepopulation of grizzlies in theYellowstone ecosystem from thefederal government to the states inthat ecosystem. The proposal will bevery controversial. Anyone who hasfollowed, even casually, the historyof bear management and policy inYellowstone Park over the past half-century knows that these bearscomprise one of the most contestedwildlife populations in the world.The story of the decline and subse-quent recovery of grizzlies in theYellowstone region is one of themost complex chronicles in bearmanagement history, filled withcolorful and controversial characters,fascinating science, villains andheroes, breathtaking scenery, rivetingstories, and truckloads of politics.

Following announcement of itsproposal, the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService will hold a public commentperiod of, most likely, 60-days,during which anyone is welcome tocomment on any or all aspects of theproposed change in management.

On the next page of this newslet-ter, you will find an opinion piece,submitted by six IBA memberbiologists from the western U.S. and

IBA Members:Yellowstone Grizzly Decision Input Sought

Canada, proposing that the IBA passa resolution in support of the plan todelist the Yellowstone grizzly. Thegroup plans to submit a draftresolution to the IBA membership forconsideration soon. (IBA bylawsallow any IBA member to introduceresolutions for consideration and avote by the membership.)

This proposal raises very impor-tant questions for IBA members toconsider. One is the specific questionat hand: should IBA pass a resolutionin support of the delisting ofYellowstone grizzly bears? First wemust decide whether to take a standon this issue at all. Already we havereceived comments from severalbiologists very familiar with theissues that are adamantly opposed toIBA taking any position on thedelisting question. This then raises alarger question: what is the appropri-ate role for our professional organiza-tion in cases such as this? Is itappropriate, advisable, and/oreffective for IBA to take positions onlocal or regional management issues?The question has been raised beforebut never resolved. One of IBA’s goalsis to advance the conservation andmanagement of bears wherever theyoccur, which means advocating forsound management practices andscience. It is also imperative that wemaintain our objectivity and scien-tific integrity while doing so.

There is no doubt that thesequestions will stimulate vital,thought-provoking, and perhapsheated discussion within our mem-bership. We hope that no one willshy away from participating in thisdialogue. We urge all IBA members to


Opinion

Submitted bySterling Miller, email [email protected]

National Wildlife FederationMatt Austin

British Columbia Ministryof Environment

Chris ServheenU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Steve NadeauIdaho Department of Fish and Game

Dave MoodyWyoming Game and Fish Department

Jim PeekUniversity of Idaho, retired

In 1975, the grizzly (brown) bear(Ursus arctos) in the United Statessouth of Canada was listed as athreatened species under the U.S.Endangered Species Act (ESA). Follow-ing 30 years of intensive and coordi-

nated effort by state andfederal wildlife and land

management agencies,the demographic and

regulatory targetsestablished in the

1993 grizzly bearRecovery Plan

have beenmet andsignificantly

ex-ceeded.

Con-

sequently, as mandated by the ESA,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service isexpected in August 2005 to proposeremoving Yellowstone grizzly bearsfrom federal management under theESA. This proposal will list compo-nents that are already known (theConservation Strategy, Forest ServicePlan amendments, the affectedstates’ management plans, etc.).

IBA Should Support Proposal to RemoveYellowstone Grizzly Bear from theU.S. Threatened Species List

The recovery of grizzlies inYellowstone is a dramatic successstory for recovery of a severelydepleted bear species and illustrateswhat can be accomplished whenhumans direct their energies andresources toward recovery. Thesuccess of this effort should serve asan example for recovery efforts forall of the world’s bear species and forgrizzly bears in other regions whererecovery has lagged behind that inYellowstone. We believe it is impor-tant that the IBA recognize thesuccess of this recovery effort andendorse delisting bears in thisecosystem. We have prepared aresolution which we intend topresent for consideration by IBAmembers and Council.

There is little dispute over thefollowing facts put forth in ourresolution:

1. The abundance target set in therecovery plan (observation of at least15 different females with newborncubs) has been exceeded since 1986(six year average ranging from 15 to38). In the Yellowstone Ecosystem,there were 52 observed in 2002, 38in 2003, and 49 in 2004. Extrapolat-ing from the number of females withnewborn cubs, the total populationpoint estimate in 2004 was 588 bearsusing the methods of Keating et al.(2003); this represents more than adoubling since listing when anestimated 250 bears occurred in theYellowstone area.

2. The annual distribution targetover a six-year period (at least 16 of18 Bear Management Units [BMUs]occupied by females with offspring)has been exceeded since 1998.During three of these years (2000-2002), females with offspring wereobserved in all 18 BMUs and the six-year objectives have been obtainedin all 18 BMUs.

© C

ath

erin

e N

ork

in

read the following opinion piece onYellowstone delisting. We ask you,as IBA members, to participate indiscussing any or all of the ques-tions outlined above. If you haveany thoughts to share, pleaseexpress them. Well-reasoned andwell-articulated written commentsthat can be shared with others arelikely to be most helpful. You canbring your thoughts and commentsto the IBA membership meeting inItaly (pages 38-43), where this topicwill be on the agenda for discussion.Even better, whether or not you willbe in Italy, send comments ahead oftime to any IBA Council member orofficer (contact information page48). It is important that our organi-zation continues to work towardsreaching more clarity on these verycomplex and vital issues. Thanks foryour help.


Opinion

3. The approach to setting mortal-ity quotas changed in 2005. The oldapproach was based on no more than4% human-caused mortalities in theminimum population of bears of allages; of this quota no more than30% could be female. The newapproach is based on 9% mortalitiesof females two years old or olderfrom all causes (including estimatesof unreported mortalities). Thefemale subquota was slightly ex-ceeded in 2004 using the old methodfor calculating the quota butachieved using the new method.

Moreover, plans are in place toassure appropriate management ofgrizzly bear habitat and in theYellowstone ecosystem followingdelisting. A Conservation Strategyhas been adopted by state andfederal land management agenciesthat details how habitat will bemanaged on federal lands in theYellowstone Ecosystem. The Conser-vation Strategy provides high levelsof habitat security for grizzly bears ina core area (the Primary Conserva-tion Area (PCA) of 5.9 million acrescentered on Yellowstone NationalPark (34.4%) and national forestlands (58.5%)). The six nationalforests surrounding Yellowstone arein the process of plan revisions thatspecify how grizzly bear habitat willbe managed within and outside ofthe PCA subsequent to delisting. Thestates of Idaho, Montana, andWyoming have all completed grizzlybear management plans that specifygrizzly bears will continue to colo-nize and occupy “biologicallysuitable and socially acceptablehabitats” and these plans are part ofthe Conservation Strategy.

Also, non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) are successfully increas-ing the amount of secure habitat forbears, wolves and other species bypurchasing, from willing sellers, U.S.

Forest Service grazing allotments inareas with frequent conflicts. Thestate management plans are designedto at least maintain and in somecases increase the number of bearsand we believe these plans areadequate to accomplish their statedobjectives and not permit grizzlybear population declines followingdelisting. The plans all provide forcontinued expansion of grizzly bearsinto socially acceptable and biologi-cally suitable habitats. We believethat the monitoring and researchprogram laid out in the ConservationStrategy is adequate to accomplish itsstated objectives as long as it isadequately funded.

The beneficial effects of the Conser-vation Strategy, the state managementplans, and the Forest Plan amend-ments are contingent upon delistingand will not be implemented absentdelisting. Absent delisting the Section7 consultation provisions of the ESAwill be the only tool left for the Fishand Wildlife Service to influencemanagement of Yellowstone grizzliesand this tool is greatly inferior forgrizzly bear conservation in compari-son to the combined state plans, theForest Plan amendments, and Conser-vation Strategy. The success of therecovery effort for grizzly bears in theYellowstone ecosystem has not beenmatched in other recovery areasdesignated in the recovery plan andincreased emphasis is needed in theseareas to achieve national recovery anddelisting of grizzly bears.

