HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2325SUSITNA HYDIROELECT'RIC PROJECT
1983 ANNUAL REPORT
Brl,G GAME STUDIES
VOLUME VI BLACK IBEAR AND BROWN BEAR
Sterling D.Miller
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Submitted to the Alaska Power Authority
April 1984
DOCUMENT No.2325
1"
I
~.
-
.-
SUSltNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1983 ANNUAL REPORT
Big Game Studies
Vo lume VI Black Bear and Brown Bear
Sterling D.Miller
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Rd •
Anchorage I AK 99502
.Submitted to Alaska Power Authori ty,April 1984
Results reported herein'deal with portions of a continuing study
and should be treated as tentative.Do not cite in technical
publications without permission from 4uthor.
ARLIS
. .Alaska Resources
LIbrary &Infonnation Services
Anchorage,Alaska
Tk
i~J-S
l7!~
e~L(
-
.-
-
-
ARY QUES'l':IORS OR COMMERTS COliCERH:ING
m:IS RBPOR~SHOULD BE DIRBCTBD TO
THE ALASD POWER ADTHOR:I'fi
SUS:IDA PROJD:"JI OFP:ICB
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
I.SUMMARY.
This report is an update of information presented in earlier
reports (Miller and McAllister 1982,Miller 1983)and does not
co,ntain analyses of all the information available on the impacts
of the proposed;Susitna Dams on black bear (Ursus americanus)and
brown bear (Ursusa~ctos)populations .
Following tagging operations in spri,ng 1983,a total of 43 brown
bears were radio-marked including 15 subadults.Five of these
were in the downstream study area.In spring 1983 40 black bears
were also radio-marked,half of these were in the downstream
st'udy area between Portage Creek.and Curry.
The reproductive status of marked female brown and black bears in
spring 1983 was consistent with the predicted pulse in cub pro-
duct~on expected based on the 1981 failure of the berry crop.
HO'\\fever,this pulse was not as .large as expected largely because
sOlne females expected to produce first litters failed to do so.
Thlese observations support the hypothesis that project-related
reductions in food supplies would negatively impact productivity
of bear populations.
Documented losses of.offspring from litters of collared female
brown bears was 47%for cubs and 33%for'yearlings.A limited
amount of data collected in 1983 suggested these losses resulted
from predation by other brown bears.
Kill locations for 351 brown bears in the study area portion of
GMt!13 during the period 1961-1982 were digitized based on
information recorded in ADF&G sealing documents.The sex and age
composi tion of these harvested bears are reported.These data
are presented to 'assist subtas~ts undertaking socio-economic
studies in the project area.Based on hunter kills of marked
bears,no less than 8%/year of the brown bear population is
hal.'-vested.
2
.-
-
-
.-
-
Telemetry studies of six 2-year old bears (5 males and 1 female)
indicated that the female and 1 male remained in or"near their
maternal home ranges.The other 4 males dispersed distant from
their "maternal home'ranges.These observations validate earlier
hypotheses that proj ect-related reductions in bear numbers or
productivi ty in the study area will impact bear populations
el.sewhere through reduced emigration .
Continued high use of Prairie creek dur;ng the king salmon
spawning season in 1983 supported earlier conclusions that this
area is a seasonally important critical habitat area for brown
bears in the stUdY'area.The area documented from which bears
are attracted to Prairie Creek is 7,200 km 2 and 2,200 krn 2 for
males and females respect"ively.
The brown bear density estimate of 1/41 km 2 in an adjacent study
area ~ade by Miller and Ballard (1982)remains the best available
estimate for the Su-Hydro project study area.In 1983 an inde-
pendent estimate was derived based on the frequency or which
radio-marked bears were seen.wi th other"marked bears and with
unmarked bears during the spring 1983 breeding season.This
process resulted in estimates of 11-50 km 2 /bear depending on the
assumptions used.These calculations lend additional credence to
the density estimate of Miller and Ballard (1982).
Da"ta collected in 1983 supported earlier conclusions that few
brown bears den sites would be directly affected by the proposed
impoundments.Indirect effects from increased disturbance is
considered to be the main impact mechani sm on brown bear denning.
Overall rates of harvest by hunters of marked black bears was 14%
(19%for marked males and 10%for marked females).This rate was
higher in the downstream study area (29%)than in the upstream
study area (13%).
3
....
.....
.....
-
-
..-
j
.....
Black bear litter sizes declined over time.Mean litter size in
dens was 2.5,2.2 after exit from dens and 1.9 for litters of
yearlings.Forty percent of black bear cubs have been lost from
litters of'radio-collared females.
Efforts to replicate the summer 1982 black bear census technique
in spring 1983 were unsuccessful.A tenative density estimate of
1.3 mi 2 jbear based on fem~le .home range sizes and various'assump-
tions about population composition.and productivity was derived .
This estimate was considered too high for 1983 populations but
was considered a reasonable approximation of the maximum carrying
capacity of the upstream study area'(400 bears).It is antici-
pated that this estimate will be refined once adequate habitat
maps have been prepared by the plant ecology subtask.
Analyses of scats collected along salmon spawning sloughs in the
d01W'nstream study area in 1983 revealed the same pattern as seen
in 1983 studies.Berries were the most abundant and common item
in these scats and salmon 'remains were uncommon.Radio-marked
bears in the downstream study area,however,moved to the vicin-
i t:V of these salmon:-spawning sloughs during the salmon spawning
season as in previous years.Based on these results it is sug-
gested that radio-tracking studies of downstream black bears be
deemphasized in FY 1985 but that scat collections along the
sloughs be continued.