Concerns about future ecologicaluncertainties associated with reduc-tion of food supplies including whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, cutwormmoths, and winter-killed ungulatesare unlikely to ever be answered withcertainty and calls for delay based onthis uncertainty amount to a per-petual listing in a way not antici-pated by the ESA. The Forest Plan

amendments for the six nationalforests provide for maintaining “theproductivity, to the extent feasible,of the four key grizzly bear foodsources” and emphasizes maintain-ing and restoring whitebark pinestands, “inside and outside the PCA.”Moreover, the Conservation Strategyincludes provisions for adaptivemanagement adjustments shouldunforeseen threats or circumstancesarise.

We believe that success indelisting a high profile populationlike the Yellowstone grizzly bears willundercut arguments that the ESA is afailure because of few delistings.These arguments jeopardize thecontinued protections provided bythe ESA. Should unforeseen biologi-cal circumstances or political andadministrative failures to appropri-ately implement the ConservationStrategy, the state managementplans, and adaptive managementprinciples lead to a significantdecline in abundance in Yellowstonegrizzlies, the species can and shouldbe relisted.

We expect there will be oppositionto delisting, and to IBA support ofdelisting, from some IBA members.However, this is an extremelyimportant issue and is one that webelieve the professional organizationof bear biologists should not shrinkfrom because of lack of unanimity.Below, we mention and respond tosome of the concerns that have beenexpressed about the delisting pro-posal.

Threats exist to key foods utilized byYellowstone grizzlies including whitebark pine nuts, army cutworm moths,cutthroat trout, and carrion fromungulates. It is true that scenariosexist where these threats couldbecome significant to Yellowstonegrizzlies. Whether they will, how-ever, is speculative, as are the

IBA Should Support Proposal to Remove Yellowstone Grizzly Bearfrom the U.S. Threatened Species List, cont’d.


Opinion

significance of the biological impactsif they do. Plans are in place tomonitor trends in these foods on along-term basis and to implementadaptive management in response tothreats posed by changes in thesefoods. The ESA was not designed tocontinue to list species based onspeculative threats.

Connectivity to other ecosystemsmust be established before Yellowstonegrizzlies can be delisted. For manyreasons, connectivity betweenwildlife populations is highlydesirable. Fragmentation of habitat isa serious concern and the delistingproposal and associated plansrecognize this and mandate contin-ued efforts to establish connectivityeven though not mandated underthe ESA or the Recovery Plan. Sincemost of the area through whichconnectivity must be established ison private lands and there is signifi-cant resistance from many privatelandowners to the presence of ESA-listed species, we believe continuedlisting is, in fact, a barrier to estab-lishing connectivity with otherecosystems and vacant habitats. Evensubsequent to delisting, establishingconnectivity between Yellowstoneand other ecosystems capable ofsupporting grizzlies will be a daunt-ing task that will require focusedefforts and large expenditures overdecades. Establishing linkage be-tween Yellowstone grizzlies andother populations is addressed as anongoing need in the ConservationStrategy and members of the Inter-agency Grizzly Bear Committee havesigned a Memorandum of Under-standing to implement linkagesbetween grizzly populations. Workon connectivity will continueregardless of whether the bear islisted or delisted.

A population of 600 bears is toosmall to be viable. Over time there

have been numerous PopulationViability Analyses (PVAs) for grizzlybears with differing results. The mostrecent effort by Boyce et al. (IBAmonograph Series number 4, 2001)estimated, “a 99.2% probability thatthe [Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem]grizzly bear population will persistfor 100 years. Extending to a 500-year period, we find that probabilityof persistence decreases to 96.1%.”The current population in this area isabout 600 bears and data in press bySchwartz et al. (Wildlife Monographto be printed in October 2005)concludes that the core populationin Yellowstone Park is at carryingcapacity and is experiencing densitydependent declines in survival andproductivity. Although there remainsroom and space outside core areas foradditional population growth, thispotential is limited. It appears thatthe current grizzly bear population isnear the limit of social tolerancewhere additional expansion andassociated problems may causedeclines in support for continuedprogressive management of grizzlypopulations.

Species should not be delisted in someareas when they are still endangered inothers. Grizzly bear recovery is farmore advanced in Yellowstone thanin the other recovery areas and weexpect that delisting in Yellowstonewill permit more federal recoveryefforts under the ESA to be directedto areas where they are more needed.Recovery efforts in the BitterrootEcosystem have been stalled. Thisarea has more potential than anyother recovery area to significantlyimprove the status of grizzly bearssouth of Canada (because of thepresence of two huge areas ofdesignated wilderness totaling651,126 km2 (25,140 mi2)). Similarly,

recovery is near zero in the NorthCascades recovery area and bearsremain highly endangered in theCabinet-Yaak and Selkirk recoveryareas. Recovery efforts in these areaswill take decades and it is unreason-able to postpone delisting in the onerecovered area until similar success isachieved elsewhere. The ESA hasprovision for delisting in “DistinctPopulation Segments” likeYellowstone.

Grizzly bears will be better protectedunder the ESA than with managementby the states. This is a value judgmentfor which there is no unequivocalresponse. Clearly, there are risks togrizzly bears both in keeping themlisted as well as in delisting them,but it is our view that these risks areless with delisting. This is becausethe states, which have been majorcontributors (financially and withpersonnel) in the success of therecovery efforts to date will remaincommitted to grizzly bear recovery aslaid out in their state managementplans following delisting. All threestates have signed the ConservationStrategy and have committed to thedemographic and mortality stan-dards contained therein. Absentdelisting, there is a risk that thestates will become frustrated withwhat amounts to moving the goalposts and changing the rules at thelast minutes of the game and thatthey will withdraw their support. Inour opinion, the combination of asound Conservation Strategy and thestate management plans represents asignificant improvement in theprospects for grizzly recovery overwhat would exist with the tool set(and finances) available for contin-ued grizzly bear management underthe ESA.


Bear Specialist Group

Dave GarshelisEmail [email protected]&Bruce McLellanEmail [email protected] Specialist GroupCoordinating Committee

The Bear Specialist Group (BSG)consists of a coordinating committeeand 10 expert teams committed toimproving theconservationstatus of bearsaround theworld. Expertteams are eitherspecialists onspecies or aconservation-related topic(trade in bearparts; captivebears). There areeight species ofbears and eightspecies-orientedexpert teams,but that matchis coincidental.Polar bearscientists are intheir own PolarBear SpecialistGroup (pages14-17), separate from the BSG.Brown bears, because of theirextensive range, are represented bythree expert teams: European, NorthAsian and South Asian. We do nothave a separate expert team forNorth American brown bears or forAmerican black bears. There areseveral reasons for this: (1) mostpopulations of brown and blackbears in North America are robustand well-studied, (2) there are somany bear experts in North Americathat it would be difficult to select a

workable team (most other expertteams have only one-to-threerepresentatives per country), (3)current North American BSG mem-bers (D. Doan-Crider, D. Garshelis, B.McLellan, H. Reynolds, and C.Servheen) can either answer or askother biologists to answer infrequentquestions related to these species inNorth America, and (4) studies andconservation initiatives for bears inNorth America are so well funded by

government management agenciesand other interest groups that BSGefforts to secure more support(possibly at the expense of otherbears) would be misdirected.

There are, of course, some excep-tions to the generally favorable stateof bear populations in NorthAmerica. One such exception is thecase of the American black bear inMexico. Grizzly bears were extermi-nated in Mexico (last known onekilled in 1960), but black bears havepersisted in rugged mountainous

Creating a Mexican Black Bear Expert Team

areas and on many private ranches.However, the actual extent of theirdistribution, population trend, andlimiting factors are mostly unknown.The only intensive and long-termstudies of black bears in Mexico havebeen conducted by Diana Doan-Crider and the research team fromthe Caesar Kleberg Wildlife ResearchInstitute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Because of her familiarity withMexico, andcontact withadministra-tors andbiologists,Diana wasappointed tothe coordinat-ing commit-tee of the BSGspecifically torepresent theinterests ofMexican blackbears. Pres-ently we referto Diana asour Mexicanblack bearcoordinatorbecause shefelt that it waspremature todevelop a

Mexican black bear expert team. Notonly is there a lack of knowledgeregarding the status of black bears inMexico, but of black bear researchersas well. Recently, over 75 Mexicanbear researchers gathered at aworkshop in Mexico, which Dianadescribes in the following article(also see pages 24 and 35). Thisconclave brought to light that theremay be more researchers and bears inMexico than previously thought.

Dressed as the bear, BSG Co-chair Dave Garshelis demonstrates the use of a barrel trap duringthe First Mexican Black Bear Workshop, Saltillo, Mexico.

@ D

ian

a D

oan

-Cri

der



Diana Doan-CriderKing Ranch Institutefor Ranch ManagementMSC 137Texas A&M University-KingsvilleKingsville, TX 78363-8202, USAPhone (361) 593-5407Email [email protected].

Most speculations about the statusand distribution of American blackbears in Mexico have relied onpiecemeal information layered ontop of the great Starker Leopold’s(son of Aldo) efforts during the1950s. In all honesty, even theupdated range map published in theIUCN’s Bears: Status Survey andConservation Action Plan was based onscanty information. Recent increasesin reports of observations andconflicts with bears throughout itshistoric range in Mexico coincidewith our findings in northernCoahuila, which indicated increasingpopulations and high densities ofblack bears. Given the near eradica-tion of black bears in Mexico by theearly 1970s, their apparent comebacktook a lot of people by surprise, andno infrastructure was in place at thestate or federal level to deal withincreasing management concerns orresearch needs. Land ownershippatterns have changed from commu-nal subdivision toward the preserva-tion of large tracts, and there is nowenhanced awareness toward conser-vation of wildlife, especially bears.

The first workshop on black bearsin Mexico was held June 2-5, 2005,in Saltillo, Coahuila. The intent ofthe workshop was three-fold. Firstwas to provide a foundation of bearecology, biology, and behavior forthose who were interested in bearresearch. One of the greatest barriersto learning about bears in Mexico isthat most publications are in En-glish, so even basic information is

First Mexican Black Bear Workshop

not readily accessible to manySpanish-speaking people. Further-more, many publications are notreadily available in Mexico; manyjournals and proceedings in thefields of ecology and conservation(especially those of rather narrowscope, like Ursus) are hard to comeby. In the past few years, I have beeninundated with requests for help indesigning bear research projects, andquickly recognized the need toprovide information using a shotgunapproach — hence the idea for aworkshop. We disseminated informa-tion using the diverse expertise fromnortherners Dave Garshelis, SteveHerrero, and Linda Wiggins, plus ourCaesar Kleberg Wildlife ResearchInstitute (Texas A&M University-Kingsville) team members, includingme, Dave Hewitt, and CharityBartoskewitz, and our Mexicancounterparts, Maira Martinez andSergio Aviles of the Department ofEcology, and Enrique Guadarrama,Ana Soler, and Samara Ferrara.Among this group, we presented over18 lectures and mini-work sessionsthat covered topics from populationdynamics, problems in researchdesign, behavior, conflict resolution,and handling tips. We did notconduct specific training on bearcapture or handling because therewas insufficient time, and alsobecause we hoped to stimulate typesof research that were less expensivethan telemetry studies.

Second, we wanted to provide aforum for bear researchers from allareas of Mexico to gather anddevelop a communication network.In that aspect, the workshop wasimmensely successful, with visitorsfrom 10 Mexican states. Workinggroups have since been establishedand are brainstorming researchstrategies. In addition, we developeda new list serve for Mexican bear

researchers, which will help them tomore easily communicate and toaccess postings about conferencesand other pertinent Bear SpecialistGroup and IBA information.

The third important objective ofthe workshop was to develop apreliminary distribution map basedon verified observations by theparticipants. Prior to the workshop,we created a large range map, usingpublished reports and incidentalobservations that we knew about.This map was displayed at theworkshop, and participants wereasked to add their own observationsand corresponding metadata. By theend of the workshop, these additionshad nearly tripled the known size ofthe bear’s range, even expanding itbeyond the historic limits delineatedby Leopold and others (presumablyindicating that Leopold’s mapunderestimated the range at thetime, not that the range has grownthat much since the 1950s). This willbe extremely useful information inthe design of a proposed study toevaluate black bear distribution andrange fragmentation across Mexicousing genetic sampling, which weplan to begin in 2007 throughcollaboration with many of theresearchers who were present at theworkshop.

Workshop attendees were alsoinvited to participate on a field trip.Ranchers of the Palo Blanco Water-shed in Nuevo Leon invited us tovisit their cooperative wildlifeconservation area of 19 ranches(almost 100,000 hectares) and toobserve their new bear monitoringprogram. It was a three hour trip eachway, but participants were happy tovisit with the ranchers and enjoy acamp cooked meal. (See related articleson pages 24-25 and 35).

Financially, the workshop was alsosuccessful with support from various



state, federal, and private organiza-tions. Registration fees were kept aslow as possible to encourage atten-dance ($100 for four days), andincluded meals and field trip trans-portation. We gratefully thank theDepartment of Ecology of Coahuila,the Coahuila Regional Cattlemen’sUnion, the FEMSA Bottling Com-pany, the Caesar Kleberg WildlifeResearch Institute, the King RanchInstitute for Ranch Management, theMuseo del Desierto in Saltillo, andthe IBA an Bear Specialist Group fortheir generous contributions and in-

kind support. We also thank theSecretary of Environment andNatural Resources for their endorse-ment and participation. They sentseveral representatives.

The 18th International Conferenceon Bear Research and Managementwill take place in Monterrey, Mexico,in 2007 (see page 47). Given theenthusiasm witnessed at this work-shop, we will have quite an energeticteam to prepare for the event, andour Mexican counterparts are very

excited to host it. Meanwhile, thereare numerous Mexican biologists andstudents who are looking for trainingopportunities in bear handling andother types of research. If yourproject is able to support volunteers,please contact me at the addressabove. As we move forward withtraining and research, we envisioncreating a team of bear experts inMexico in the not too distant future.

Field trip participants enjoy a visit with ranchers of Nuevo Leon during the First Mexican Black Bear Workshop

@ D

ian

a D

oan

-Cri

der

First Mexican Black Bear Workshop, cont’d.