Of 26 black bear den sites found in the vicinity of the Watana
impoundment,15 will be inundated.Only 1 of 21 dens found in
the vicini ty of the Devils Canyon impoundment will be inundated.
4
....
II.TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I.
II.
Summary
Table of Contents
e-$••"•2
•e _oD 11II tI 5
III..List of Tables Q III qr •e-e qr e-'Il 'lII I!I . .7
IV.List 'of Figures • •e "0,•...'"•• ••12
-
V.
VI.'
Introduction and Acknowledgements
Methodology
. ..14
. ..16
VII.Results and Discussion--Brown Bears 18
A.Sex and Age Composition of
Study Animals .......•.....18
"~
B.Population Biology and Productivity ....18
i
C.
D.
Harvest Data
Movement Analysis
"......23
Cl •••••..••••.24
1.Subadult Dispersal • •'.•co "•.24
-2.Seasonal Movements to Prairie
.Creek . . ..26
E.Density Estimation Procedures
and Results . • . . . . . . . . . . . . ..28
F.Denning Data
5
..•..• •e"" • • • •1\1 .32
I I .TABLE OF CONTENTS (cant r d)
Page No.
-
-
VIII.Results and Discussion--
Black Bears ....34
.-
A.
C.
Sex and Age Composition of
Study Animals . . . . .
Population Biology and
Productivity •..
Density Estimates
·.34
·.34
·.37
"..,1.
2.
Lincoln Index Method
Home Range of Female Method·
. . . ..37
.37
-D.
E.
F.
Berry Abundance
Food Habits
Denning Data
. . . . . ..40
e _ •.40
. . ..41
IX.R~ferences Cited . ..0 e-• •e.•II>• • • • •...43
-,
X.
XL
Appendix 1.
Tables
Differentiation of brown
and black bear scats:an
~valuation of bile acid
detection by thin layer
chromatography ....45
.71
.-XII.Figures . . . . ...... . .158
6
II I •LI ST OF TABLES.
Page Np.
Table 1.Brown bear capture statistics e _•.II ~iii iii G 71
Predicted and observed sprinq 1983
reproductive status-brown bear 77
"Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table S.
Black bear"capture statistics
Number of brown bear point locations
Number of black bear point locations
· ..73
...1&.,...Q 75
.76
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Predicted 1984 reproductive
status-brown bear . . . • ....• .•. . .•.78
Summary of brown bear litter
size data ................79
Brown bear offsprinq.$urvivorship
"and weaning ".................84
..-Table 9'.Summary of brown bear cub and
.and yearlinq 16'eses,1978-1983 .··· ···.86
~
Table 10.Brown bear cub morphometrics ..87.· · · · · ·
Table 11.Brown bear yearling morphometries"· · · · ··.88
,,-
Table 12.Brown bear harvests in Su-Hydro
study area .. . .. .. ...··· · ·
.89
Table 13.Status of brown bears marked in 1978 ···· ·
.90
Table 14.Status of brown bears marked in 1979 ·····.91
....7
---------------------------~-----------
,.,...
!
III.LIST OE'TABLES (cont'd)
Page No.
-Table 15.
Table 16.
Status of brown bears marked in
Su-hydro studies,1980-1983
Summary of Tables 13-15,hunter-
killed marked brown bear in
. . . . . ..92.
-GMU 13,1978-1983 •~• ••0 e-•. . ..94
-
Table 17.Home range sizes of two-year old
radio-marked brown bears,1983 .. . ..95
.....
!
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20 .
Annual use of Prairie Creek by
brown bears . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . ..96
Annual brown bear home range sizes . . .....98
River crossings by radio-marked
brown bears . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . .100
..-,.Table 21.Associations of radio-marked brown
bears during spring 1983 . .103
Characteristics of brown bear den sites
during winters of 1980-81,1981-82
.Summary of parameters used in brown
.·bear density estimate"s 106
..-
Table 22.-
Table 23.....
t
,.....1982-83 " . . . . .1.07
-Table 24.Distances between brown bear den
sites in successive years . . . . . ...110
~Table 25.Entrance and emergence dates for
1980/81 brown bear dens . . . . . . . . . . .111
8
-III.LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Page No.
-
Table 26.Entrance and emergence dates for
1981/82 brown bear'dens ...•...112
Table 27.Entrance and emergence dates for~
1982/83 brown bear dens · . .113
Table 28.
Table 29.
Entrance and emergence dates for
1983/84 brown bear dens . . . . . . .114
Mean den entrance and emergence
dates for brown bear ... . . ... .· .115
-Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Predicted and observed 1983 black
bear reproductive status .
Predicted 1984 black bear
reproductive status
Sex and age composition of study
animals-black bear . • .
Status of marked black bears,
1980-1983
•".co · . .116
· .117
· .118
119
Table 34.Natural mortalities of marked bears · ·· ··122
Table 35.Black bear litter size,cubs .. .····123
-Table 36.Black bear litter size,yearlings.· ··· · ·
125
Table 37.Summary of black bear cub loss data.· ·· ·
·126
Table 38.Black bea;r cub morphometries ···· · ·
127
If-Table 39.Black bear yearling morphometries ··· · · ·
128
9
III.LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Page No.
Table 40.Downstream black bear census attempt
results,1983 spring 129
-
Table 41.
Table 42.
Upstream black bear census attempt
results,1983 spring . • . .
Upstream black bear census attempt
results,1982 summer
. .130
. . .131
Table 43a.Spring home ranges of upstream
female black bears (4/1 to 7/5
excluding den sites). • . . . ...132·
Table 43b.Spring home ranges of upstream
,>
female black bears (1/1-7/10 with
den sites). . . .0 • • • • • • • 0 • 0 • • •133
......