Bruce McLellanCoordinating Committee Co-chair

email [email protected]

Dave GarshelisCoordinating Committee Co-chair


Harry ReynoldsIBA Representative

[email protected]

John Seidenstickeremail [email protected]

Diana Doan-CriderMexican Black Bear Coordinator


Isaac GoldsteinAndean Bear Expert Team Chair


Dave GarshelisAsiatic Black Bear

Expert Team Co-chairemail [email protected]

Bear Specialist Group Coordinating Committee


Rob SteinmetzAsiatic Black Bear

Expert Team Co-chairemail [email protected]

S. SathyakumarSouth Asian Brown Bear

Expert Team Chairemail [email protected]

John PaczkowskiNorth Asian Brown Bear

Expert Team [email protected]

Djuro HuberEuropean Brown BearExpert Team Co-chair


Jon SwensonEuropean Brown BearExpert Team Co-chair


Lydia KolterCaptive Bears Expert Team Chair


Lu ZhiGiant Panda Expert Team Chair


Shyamala RatnayekeSloth Bear Expert Team Co-chair


K. YoganandSloth Bear Expert Team Co-chair


Gabriella FredrikssonSun Bear Expert Team Co-chair


Siew Te WongSun Bear Expert Team Co-chairemail [email protected]

Christopher ServheenTrade in Bear Parts Expert Team Chair


Andrew DerocherPolar Bear Specialist Groupemail [email protected]

Photo by new Polar Bear Specialist Group Chair, Andrew Derocher.


Polar Bear Specialist Group

Press Release fromIUCN/SSC Polar Specialist Group

The 14th meeting of the IUCN/SSC (World Conservation Union,Species Survival Commission), PolarBear Specialist Group (PBSG) washeld in Seattle, Washington, USA,during June 20-24, 2005, under thechairship of Scott Schliebe. Infulfillment of the terms of the 1973Agreement on the Conservation ofPolar Bears, delegates representingeach of the five circumpolar nationssignatory to the Agreement for theConservation of Polar Bears (Canada,Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia,USA), were in attendance. Alsoattending as invited specialists wererepresentatives from the GreenlandHome Rule Government, the AlaskaNanuuq Commission (Alaska), theInuvialuit Game Council andWildlife Management AdvisoryCouncil, Nunavut TunngavikIncorporated (Canada), NationalOceanographic and AtmosphericAdministration (USA), NationalEnvironmental ResearchInstitute (Denmark) and otherspecialists. The PBSG meetsevery three to five years toreview and exchange informa-tion on progress in the researchand management of polar bearsthroughout the Arctic and toreview the worldwide status ofpolar bears. Invited specialistsfrom the U.S. National MarineFisheries Service and WesternEcosystems Technology wereinstrumental in developmentof new analysis procedures forpopulation data.

The world’s polar bears aredistributed in 19 subpopula-tions over vast and sometimesrelatively inaccessible areas ofthe Arctic. Thus, while thestatus of some subpopulations

14th Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

in Canada and the Barents Sea arewell documented, that of severalothers remains less known. Thus, it isnot possible to give an accurateestimate of the total number of polarbears in the world, although therange is thought to be 20-25,000.

Research in several geographicareas indicates the greatest challengeto conservation of polar bears maybe large scale ecological changeresulting from climatic warming, ifthe trend documented in recentyears continues as projected. A newanalysis of the long-term subpopula-tion data base in Western HudsonBay confirms the size of that sub-population has declined from 1,200to less than 1,000. The PBSG con-cluded the decline was caused byreductions in condition and survival,especially of young bears, becauseclimatic warming has caused the seaice to break up about three weeksearlier now than it did only 30 yearsago. Thus, polar bears have less timeto feed and store the fat needed to

survive on shore for four monthsbefore the ice re-freezes. Significantreductions in the apparent survivalof ringed seal pups and changes inthe diet of sea birds in northernHudson Bay, coincident with largeramounts of open water earlier in thesummer, have also been reported.Taken together, these results suggestthat unknown changes in the marineecosystem of Hudson Bay are nowunderway. Similarly, the minimumextent of multi-year ice in the polarbasin continues to decline at therate of 8-10% per decade, resultingin unusually extensive areas ofopen water in regions such as theBeaufort/Chukchi Seas and EastGreenland. The PBSG emphasizedthe importance of continuing tomonitor polar bear subpopulationsin order to quantitatively assess theaffects of climatic warming.

High levels of PCBs and pesticideswere found in East Greenland polarbears. There was a strong indicationof a relationship between contami-

© I

an S

tirl

ing



nants and skull mineral densityindicating possible disruption of thebone mineral composition. Thechanges were related to aging,infections and chronic exposure. ThePBSG felt these results confirmed theimportance of continuing to monitorand study the effects of contami-nants on polar bears.

With the results of the foregoingresearch and related uncertainties inmind, the PBSG reviewed the statusof polar bears using the 2001 IUCNRed List categories and criteria. ThePBSG concluded that the IUCN RedList classification of the polar bearshould be upgraded from LeastConcern to Vulnerable based on thelikelihood of an overall decline inthe size of the total population ofmore than 30% within the next 35 to50 years. The principal cause of thisdecline is climatic warming and itsconsequent negative effects on thesea ice habitat of polar bears. In someareas, contaminants may have anadditive negative influence.

Harvesting of polar bears contin-ues to be of primary importance tothe culture and economy of aborigi-nal groups throughout much of theArctic. Therefore, maintaining aharvest within sustainable limits, inrelation to subpopulation size andtrends, remains a priority. It was alsorecognized that aboriginal peopleresident throughout the Arctic areuniquely positioned to observe bothwildlife and changes in the environ-ment. Thus, the PBSG confirmed theimportance of integrating traditionalecological knowledge with scientificstudies to aid polar bear conservationwherever possible. Since the lastmeeting of the PSBG four years ago,significant new reports on traditionalecological knowledge of polar bearsand their habitat have been com-pleted in Chukotka, Alaska, andCanada. The results of these and

future studies need to be incorpo-rated into research and managementwhere possible but the PBSG agreedthat estimates of subpopulation sizeor sustainable harvest levels shouldnot be made solely on the basis oftraditional ecological knowledgewithout supporting scientific studies.Furthermore, because of continuingchanges in ice cover, with unknownconsequences for the arctic marineecosystems of which polar bears are apart, the precautionary principleshould be observed in determiningharvest quotas, regardless of howcertain the combined informationappear to be.

There was substantial discussionabout large quota increases in somepolar bear subpopulations inNunavut where there has continuedto be uncertainty about subpopula-tion size and trends despite scientificstudies augmented by computersimulations and traditional ecologi-cal knowledge. The PBSG concludedthat increases in harvest levels orestimates of subpopulation sizeshould not be based on traditionalecological knowledge withoutsupport from sound scientific dataand further, that regardless of howcertain the combined informationappear to be, increases in quotasshould be implemented with theprecautionary principle.

Although the harvest of polarbears in Greenland has been poorlyregulated, the Greenland Home Rulegovernment announced that quotasare to be implemented and enforcedas of January 1, 2006. Hunters willhave to have a special license foreach polar bear hunted and this willbe used to track the sale of hides ortrading in parts. Preliminary discus-sions have been held with Canada todevelop co-management agreementsand determine the size of sharedsustainable quotas for subpopula-

The new chair of the IUCN/SSCPolar Bear Specialist Group (andcurrent IBA Council member) is:Andrew DerocherDepartment of Biological ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, CanadaPhone (780) 492-5570Fax (780) 492-9234Email [email protected]

New PBSG Chair

tions of polar bears shared betweenthe two countries using both scien-tific information and traditionalecological knowledge. The PBSGcommended Greenland on thisinitiative and emphasized theimportance of ensuring a sustainedeffort to monitor the harvest andenforce regulations. Further, thePBSG noted the critical importanceof a continuing a program of publiceducation through the transitionperiod to ensure understanding andacceptance of the vital need toimprove the present system ofmanagement.

Similar to Greenland the PBSGacknowledged significant harvestlevels were occurring unregulated inChukotka, Russia. The PBSG urgedboth the United States and theRussian Federation to move rapidlyto implement the bilateral treatyalready signed between the twocountries.