Table 44.
Table 45.
Table 46.
Spring home ranges of downstream
female·black bears .
Annual home range sizes -downstream
black bears . • •.•• • •
Annual home range sizes -upstream .
black bears . . . . . . . . . . .
i
134
• . .135
136
Table 47.Berry abundance in 1983 transects . . . .0 0 138
Subjective summar~of annual
berry abundance • . .00 • • 0 0 0 • • 0 139
-
Table 48.
Table 49.Brown bear and black bear
scat analyses,1983
10
o •0 •••141
I I 1.LIST OF TABLES .(contI d)
Page No.
•. ..• •143.
-
Table 50.
Table 51.
Table 52.
Table 53.
Salmon abundance in streams
and sloughs
Ranking of bear and salmon use
.of downstream sloughs and creeks
during 24-25 August 1983 .....
Number of Susitna River crossings
by radio-marked black bears • . .
Black bear den characteristics
. . .145
. . .146
. .149
Table 54.
Table 55.
Known history of use of black
bear dens •..•. .~. . . . . .152
History of den use by marked
bl'ack bears ... ... ... . . . . . . . .154
Table 56.·Black bear den entrance and
emergence ,dates,1982/83 . . • ... . . .156
r-
I
Table 57.Black bear den entrance and
emergence dates,1983/84 . .
11
... . .157
IV.LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
.-
Figure.1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Brown bear kill locations
1983 home ranges of female G388
and 2-year-6ld male offspring
G389 and G390 .••.....
1983 home ranges o~female G384
and 2-year-old offspring G391
and G392 (males)and G393 (female)
1983 home ranges of female G312
and 2-year-old male offspring G386
•_•..1&0&158
..159
. . .160
161
.-
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Use of Prairie Creek by
marked brown bears ...... . . . . . .162
Area occupied by radio-marked
bears in spring 1983 (except
maternal femaies).•....••......163
Total area occupied by radio-
marked bears in 1983 (except
maternal females)...... • . . . . .164
Figure 8.Brown bear den sites •....•..v C GI .. ....165
Figure 9.AnnUal home ranges,upstream
black bear females -1980 . . . ••. . . . .166
-
Figure 10.Annual home ranges,upstream
black bear females -1981
12
. . . .167
..-
IV.LIST OF FIGURES (cont I d)
Page No.
Figure 11.Annual home ranges,upstream
black bear ~emales -1982 . .... . . . .168
Figure 12.Annual home ranges,upstream
black bear females -1983·. . . . . . . . .169
Figure 13.Spring home ranges,upstream
black bear females in 1981 . . . . . . . . .170
.....
Figure 14.·Spring home ranges,upstream
black bear femaies in 1982 •
Figure 15.Sprjng home ranges~upstream
black bear females in 1983 . .
.171
. . . . . .172
Figure 16.Black bear den site locations,
upstream study area ......••....173
Figure 17.Black bear den site locations,
downstream study area.. . . . .174
13
....
-
.....
....
F'"
I
v.Introduction and Acknowledgements.
This progress report is an updated supplement to our Final Phase
I report '(Miller and McAllister 1982)and the first Phase II
progress report (Miller 1983).The material di.scussed here does
not repeat analyses presented in our earlier reports except where
,~
addi tional information was collected in 1983 that modifies or
.significantly strengthens the results presented in those reports.
Also included in this report are the preliminary ,'results of
studies initiated in 1983.This .report·is a supplement to our
earlier reports and does not present all'the available infor-
mation about the impacts of the proposed Susitna project on bear
,.
populations.
The dedications,talents and efforts of Dennis McAllister (ADF&G)..
have been of crucial importance throughout all aspects of thi s
study.Valuabl~contributions were also made by K.Schneider,
W.Ballard,B.Tobey,B..Taylor,H.Griese,C.Gardner,
J.Whitman,N.Tankersley,S.M.Miller,D.Anctil,P.Hessing,
B.Cassell,T.Cunning,N.Graves,T.Otto,'C.Schwartz,
L.Aumiller,P.Smith,and Terry Biwer (all ADF&G).S.Lawler,
Penny Miles,and B.Brewer provided cheerful clerical assistance.
C.Crouch and J.Hallanger provided administrative aid .
The skills of V.Lofstedt,C.Lofstedt,M.Hauke,and L.Rogers
(Kenai Air Alaska)were appreciated in piloting helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft as were the skills of A.Lee (Lee's Air
TaXi),K.Bunch (Sportsman's Flying Service),D.Deering (Deering
Air Taxi),C.Allen (Allen Flying Service),and several heli-
copter pilots with Air Logistics Inc.(especially Jerry Dixon).
Special thaI:!,ks to Rick Halford (Susi tna Lodge),and Jim Grimes
(Adventures Unlimited)for permission to use their landing strips
and facilities for'storinf:,'fuel.Bruce Barrett,and other Su-
Hydro fisheries study personnel (ADF&G)provided logistic support
and information during our downstream bear study effort which was
much appreciated
14
""'"The.cooperation of Gra.nville Couey (Harza-Ebasco)I the Wabma
Camp Manager I Bob Lund and their staff was.appreciated.Robin
Sener of LGL and his st.aff assisted in various ways as did Randy
Fairbanks and the staff at Harza-Ebasco.
Funding for this
Authority and Dr.
various ways.
."
project was provided by the Alaska Power
Richard Fleming of that agency assisted in
15
VI.Methodology.
Methods used followed those discussed by Miller and McAllister
(1982)and Miller (1983).Because of the larger number of
radio-marked bears and their wider distribution,most of the 1983
radio-tracking flights took 2 days to accomplish.Typically
radio-trackers would overnight on the Denali Highway or in
Talkeetna.R~dio-monitoring flights·in 1983 were conducted on:
-16 March,13-17 and 25 April,.4,10,and 23 May,1-2",6,13-14,
and 20-21 June,8-11 and 20-21 July,1-3,10-11,and 16-17
August,6-7,16"-17,and 26-27 September,5 and 24 October,and 14
November.Uncertainties over budget allocation levels curtailed
some flights scheduled in JUly and October,this compromised data
collected in 1983 relative to previous years especially with
reference to use of Prairie Creek and den entrance dates.
-Tagging and recollaring
No bears were killed.
Tables 1 and 2.Number
Tables 3 and 4.
efforts were conducted on 14-19 May 1983.
Bears handled in 1980-1983 are listed in
of point locations obtained are listed in
-!
A black bear census effort wa~attempted on 24-25 May using
procedures.described by Miller (1983).Because too few bears
were seen relative to the number known present,this effort was
aborted midway through the census.An effort to derive a bear
density figure using female home range size was used in replace-
ment,these procedures are described in the black bear density
section of this report.
Specially-designed cub collars using a pattern described by
Strathern et ale (in press)were applied to 6 brown bear cubs.--.
during the May tagging period.Breakaway collars were applied to
7 two-year old brown bears to evaluate dispersal.Specially-
designed transmitters were also surgically implanted in 4 of
these two-year olds plus 2 yearling brown bears by ADF&G
veterinarians Bill Taylor and Bob Tobey.These implants and cub
collars were experimental procedures that were tested as
techniques to evaluate causes of subadult mortality.
16
Collars were replaced on black bears in accessible dens on March
;-21-24 and 14-16 April l 1983.At those times den sites were also
marked.Snow was too deep in MarchI especially in the downstream
stupy areal to easily visit all dens so remaining dens were
visited in April.Bears handled during these periods are listed
in Table 2.
--
,...,
.....
r-
i
r-
I
Point locations for reported brown bear hunter kills'from 1900-
1972 were plotted on 1:250 1 000 scale USGS maps by GMU 13 area
biologist Bob Tobey using hunter sealing documents as the data
source.These points were digitized-on the Susitna file and used
to evaluate the characteristics of hunter harvests in the study
area.
Based on teeth collected in 1983 the ages of some bears were
changed.Change was called for when -the age assigned to the new
tooth did not correspond,with the age expected based on the tooth
collected earl.ier.The "correct"age was establi~hed in these
cases by examining both sections again and deciding which section
was the best.In most cases these changes involved a change of
only one year.For black bear 321 1 however I the teeth collected
in 1980 and 1983 were both clearly aged at 10.For this bear I
arbi trarily assigned ·i t as age 10 in 1980 and age 13 in 1983.
Changes made in ages are indicated in Table 1 and 2 .
17
-------~---~-----------------------------------
.....
i~
.-
VII.\:Results and Discussion--Brown Bears.
A.'Sex and'Age Composition of Study Animals.
Follqwing the May tagging effort 43 brown bears were radio-marked
inclUdin9 6 cubs,2 yearlings,7 two-year o_lds,5 adults in the
down~tream study area (379 <403,407 ,342,and 373 ) ,and .23
adulls in the upstream area.During 1983 two radio-marked bears
were lshot and reported by hunters (380,395),3 radio":marked cubs.
were!killed by 'other brown bears (005,006,003),2 cubs shed,
coll~rs (007,009),one yearling with an implant radio died of
unkn9wn causes (383),one 2-year old with an implant and
brealtaway died in the fall (389),and 1 adult shed its collar
(373 j.Post denning numbers of radio-marked bro~bears was,
corr~spondingly,33 including 4 bears assumed still alive whose
den ~i tes were not located prior to termination of the field
seasC?n (381,312,393,and 293).Capture data from 1980-1983 are
given in Table 1.
The sex and age composition of the 33 bears radio marked at the
end of the 1983 season was:7 adult (~4)males (399,400,279,
282,342,280,and 293),18 adult females (379,403,335, 349,
384, 396,299,407,344,381,281,340~283,312,337, 315, 388,
and 313),4 two year-old males (39,0,392, 386,and 391),2 two
year old females (393 and 385),1 y.~.arling male (382),and 1 male
cub (008).Ages of these bears can be obtained from Table 1.
B.Population Biology and Productivity--Brown Bears.
Miller (1983 :22)predicted a pulse of cub production in 1983
based on the .apparent berry failure in .1981.Seven (54%)of 13
radio-collared females··were expected to produce cubs in 1983 but
only 4 (32%)did (Table 5).The 3 bears that were expected to
produce cubs but did not,were all expected to have their first
li tters in 1983.Two of these were age 5 and one was age 4 in
1983.These data may indicate that age of first reproduction is
18
of 18 radio-collared
in Table 6.Thirteen
1984,5 of these may
6 (Table 6).Three of
-
.-
.....
older.than indicated by Ballard et al."(1982).They may also
indicate that age of first litter production was dela'yed by the
poor 1981 berry crop.Of the 4 bears that did have cubs in 1983,
2 had lost yearling litters in 1982,1 had lost a litter of 1 cub
in 1982,and 1 produced its first litter at age 6 (Table 5).
These observations support the pulse concept proposed by Miller
.~
(1983)in that females that lost litters in the year following'
the berry failure produced cub li1:ters 2 years after the berry
failure (Miller 1983).However,this concept is supported only
if.1982 losses were abnormally highi if the observed losses were
typical no effect from the reduced berry crop be concluded.Data
are currently inadequate to evaluate typical rates of offspring
loss.Observations to date are consistent with the hypothesis
that food availability impacts productivity in study area brown
bear populations.Reductions of food availability caused by the
..
impoundments and related activities would,under this hypothesis,
have consequences on brown bear productivi ty.