Future challenges for conservingpolar bears and their Arctic habitatwill be greater than at any time inthe past because of the rapid rate atwhich environmental changeappears to be occurring. The com-plexity and global nature of theissues continue to require a signifi-cant degree of international coopera-tion and development of diverse andnew approaches.



Recommends that polar bearharvests can be increased on thebasis of local and traditional knowl-edge only if supported by scientifi-cally collected information.

An InternationalStudy of the Effects ofPollution on Polar Bears

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist GroupRecognizing that the polar bear

— as an arctic apex predator — issusceptible to the effects of pollut-ants; and

Recognizing that such effect maybe exacerbated through habitatchanges driven by global warming;and

Recognizing the scientific meritin studying such effects in all polarbear subpopulations; and

Recognizing that previously aworld-wide study — facilitatedthrough the IUCN Polar BearSpecialist Group — of organochlo-rine levels was successful; and

Noting that pollution inducedhistopathological and bone mineraldensity changes probably occur inEast Greenland polar bears, as wellas the occurrence of diseases; thePBSG therefore

Recommends Denmark coordi-nate a circumpolar study of healtheffects from pollution on vitalorgans, skeletal and other systems inpolar bear subpopulations.

Status of the WesternHudson Bay (WH)Population Analysis

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist GroupRecognizing that the largest and

best developed scientific database forany polar bear population is the WHdatabase; and

Recognizing that the current WHmark-recapture population analysishas used multiple standardized

A Precautionary ApproachWhen Setting Catch Levelsin a Warming Arctic

The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear SpecialistGroup (PBSG)

Recognizing that the sea ice iscritical to the continued survival ofpolar bears; and

Recognizing that during recentdecades the area of the sea ice in theArctic has declined significantly as aresponse to climate warming, andthat ice break-up in many areas isoccurring earlier and freeze-up later;and

Recognizing that the degradationof the sea ice habitat, which ispredicted to continue, is havingnegative effects on survival rates andabundance of polar bears in westernHudson Bay; and

Noting that in several areas bothlocal hunters and scientists haveobserved an increased occurrence ofpolar bears near settlements andoutposts and on near-shore sea ice inrecent years; and

Noting that increased occurrencesmay not reflect an increased popula-tion size; and

Noting that the Agreement forConservation of Polar Bears (Article Iand II) identifies the right of localhunters to conduct sustainableharvests; and

Noting that based upon local andtraditional knowledge, Nunavut(Canada) has increased its quotas forsome of its polar bear populationswhere polar bears must spend severalmonths of the open water period onland surviving on their stored fatreserves; and

Noting that also the catch of polarbears in Greenland near shore hasincreased substantially; and

Noting that polar bear populationsmay be seriously threatened by thecombined effect of rapid habitat lossand increased exploitation; therefore

methodologies which producedequivalent, estimates; and

Recognizing that the analysisresults are consistent with indepen-dent population simulation results;and

Recognizing that the data usedfor these estimates have beencarefully checked and validated; and

Noting that the decline of WHpolar bears from approximately1,100 in 1995 to less than 950 in2004 is conclusive; and

Accepting that the decline wasdue to a combination of anthropo-genic removals (defense and harvestkills) and reduced demographic ratesfrom climate warming; therefore

Recommends that appropriatemanagement action be taken with-out delay.

Implementationof the U.S./RussiaBilateral Agreement

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist GroupRecognizing that Article II of the

1973 Agreement for the Conserva-tion of Polar Bears calls for eachnation to manage polar bear popula-tions in accordance with soundconservation practices based on thebest available scientific data; and

Recognizing the United States’and Russia’s commitment to thelong-term conservation and manage-ment of the Alaska-Chukotka polarbear population and that on October16, 2000, both countries signed theAgreement between the United Statesand the Russian Federation on theConservation and Management of theAlaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Popula-tion; and

Recognizing that polar bears are asignificant resource of the Arcticregion and of cultural and economi-cal value to aboriginal peoples thathave the right to harvest polar bears;

IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Resolutions



Recognizing that sound conserva-tion practices for the sustainableharvest of polar bears requiresaccurate information on the number,sex, age, and location of harvestedanimals; and

Recognizing the lack of a validpopulation estimate and concernthat the current combined legalharvest from Alaska and illegalharvest of polar bears from Russiamay exceed the sustainable harvestlimits for the Alaska-Chukotka sub-population; and

Recognizing the need to coordinateand conduct research on the Alaska-Chukotka subpopulation, sharedbetween the United States and Russia,and the need to obtain a scientificallyvalid population estimate, estimates ofsurvival and recruitment, and todocument changes in distribution andhabitat use; therefore

Recommends that the UnitedStates and Russia immediately enact

and enforce the terms of the Agree-ment between the United States and theRussian Federation on the Conservationand Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population.

Risks to Polar Bearsfrom Arctic Shipping

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist GroupRecognizing that the sea ice is

critical to the continued survival ofpolar bears; and

Recognizing that during recentdecades the area of the sea ice in theArctic has diminished significantly;and

Recognizing that in some areaswhere polar bears live, ice break uphas become significantly earlier dueto global warming; and

Recognizing that this warming ispredicted to continue in the future;and

Recognizing that the reduction inextent and thickness of the sea ice

has encouraged thedevelopment ofincreased commer-cial and tourismship traffic; and

Recognizing thatincreased ship trafficresults in increasedrisks for polar bearsfrom contaminants,bilge dumping, fuelspills, habitatalteration and bear-human encounters;therefore

Recommendsthat each jurisdic-tion take appropri-ate measures tomonitor, regulateand mitigate shiptraffic impacts onpolar bear sub-populations andhabitats.

Wrangel IslandNature Reserve andOther Protected Areas

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist GroupRecognizing the increasing role of

Wrangel Island as a refuge for anessential part of the Alaska-Chukotkapolar bear population; and

Noting the importance of con-tinuous polar bear research onWrangel Island as an essential part ofAlaska-Chukotka population statusassessment; therefore

Recommends that polar bearresearch on Wrangel Island shouldcontinue without time gaps at thelevel necessary to monitor popula-tion status and health; and

Recommends creation of pro-tected nature areas throughout polarbear range to conserve key polar bearhabitats, with particular focus onterrestrial summer retreat habitats.

© A

nd

rew

Der

och

er


Eurasia

Dr. Sang-Hoon Han, DirectorAsiatic Black Bear Management TeamNational Parks Authority of South KoreaPhone +82-61-783-9120Fax +82-61-783-9121Email [email protected]&Minjeong Gwon, DVMStaff VeterinarianThe Asiatic Black Bear Restoration ProjectSouthern Office of Jirisan National ParkNational Parks Authority53-1 Hwangjeon-Ri Masan-MyunGurye-Gu Chonnam Province 542-853South KoreaOffice +82-61-783-9120Cell +82-19-405-2270Fax +82-61-783-9121Email [email protected]

History and BackgroundKoreans are intimately familiar

with the Asiatic black bear as overthe centuries they have told andretold the Dangun creation myth.Through the Dangun myth, Koreanstrace their history as a people back tothe mystery shadow of pre-history.The tale tells of a bear and a tigerthat yearned to be humans. Eachprayed to the gods and was told thatif they remained in a cave for 100days and ate nothing but mugwortand garlic their wish would cometrue. The impatient tiger could notwait and quit, but the bear waitedpatiently and was rewarded by beingtransformed into a woman andunited with the son of heaven togive birth to Dangun, the founder ofKorea more than 4,000 years ago.