One female (344)lost her last yearling in July 1982,was subse-'
quently seen with another bear and produced 2 cubs in 1983 (Table
5).This indicated that late breeding may successfully occur
when litters are lost.
The predicted 1984 reproductive status
female brown bears (~4 years)is given
(72%)of these bears may have .cubs in
produce their first litters at age 5 or
these bears lost their 1983 litters and are expected to produce
new litters in 1984 (Table 6).
Mean litter size of 19 brown bear litters.observed since 1978 was
2.1 (range 1-3).Reports of litters of 4 in GMU 13 have been
~eceived.The mean size of 22 litters of yearlings observed
since 1978 was 1.6 (1-2).Details of these observations.are
given in Table 7.The reproductive histories of individual
radio-marked females are given in Table 8 .
19
..-
Details of losses from litters of cubs and yearlings are given in
Table 7.These data are summarized in Table 9.Documented
losses of cubs is 41-47%and'of yearlings 30-33%(Table 9).Ex-
perimental procedures were tested in 1983 to evaluate causes of
this mortality.Six specially-designed expandable collars
equipped wi th small radios pulsing at 17 ppm in active mode and
43 ppm in inactive mod~were applied to cubs of 3 radio-collared
female brown bears.Three of these 6 cubs were killed by other
brown bears,details of these observations follow:
Female 283 (age 15 in 1983)was still in its den on
4 May but was out with a single cub on 10 May"These
bears were captured near thi s den on 14 May.The
female was darted with SernylanjSparine and the cub
(004)was captured by hand and calmed with 0.3 ml of.,
M99.These bears were radio-tracked on 15 May at which
time I found the female standing under a spruce tree,
the cub was not seen,but its radio collar was on active
mode and its signal was coming from the same vicinity
as the female.I assumed the cub was in the spruce
tree.On 17 May the cub was found dead 2-3 miles from
its location on 15 May.Female 283 was 2-3 miles away.
The cub had been eaten almost completely and only a few
bone.fragments remai,ned.Only brown bear tracks were
seen in the snow around the dead cub.It was concluded
that this cub was killed and eaten by an adult brown
bear of unknown identity.
Female 281 produced her first observed litter in 1983
at age 6.This bear was in its den on 4 May,was
observed at the den with 2 cubs on 10 May,,was back in
the den on 14 May and was captured on 15 May (with
M99).Cubs were captured by hand and were not drugged .
This family was located together on 16,17,23,and 24
May.On the'last 2 locations these bears were at lower
20
....
-
-
-
-
-
elevations (2950 feet)than previously (over 4700
feet).On 1 June the cubs were found dead near the 24
May location,their mother was 8 miles away at 1750
foot elevation~One cub (005)was almost completely
eaten like cub 004 (above),the other cub (006)was
partially eaten,.partially·disemboweled and had its
skull and pelvic area crushed.Canine'puncture wounds
were found in its throat and head.Cub 006 had been
buried about 200 feet from cub 005 under a patch of
..
moss that had been ripped loose in a typical-appearing
bear cache.The location of these kills was outside of
typical black bear habitat and brown bear predation was
concluded to be the cause of death for both cubs"The
stomach of cub 006 was full of willow catkins,'a shrew
skin and curdled milk.I suspect the lower elevation
habitats to which this inexperienced mother bear moved
so early in the spring may have increased the vulner-
abi1i ty of her cubs to predation by other brown bears.
Female 299 (age 17 in 1983)was still in its winter den
when 'upstream capture efforts were terminating so the
bear was darted in its den using M99.Thi s bear had 3
cubs (007,008,and 009)all o·f which were collared.
No cubs were in~entional1y drugged but'one had appar-
ently ingested some drug and was,correspondingly,
given some antagonist after which it quickly recovered.
All 3 cubs apparently survived until den entrance (they.
were last seen on 27 Sept.).One cub shed its collar
between 16 Sept.and 27 Sept.Another cub shed its
collar between 20·June and 8 July.The third cub was
apparently still wearing its collar (on active mode)
when last monitored in ,its den on 14 November.One
shed collar functioned as designed,the2lther broke at
an unexpected location.
21
"'"
-
-
-
-
......
-
....
One other brown bear cub was handled in spring 1983 (with female
394 at age 6).The'neck of this cub (#004)was badly scarred so
it was not collared.The female was darted with M99 and the cub
was calmed with a small dose of the same drug.The female and
cub were captured on 15 May,the nest day the female was observed
wi thout its cUb.It is possible that this loss was capture-
related.
Although this data set is small it suggests the effectiveness of
using the specially-designed cub collars.These data also
suggest that is it better to avoid dru.gg~ngthe cubs if this can
be done reasonably.These observations also indicate that M99 is
an appropriate drug to use in immobilization·of females with
newborn cubs.
Results from the internal transmitters surgically implanted in
yearlings and 2-year olds are less clearcut.Range of these
transmitters was only 3-4 miles.Two yearlings with female 313
(age 12 in 1983)were given implant transmitters by ADE'&:G veter-
inarians Bob Tobey and Bill Taylor.On 14 May,the adult
female was darted with Sernylan/Sparine,the yearlings with M99.
Between 23 May and 2 June yearling 383 died.The carcass of this
bear was not found,the internal transmitter had been carried
away from the carcass..Based on the spacing of tooth marks found
on the wax-coated transmitter we believe a fox removed it·from
the carcass.This bear's sibling·(384)survived and entered its
den with its mother'.Surgery-related mortality for yearling 383
cannot be eliminated asa possibility but was considered
unlikely.
Another bear (male,age 2,#389),fitted with an internal trans-
mi tter as well as a breakaway collar,died in the fall 1983.
Cause of death has'~yot yet·been determined but·an unrecovered
hunter ki 11 or wounding is considered likely .
22
-
-
-
.-
-
-
--
All other bears fitted with internal transmitters are still
alive.The short range of the.internal transmitters used in ·1983
precludes their effective use as a method'of documenting dis-
persal of subadul ts.Asa method of determining causes of
yearling mortality,however,this procedure has potential.One
bear (male,age 2,#390)shed its breakaway collar in mid sununer
and was subsequently located using just the~surgically implanted
internal transmitter.Fortunately this bear'remained close to
its maternal home range and did 'not disperse so some locations
could be'obtained even with the limited range of the internal
transmitter.
Measurements of brown bear cubs and yearlings handled to date are
given in Table 10 and 11.
C.Brown Bear Harvest Data.
Brown bear kill locations as reported on ADF&G sealing documents
during the period 1961-1982 (N=351 points)in that portion of
GMU 13 surrounding and including the SU-Hydro study area were
plotted by GMU 13 area biologist Bob Tobey (Figure 1).the sex
and age composition of these kills during the period 1970-1982 is
presented in Table 12.In the period 1980-1982 a mean of 38
bears/year were tak~n .in this area.Mean female ages have
changed little during the.period 1974-1982 (fall data)but mean
male ages have declined.The proportion of males in the fall
harvest has remained relatively constant (annual mean =60%)
during the last 9 years (Table 12).Liberalizations of seasons
that occurred in 1980-1982 resulted in a 41%increase in mean
annual harvest from 27/year (1974-1979)to 38/year (1980-1982)in
,
the area illustrated in Figure 1.The further liberalizations in
the season and baglimits that occurred in 1983 further in,creased
harvests in this area although these data have not yet been
compiled.
23
->,
.-
-
ADF&G bear studies in this area have been ongoing since 1978.
Reported hunter kills of marked bears can be used to estimate
hunter kill rate (Table 13-16).These kill rates are minimum
estimates because marked bears that have not been reported as
shot are treated as still 'alive.Actually some of these have
been shot and not reported as marked bears or have suffered
mortalities of other 'kinds.During this period 29 marked bears
were shot and reported out of a total of 366>marked-bears-years
\.
available.This provides a minimum estimate of 7.9%·mean annual
exploitation rate (calculated from Table 16).In recent years
the proportion,of marked bears taken by hunters appears to have
increased (Table 16).The sex>ratio of marked bears in the
harvest (72%males)compared to the sex ratio of marked bear
years "available"(48%males.from Table 16)ind~cates heavy
exploi tation,especially of the male segment of this population .
D.Brown bear movements.
1.Subadultdispersal.
Project-related reductions in brown bear populations in the study
area are likely to 'be reflected in neighboring areas as fewer
subadults will be available to disperse from the impact area to
colonize the surround~ng areas.Dispersal can be documented by
radio telemetry but standard radio collars may injure rapidly
growing subadults.In 1983,therefore.we experimented with
"dropoff"collars designed by Telonics.Inc.These collars were
held in place with a length of surgical rubber tubing.Thi s
tubing is intended to weather and decompose allowing the collar
to drop off before it becomes too tight.
One such dropoff collar was applied to 2-year old male 390 on 14
May along wi th its male sibling (389).The mother of these bears
(388)was radio-collared at the same time.Both offspring were
also given surgically implanted internal transmitters.G390
pulled its collar off between 20 June and 8 July.This bear did
24
....
-
-
not disperse (Figure 2)so it could still be periodically located
using its internal transmi tter.Thi s bear is expected to di s-
perse in 1984 as a 3-year old,one year later than is considered
typical.,
The male sibling (389)of 390 separated from its mother at the
same time (6 June-13 June).On 20 June the'mother was seen with
a marked adult male (G400)so separation apparently coincided
wi th estrus.G389 dispersed in a northeasterly direction in
early August.It was last seen alive on 5 October,on 24 October
its carcass was spotted.This carcass was not·visited before
deep snowfall so the cause of death was not determined.The area
where this bear died,near the Denali Highway between the Clear-
water and Maclaren Rivers,is heaVily hunted so it.'is 'possible
that this bear was wounded by a hunter.Another dead bear was
spotted in a nearby area during moose census work in early
November and neither bear was skinned.The distribution of G389
is illustrated in Figure 2.
G384 (female,age 12)was captured on a caribou kill'on 15 May.
Adul t male 293 was wi thin a half mile.G384 had at least two
2-year old offspring (391 and 392,both males)and 393 (female,
age 2)was within a few hundred yards .At the time it was
thought that all thrE!e 2-year olds were siblings but G393 was
never again seen with this group so it is possible that 393 was
not part of the group.The two males stayed with their mother
.until through 6 June,on 13 June their mother was seen with
another bear and her offspring had separated from her.These
brothers dispersed in a northeasterly direction'immediately after
separation (Figure 3)but remained together through 27 September.
By 5 October these bears had separated (one was on an apparent..
beaver kill at this time)and they denned in different locations.
Their female sibling (393)remained near it,s maternal home range
(Figure 3)throughout the year bu·t was not found in flights
subsequent to 27 September,its den site was not located in 1983.
Thi s bear may have been shot and not reported.