Internationally, the Asiatic blackbear (Ursus thibetanus) is classified asvulnerable on the 2002 IUCN RedList of threatened species, and listedon Appendix I of CITES. A subspeciesof Asiatic black bear, Ursus thibetanusussuricus, is distributed in thenortheastern area of China, thePrimorskii region of Russia, and the

Asiatic Black Bear Restoration in Mount Jiri, South Korea

Korean peninsula. Historically,Asiatic black bear were dispersedwidely in the mountain areas of theKorean peninsula. However, wide-spread poaching through the 1970swas carried out largely as a result of aJapanese colonial period policystating, “to terminate tigers andbears from Korea is to preventdamage from humans’ lives andproperty.” Although efforts weremade by the Korean government todesignate the animal as an endan-gered species under the NaturalEnvironment Preservation Act and itwas listed as the “Natural MonumentNo. 329,” bear numbers continued todecrease. Since the mid-1980s, therehad been no evidence of the blackbear in the wild.

In November 2000 a local televi-sion crew photographed a black bearin the Jirisan National Park. OnNovember 13, 2002 a monitoringcamera set up by the Asiatic BlackBear Management Team (ABBT)photographed a wild Asiatic blackbear, the first evidence in Korea sincethe mid-1980s verified by a govern-ment authority. Korean ecologistsnow report that about 20-30 Asiaticblack bears remain in South Koreaand approximately five to eight bearsremain in the Mount Jiri area.

Mount Jiri is one of Korea’s holymountains on which Asiatic blackbear have lived for centuries. TheMount Jiri National Park, Korea’s firstnational park, stretches across threeprovinces and is located in southernKorea. It covers 4722 km and isdominated by oak (Quercusmongolica, Quercus serrata), bamboo(Sasa borealis), Aster scaber, acorns,and berries which provide idealhabitat and sufficient food for Asiaticblack bear.

The Mount Jiri bears are thelargest remaining population inSouth Korea, making Mount Jiri

National Park the ideal location for abear restoration project. Additionallyas a national park there is greaterability to enforce bear protectionlaws and prevent illegal activities,such as hunting and habitat destruc-tion from logging and forest conver-sion to agriculture.

Current Conservation EffortsIt is generally agreed that a wild

animal population may be consid-ered viable when its numbers andsurvival rates create a 95% probabil-ity of survival for 100 years. How-ever, the Mount Jiri bear population’sprobability of surviving 100 years isonly three percent. Because theMount Jiri population is notconsidered viable, human interven-tion, such as release of captivebears, is considered necessary tomaintain this population.

At the 2000 Asiatic Black BearPopulation and Habitat ViabilityAssessment Workshop, Seoul, Korea,“vortex simulation modeling”suggested that introducing six bearcubs a year for five years into theMount Jiri population would stabi-lize it with a minimum viablepopulation of 53 bears after tenyears, and have a 94% probability ofsurvival after 100 years. The conclu-sion was that immediate action wasnecessary or the Mount Jiri bearpopulation would most certainly goextinct.

Efforts to introduce bears into theMount Jiri population were con-ducted over an initial two-yearperiod by the National Institute ofEnvironmental Research (NIER).Responsibility for the bear restora-tion has since been transferred to theKorean National Park Service andABBMT which is composed ofbiologists, ecologists and localcommunities, cooperating with localenvironmentalists.


Eurasia

Experimental ReleaseIn January and February 2001,

four Asiatic black bear cubs, belong-ing to a subspecies of Asiatic blackbear on Mount Jiri, were selectedfrom a breeding facility in Korea.Following separation from theirmother by researchers from theNIER, the cubs were weaned and putthrough a wild adjustment programfrom April to August 2001. Withradio transmitters attached, the bearswere released into the Gurye regionof Mount Jiri National Park onSeptember 8, 2001. However, theexperimental release was not assuccessful as had been hoped. Onefemale bear failed to adapt to thewild and habituated to humans,appearing in front of mountainclimbers and monks. Another twoattacked shrines on Mount Jiri, andraided beehives in surroundingcommunities. Repeated attempts bythe ABBMT to prevent bears fromraiding apiaries failed and theABBMT was forced to compensatelocal communities approximatelyUS$120,000 for bear-caused apiarydamage. The fourth bear, a female,was found dead. Only the skullremained with the abandoned radiocollar. The bear may have been thevictim of illegal hunting. The threeremaining bears were recaptured dueto the problems mentioned above, aswell as a detailed genetic analysis ofthe released bears which revealedthey were in fact more closely relatedto southern Asiatic black bears andnot northern Asiatic black bearsnative to the Mount Jiri area. Thereturned bears will remain in captiv-ity to provide public education. Theywill move to a new nature educationfacility with a naturalistic enclosurein August 2005.

Although the release was notsuccessful, field work conductedwhile tracking the cubs provided

excellent data for design of the nextphase of the reintroduction program,and led to several significant findingsby the ABBMT on the habitat andecology of the remaining wild bears.The ABBMT described bear restingplatforms in trees as well as groundnests. They discovered and describedfootprints and scratching marks ontrees. Bears were found to hibernatein empty holes, under large rocksand inside big, old trees. Diets weredetermined through scat analysis.Additionally the ABBMT was able todocument the presence and habitat

of several other wildlife species inthe Mount Jiri area including;badgers, musk deer, and leopard cats.

Release of Russian BearsIn September 2003 a Memoran-

dum of Understanding (MOU) onblack bear protection was signedbetween the Republic of Korea andRussia. The MOU included anagreement on importing RussianAsiatic black bears into Korea in2004. The ABBMT decided to importRussian Asiatic black bear cubs as aresult of genetic analysis whichfound they have the same origins asKorean black bears. Coincidently, theUssurisk Nature Reserve in Russiawhere the bears came from had

successfully trained bear cubs toadapt to the wilderness.

In October 2004 six seven-month-old Russian bears were imported forintroduction to Mount Jiri. Aftertheir mother was shot by hunters,they were rescued by a bear rehabili-tation center in the Ussurisk NatureReserve. An approximately 5.2 hasoft reintroduction enclosure wasinstalled inside Jirisan National Park.Eight CCTV systems were installed tomonitor the bears 24-hours a dayand an electronic fence was installedto prevent escape. To reduce thepotential for human habituation,only a small number of ABBMT staffand photographers were allowedaccess to the bears, and the staff wasrequired to wear outfits designed toreduce or completely eliminate thebears identifying them as human.Three male cubs and three femalecubs, named after three peaks andthree valleys in the Mount Jiri arearespectively, were fitted with radioear tags and released after training.All six bears successfully hibernatedover the 2004-2005 winter and theABBMT field team successfullytracked and located the bears whichwere using caves and oak treehollows as dens. Den locations weregenerally located in areas difficult forpeople to access and provided widefields of view for the bears. Based onthese results the ABBMT considersthe project to be partly successfulbecause hibernation is an importantstage of bear growth.

Release of North Korean BearsEight Asiatic black bears (four

males and four females) from NorthKorea were released into JirisanNational Park on July 1, 2005. Thesebears were part of a “Zoo and WildAnimal Exchange Project betweenNorth Korea and South Korea.” Thesebears were the offspring of bears

© D

enis

To

rres


Eurasia

captured in the wild by PyongyangZoo. After two months of adaptationtraining, they were released.

Future WorkThe bear restoration project has

been challenging for the ABBMT butthey have made great progress overthe last five years. Since the experi-mental release in 2001, and largelydue to the data obtained and lessonslearned as a result of the experimen-tal release, a total of 14 Asiatic blackbears have now been successfullyreleased into the Jirisan NationalPark area. The current project plansprovide for the release of six Russianbear cubs annually for the next fouryears. However many issues pertain-ing to cooperation with local com-munities, park visitors, and otherstakeholders remain unresolved,particularly how best to accommo-date participation of multiple groupsin the decision making process, andhow to control bear damage. Futuresuccess will therefore rely heavily notonly on a successful biologicalcomponent but in the ability of theABBMT to mediate social andpolitical issues and provide soundleadership in the years ahead.