25
-
G312 was recollared on 14 May and her 2-year old male offspring
(386)was equipped with a breakaway collar and internal trans-
mitter.On 2 June these bears were still together along with an
unmarked bear,on 13 June separation had occurred and 312 was
near male 399.G312 was also with a different unmarked bear on
21 July.These observations indicate separation coincided with
estrus,as with the·above females.Offspring 386 apparently
dispersed north soon after separation,this bear was not found
.between 2 June and 20 July..On 20 July it was in-the upper
Susitna-Monahan·Flats area and it denned in the Alaska Range near
the West Fork Glacier of the Susi tna River (Figure 4).
Home range size data for radio-marked 2-year olds are given in
Table 17.Dates of separation of previous 2-year olds from their
mothers are provided in individual reproductive life histories
(Table 8).
..
2.Seasonal movements to Prairie Creek.
Miller and McAllister (1982)and Miller (1983)documented move-
ments of study area brown bears to Prairie Creek during the king
salmo.n spawning period.An annual summary of observed movements
to Prairie Creek by radio-collared brown bears is given in Table
18..Since 1980 a to~al of 73 radio-collared bear-years existed
in July.For 20 of the 73 bear-years available since 1980 (27%),
the radio··collared bear was found at Pr~irie Creek during the,
King salmon spawning season (Table 18).The portion.of marked
bears found at Prairie Creek in anyone year varied from 13%in
1981 to 36%in 1980 (Table 18).This percentage appears higher
for males (56%)than for females (18%),perhaps because:
1.Females may have a tendency to avoid Prairie Creek
during yeL~rs they have newborn cubs (e.g.283,see
Table 18)i
~2.Females have smaller home and be lessrangesmay
inclined to move out of them to a salmon spawning area,.-females may be more territorial.
26
,-
,
-
,-.
I
All bears still radio-collared that were previously documented as
visiting Prairie Creek (282,283,380)visited it again in 1983,
with the exception of male 293,(Table 18).BUdgetary uncer-
tainties during the Prairie creek'salmon spawning run resulted in
relatively infrequent flights so these data represent minimal
usage values.G293,for example,could have been missed .at
Prairie Creek between "monitoring flights,"but this was considered
unlikely.
The home ranges of the individuals documented visiting Prairie
Creek are illustrated in Figure 5 (1980-1983).The 'total area
encompassed by the movements of these bears was 7,894 km 2 •This
is the minimal area from'which brown bears are attracted to
Prairie Creek because no bears have been·tagged south and south-
west of Prairie Creek.Doubtless bears in.this area move to
Prairie Creek as well.Some brown bears were tagged in the
downstream.study area in 1983 and one of these bears (407)moved
..
from upper Gold Creek to Prairie Creek (Figure 5).This is
interesting as salmon were available in the Susitna River around
the mouth of Gold Creek,much closer to this bear's normal home
range.These Susitna salmon,however,were primarily chum
salmon.This movement may indicate that some bears,like human
fisherman,may be willing to make large movements to indulge
their preferences for king salmon over chum salmon.At·McNeil
...
Ri ver.lhave observed an apparent preference for relatively rare
king salmon over abundant chums by £i shing bears.A bear who
caught a rare king salmon would eat it completely while chum
salmon tended to be only partially eaten.
Seven radio-collared females were attracted to Prairie Creek (10
bear-years)from.an inclusive area of 2,164 km 2 ,while 5 radio-
collared males (9 bear-years)were attracted from an area of
7,216 km 2 •Areas occupied by individuals during years they were
not documented as using Prairie Creek were not included in these
calculations (293 in 1983 and 283 in 1981,Table 18).
27
.-
,...,
-
r,
E.Density Estimation ,~.Procedure and Results.
Brown bear density estimates are difficult to obtain.The best
approximation for the Su-Hydro study area comes from a 1979
estimate made in an adjacent study area (Miller and Ballard
1982).An attempt to derive an independent estimate in 1983 was
made using a calculated estimate of the proportion of the adult
population that is radio-marked.This calculated estimate
derived from the frequency with which radio-marked bears were
seen with other.radio-marked bears or with other unmarked bears
during the breeding season (Table 19).These calculations do not
include bears in the downstream study area.
On radio-monitoring flights conducted on June 1-2,five radio-
marked bears were observed with unmarked bears and 1 radio-marked
bear was seen wi th another radio-marked bear.A simple-minded
calculation would,correspondingly,indicate that 1/6 (17%)of
adul t bears were radio-marked (excluding females with cubs 'or
yearlings that are not reproductively active).Similar calcu-
lations for the 6 June flight,the 13-l4 June flight,and the
20-21 June flight (Table 19)would indicate,tha.t 0%,13%and 33%
of adults were radio-marked,respectively.The mean value for
these 4 flights was 15%.
Making the assumption,based on these data,that 15%of the adult
brown bears (excluding females w/litter of cubs or yearlings)
were radio-marked,a population estimate based on the known
numbers of marked bears can be derived.The mean number of
radio-marked adults located on··these 4 flights was 17 (16-18)
(Table 19).The mean number of radio-marked adults actually seen
on theS!e 4 flights was·14 (.13-17)(Table 19).This second number
is more appropriate to use than the first because asso~iations of
bears not actually'seen are unknown.Correspondingly,if li~
.bears equals 15%of the adult population,this population esti-
mate would be 93 adult bears excluding females with cubs and
28
....._t
,..,.
--
-
females with yearlings ("non-estrus females lt ).Addition of
non-estrus females to this estimate can be made from ·the fol-
lowing formula:
N=x/[(I-a)(b)+(I-b)]where:
N =total number of adult bears present;
x =the number of estrus female and male adults'(93 in this
example)i
,a =an estimate of the percent of the adult female popu-
lation that has cubs or yearlings (I-a,therefore is
the proportion of the adult female population that is
estrus);
b=an estimate of the percent of the adult population (N)
that is female.