News from China and Korea isprovided by:Matthew E. DurninMacArthur FoundationPostdoctoral FellowCalifornia Academy of SciencesOrnithology and MammalogyPhone 86-10-8430-2480Fax 86-10-6592-2053Email [email protected]

Yorgos MertzanisCallisto5, Nik. Foka st.GR - 54621 ThessalonikiGreecePhone +302310/252530Fax +302310/272190Email [email protected]@callisto.gr

Until 2003, the most recentinformation on brown bear pres-ence on Mount Olympus datedfrom the mid-1940s. Since then,the bear was considered to beextinct from the legendary moun-tain home of the 12 gods of Greekmythology.

Mount Olympus (2,918 m) is oneof the highest mountains insoutheastern Europe. It includes allvegetation types from evergreens toalpine meadows and hosts morethan 1,700 plant species. It lies onthe east coast of Greece about 60km east of the core brown bearpopulation in the Pindos Range (seemap on next page). Being com-pletely separated from the PindosRange made bears on MountOlympus more vulnerable topressure from surrounding humansettlements and cultivated lands.

Despite being the oldest nationalpark in the country (MountOlympus National Park was createdin 1938) the conservation status ofseveral key species, including bearand chamois, did not improve andeven deteriorated.

Brown Bears Return to Mount Olympus

In spring 2003, the presence ofbrown bear on the northwest slopesof Mount Olympus was confirmedfor the first time in 60 years. Whiledamaging a wild boar breedingfarm, a bear left a good hair sampleon the farm fence. The hair wascollected for DNA analysis.

In April 2005 in a more remotevalley of the same area on MountOlympus, bear-marked black pinetrees were observed by mountainhikers. Again hair samples werecollected for DNA processing.

In June 2005 local forestryauthorities recorded attacks onbeehives as the most recent evi-dence of bear activity in the area.

Although we are far from con-firming a bear metapopulation onMount Olympus, we can reliablyhypothesize that a re-colonizationprocess is likely to have beentriggered by dispersal east of someindividuals from the Grevena areaof the eastern Pindos Range. Thissubpopulation has been recentlyestimated (through DNA analysis)at a minimum of 44 bears. Adispersal route from the easternPindos to the western slopes ofOlympus seems very likely due tothe favorable topography andvegetation forming a travel corridor.

Reactions of local communitiesto this news are less favorable.Negative attitudes prevail, andNGOs and ecologists have againbecome reluctant to support releaseof bears in new areas to helpspecies survival.

Continuing efforts by NGOCallisto are being made to educatelocal and central authorities, and toorganize ongoing cooperativeefforts to reverse negative attitudesto bears.

Asiatic Black BearRestoration, cont’d.


Eurasia

Robin RiggSlovak Wildlife SocietyPO Box 72L. Hradok, 033 01, SlovakiaWeb www.slovakwildlife.orgEmail [email protected]

CITES andRomanian Bear Trophies

At its 33rd meeting, held inBrussels on June 13th of this year,the Scientific Review Group of theConvention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora (CITES) decided to main-tain a ban on importing brown beartrophies from Romania (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environ-ment/cites/agenda_summaries/33rd_short_summary_srg.pdf).According to Erika Stanciu, Forestand Protected Area Team Leader forthe WWF Danube CarpathianProgram, the decision was takenmainly because the Romaniangovernment had still not developedan acceptable management actionplan. As previously reported (IBNAugust 2004 13(3)), some NGOs havebeen strongly critical of bear huntingin Romania and suspect that thenumber of bears in the country ismuch lower than that claimed by theforestry service. However someexperts, such as John Linnell of theNorwegian Institute for NatureResearch and the Large CarnivoreInitiative for Europe, believe thattrophy hunting has been instrumen-tal in maintaining a large populationof bears in the Carpathian Moun-tains, and view a ban on imports asan issue of animal rights rather thanof conservation.

Meanwhile, it emerged in Junethis year that Slovak Prime Minister,Mikulásˇ Dzurinda, had illegallyimported a bearskin from Romaniainto Slovakia. Dzurinda had beengiven the trophy by his Romanian

Romania

counterpartand claimedhe had notbeen awarethat specialpermissionwas neededto import it.A member ofthe SlovakEnvironmen-tal Inspec-torate saidthat becausethe violationhad takenplace morethan twoyears before itwas discov-ered, nocharges couldbe broughtagainst him.CITES hasbeen in forcein Slovakiasince 1993.

© R

ob

in R

igg,

th

e B

EAR

S Pr

oje

ct: w

ww

.med

ved

e.sk

European brown bear.

Bear-proof Containers Installed in BrasovBears feeding on household refuse

at the edge of the Romanian city ofBrasov have been virtually a nightlyoccurrence and something of atourist attraction for many years.Fatal attacks on people in the area inOctober 2004 (IBN February2005,14(1)) finally led to concertedefforts to prevent bears gainingaccess to the refuse. Victor Watkinsof the World Society for the Protec-tion of Animals (WSPA) reports thatfour large bear-proof containers havenow been installed. The Italian-madecontainers each replace six to eightnormal bins and are emptied on adaily basis. According to Watkins’

colleague, Ozgun Emre Can, initialresults have been encouraging: bearshave not been able to open thecontainers and, after checking themand their surroundings for food, tendto leave the area. Unfortunatelysome old containers are still in placenearby and so bears have simplybeen moving farther down the road.The mayor of Brasov has said he willeventually replace all the old bins.WSPA plan to begin building a bearsanctuary in Brasov from July thatthey hope will allow the problem offood-conditioned bears to be ad-dressed more effectively.


AmericasBolivia: Reason to Kill a Bear, “I did it because it was there.”

natural grasslands. Grasslandsprovide food during the wet seasonand are a year around refuge forAndean bears. Several observations offemales with cubs showed that thishabitat is used all year until theyoungsters leave their mother.

The culture of “shoot everythingthat moves” is widely applied inalmost all rural communities becauseresidents think that carnivores(bears, cougars and wild cats) killed/kill/will kill their cattle. Althoughthere are some cases in which bearsand cougars must be killed due toproven predation (i.e. remains foundon bear nests),most largecarnivore deathsrecorded inCarrasco NationalPark and sur-roundings havebeen because thebears andcougars weresimply there. InJuly we receivedtwo Pampas catkittens (Oncifelis

Ximena Velez-LiendoLaboratory of Animal EcologyUniversity of Antwerp2610 Wilrijk, Belgium&Centro de Biodiversidad y GeneticaUniversidad Mayor de San SimonPO Box 538Cochabamba, BoliviaEmail [email protected]

“I did it because it was there,”replied the local resident whorecently shot and killed a femaleAndean bear in Kewina-Pampa, nearCarrasco National Park, Bolivia (seemaps). Its uninjured cub stayed withthe female after she was shot. Thekiller tried to catch the cub, buteyewitnesses made a lot of noise todrive the cub into the forest. Basedon the descriptions of witnesses, thecub was very small, probably born inDecember or January.

Due to boundary disputes betweenthe protected area and adjacentcommunities, access to the vicinityhas been restricted to locals only.Currently, the community is denyingentry requests from non-resi-dents. The demand foragricultural and pastureland has provokedsurrounding communi-ties to take possessionof large portions ofland belonging toCarrasco National Park.The latest news fromthis area is that localcommunities havealready burned largeportions of grasslandsbelonging to theprotected area. As themap shows, the burnedland where the bearand other animals havebeen killed is one ofthe few protected

colocolo), an endangered species,rescued from a resident who killedtheir mother “just because the catwas there.”

Due to land tenure and boundarydelimitation problems with com-munities that are inside andsurround Carrasco National Park,educational programs are verydifficult to develop. For them, talkabout conservation or protectedareas means that they will lose theirland, an erroneous concept, butsomething that we have to dealwith to gain the chance to work inthose areas.

�


Americas

Fundación Espíritu del BosqueBarcelona 311 y TolosaQuito, EcuadorWeb www.andeanbear.orgEmail volunteerbears@ yahoo.com

Join us in the Ecuadorian Andeson a unique and fulfilling adventureto help the Andean bear. In the cloudforest of Intag, northern Ecuador, westudy the ecology of the majesticAndean bear. We invite you tovolunteer with us to help collectimportant and often groundbreakingdata on this little-studied species.

For a very reasonable contribution,all food and accommodation isprovided in the volunteer house. Werequest a minimum commitment offour weeks. It’s a time you will remem-ber forever! All proceeds directlybenefit the bears and the local com-munity.

If you enjoy mountain hiking, thenatural world, and interacting withpeople from different cultures, thenthis project is definitely for you! Ifyou prefer interacting with people,join our teaching program for thelocal school children — anotherunforgettable experience!

Contact information above.

VolunteersNeeded in Ecuador

Charity A. BartoskewitzCaesar KlebergWildlife Research InstituteTexas A&M University-KingsvilleMSC 218Kingsville, TX 78363, USAPhone (361) 593-4500Email [email protected]

In June 2005, over 70 participantsattended the First Mexican BlackBear Workshop in Saltillo, Coahuilaas part of an effort by the IBA andIUCN Bear Specialist Group tosynthesize and promote Americanblack bear conservation in Mexico.Participants traveled from 10 differ-ent Mexican states with representa-tion including students, landowners,biologists, agronomists, state andfederal natural resource agencies, andnon-government organizations.

Scientists from Mexico, Texas,Minnesota, and Alberta, Canadapresented sessions focusing on basicbear biology, current status andhistory of the bear in Mexico,population dynamics, basics ofhabitat, food requirements, land-scape use, principles of designingbear research, bear behavior, live-stock conflicts, relocation andreintroduction, and managementtools. A bear-handling sessionallowed researchers to gain a betterunderstanding of bear and humansafety during capture. An educationsession provided participants theopportunity to engage in small groupdiscussion about current human-bearinteraction problems in Mexico, andhow they might go about developingstrategies to address the issues. Thefocus of the bear education sessionwas to assist in the development of

Crossing Borders for theFirst Mexican Black Bear Workshop

community bear-wise strategies inMexico by highlighting the impor-tance of education in bear conserva-tion. Biologists from Consejo Estatalde Flora y Fauna Silvestre de NuevoLeon, a wildlife consulting organiza-tion, organized a field trip to aprivately owned ranch in northernMexico where biologists have beenrecording black bear sightings usingtrail master cameras.

For the first time, those concernedwith black bear issues in Mexico wereable to share information anddevelop networks with other profes-sionals interested in developingresearch projects and promotingconservation of black bears inMexico. Following the workshop,collaborative efforts by severalparticipants aided in the develop-ment of a list serve so that biologistsand students can continue commu-nicating about bear related topics. Ifyou are interested in becoming amember of this list serve, pleasecontact Diana Doan-Crider, [email protected].

Cooperative sponsorship wasprovided by the IBA, Caesar KlebergWildlife Research Institute, KingRanch Institute for Ranch Manage-ment, Instituto Coahuilense deEcologia, FEMSA Bottling Company,Museo Del Desierto, and CoahuilaCattlemen’s Association (UnionGanadera Regional de Coahuila).Thanks to all who helped make this“first” a great success!

For more details on the workshop,see articles on pages 11 and 35.

© A

rman

do

Cas

tell

ano

s


Americas

Sasha Carvajal VillarrealCoordinadora de FaunaPronatura Noreste A. C.Loma Larga 235Col. Loma Larga, Monterrey, N. L.64710 MexicoPhone 52 (81) 83 45 10 45 ext 16Fax 52 (81) 83 45 45 59Web www.pronaturane.orgEmail [email protected]

Although many range mapssuggest a continuous distribution ofthe American black bear in Mexico, itis possible that remaining subpopula-tions may be highly fragmented. Thespecies is listed as “endangered” bythe federal government. During May2005, Pronatura Noreste collaboratedwith Dave Maehr of the University ofKentucky and Biol. Arturo Caso ofthe Caesar Kleberg Wildlife ResearchInstitute (Texas A&M University-Kingsville), to monitor the 5,500 haRancho Real de Minas Viejas, NuevoLeon (about 100 km south of Laredo,

Mexico Black Bear Pilot StudyInitiated in Nuevo Leon Using GPS Collars

Texas) for the presence of black bearsusing baited remote-activatedcameras. Photos revealed the pres-ence of at least four individualsincluding a female with a cub bornin 2005. This was followed by fivedays of trapping in late June withAldrich-style spring-activated snares.During this time, we found three setsof tracks belonging to different bearsand we were able to equip a 61 kgsubadult male with a GPS collar.While black bear studies in Mexicoare not new (e.g., Doan-Crider 1995),there is great interest in the speciesamong NGOs, government agencies,and private landowners. The ownerof Rancho Real de Minas Viejas hastraditionally subsisted on cattleranching (with occasional beardepredations), but is also interestedin developing ecotourism as a way tomaintain the natural attributes of theproperty while economically diversi-fying. The news of the successfulcapture stimulated enough enthusi-

asm with some potential fundingorganizations from Monterrey,Mexico, to pledge funds for eightadditional radio collars and an off-road vehicle for access to the ranchalong its network of rocky trails.Pronatura Noreste has assigned awildlife biologist to maintain contactwith this bear population and todevelop a research plan to under-stand its status and distribution. Weplan to return in October when thelocal bears will likely be consumingacorns in the six-species oak forestthat dominates the ranch, anddeploy at least three more GPScollars.

Literature CitedDoan-Crider, D.L. 1995. Populationcharacteristics and home rangedynamics of the black bear innorthern Coahuila, Mexico. M.S.thesis. Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 117pp.

Black bear (subadult male) with GPS collar on the Minas Viejas Ranch in Villaldama, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

© D

ave

Mae

hr


Americas

Dean CluffEnvironment and Natural ResourcesGovernment of theNorthwest TerritoriesYellowknife, NT X1A 2P9, CanadaEmail [email protected]

An American black bear attacked andkilled 71-year-old Merlyn Carter ofHay River, Northwest Territories(NWT) on June 14 or 15, 2005 at hisfishing lodge on Nonacho Lake inthe NWT, about 260 km east ofYellowknife.

Although a bush pilot himself,Merlyn Carter was flown in by hisgrandson on Tuesday, June 14 toopen the camp for its first visitors ofthe season on the weekend. Thegrandson then returned to Hay River.Merlyn’s wife Jean and their sonMyles, also a pilot, were to join himthat evening but were detained byweather. Jean spoke with Merlyn byHF radio that night at 10 PM. Thefollowing morning at 7 AM, Jean andMyles tried again to reach Merlyn atthe lodge by radio prior to take-off,but had

International Bear News...Excellency U. Barsbold, Mongolian Minister of Nature and the Environ-ment,...

Documents

Transcript of International Bear News...Excellency U. Barsbold, Mongolian Minister of Nature and the Environ-ment,...