Females with cubs or yearlings are not in reproductive condition
and,correspondingly,are.not expected to be seen with other
adults.The proportion.ofthe female population th~t has cubs or
yearlings ("a".in the above equation)can be estimated based on
observed data in 1983 or a theoretical value can be used..In
spring 1982,2 upstream adult brown bear females had cubs (344
and 299),1 had a yearling litter (313),and 13 had 2-year old or
no offspring (394,281,315,337, 388,381, 312,335, 396,283,
340, 384,and 380).Females 281,394,and 283 had cubs early in
the year but lost these in May and were probably in estrus in
June so'these 3 bears are included in the list of 13 estrus
females.Based on these observations,the value'of (a)in the
above equation would ~e3/16 =19%.A value of 19%would be a
minimum estimate of Ita"because of capturL biases against females
.with cubs (Miller and Ballard 1982)and because of the conserva-
tive way females that lost litters were treated (the value would
have been 6/16 =38%before these litters were lost).A higher
29
..,..
.....
..-
-
estimate for (a)was obtained by making the,still conservative,
assumption that in anyone year a third of the adult females were
estrus,a third had cubs and a third had yearlings.Under this
assumption,67%of'the female population was composed of non-
estrus females.The midpoint between these two values is 43%
(Table 20).
Primarily because of hunter selectivity for males,the proportion
of the adult population composed of females (b in'the above
equation)is greater than 50%.A minimum estimate of (b),corre-
spondingly,would be 50%.Of all radio-collared adults,76%were
females in the first 2 years of this study (Miller and McAllister
1982:23)so this can be c'onsidered a maximum estimate of the
proportion·of females in the adult bear population.'The midpoint
between these values was 63%(Table 20).
Using these estimates in the above equation yields estimates of
from 103 to 190 adult brown bears in the study population with an..'..
estimate of 128 adults obtained by using the midpoint values of
(a)and (b).The composition of each of these estimates is also
given in Table ,20.By looking at the composition of each of
these estimates it can be seen that most of the variation results
in the estimated number of temales with cubs or yearlings (based
on "b"in the above,equation).This value has a 800%change
between lower·and·upper estimates (12 to 97).The number of
males in the lower estimate of 103 bears.is greater than the
number in the upper estimate of 190 bears (Table 20);this is
clearly unrealistic .
In order to obtain an estimate of the total bear population,the
number of subadults in age classes 0,1,2,and 3,must be added
to the above estimate of the number of adults (N).Miller and
Ballard (1982 i T,r,ble 1)estimated that bears aged 0-2.5 repre-
sented 79%of the population of females aged 3 or older,inclu-
sion of 3-year old bears would make this percentage even higher.
Another way to approach an estimate of the number of subadults is
'-
30
-to multiply the calculated number of adult females accompanied by
\
cubs and yearlings by :the mean litter size of cub and yearling
;
litters (1.8 from Table 7),this provides an estimate of the
number of-cubs and year~ings_in the spring population (Table 20).
Assuming 50%mortality 0.£cub and yearling age classes (see
"Table 9)the number of 12 and-3 year old bears would be less than
50%of the total numbe~of cubs and yearlings in the spring,a;..-
value of 25%was arbit~arily chosen as an estimate the number of
2 and 3 year old bears (T~le 20). -
-The range for the
values for numbers
I
t6t~l spring population
!. .
of subadults is 131-409
estimate"using these
with an intermediate
value of 212 (Table20)i.It is noteworthy that the estimate for
total number of adul1::s varied only 84%between.minimum and
'j
maximum estimates but ~at the total population estimate varied
!
212%between minimum ~nd maximum estimates (Table 20).This
change reflects the proportionally greater representation of
females with cubs or /yearlings in the m-aximum estimate,this
greater representation :is amplified when subadul ts are added in
because the number o£subadults is a direct function of the
number of females wi th cub or yearling offspring.
Sources of error in the above estimate are numerous.The most
serious sources are i~the estimates of (a)and (b)used in the
above ec;iuation.These estimates can be improved,however I with
additional data.The initial starting point of the ;bove calcu-
lations·(the estimatio-n of the proportion for the adult popu-
lation that is radio-marked)represents another source of poten-
tially large error.The implicit assumption behind the calcu-
lation of this value is that the probability of a radio-marked
individual being seen with another radio-marked individual as
opposed to a non-radio-marked.individual is equivalent to the
proportions of these 2 groups in the population.This assumption
is correct only if marked individuals are mixed with the popu-
lation of unmarked individuals in an unbiased manner.I know
that this is not the case because capture efforts have been
31
,....
concentrated in the vicinity of Watana Creek l correspondingly 1 a
bear living in the vicinity of Watana Creek would have a higher
probabili tyof being seen with a marked individual than a bear
living elsewhere in the study area.This bias would result in an
.overestima~io:n of the proportion of the study area population
that is marked and a corresponding underestimation of the size of
the whole population.'These calculations are include.d in this
report in illustration of the process that could be followed in
deriving a population estimate from data based on associations of
marked bears during the breeding season.The only indication of
the validity of'the actual results obtained come from my subjec-
tive impression that they are correct wi thiIi an order of magni-
tude.
Comparisons of these estimates with a more intensive spring
densi ty estimate o£a bear/17 mi 2 (41 km 2)made in an adj acent
area (Miller and Ballard 1983)are useful in evaluating the
accuracy ofthis'estimate.The area occupied by the radio-marked
bears is 4 1 392 km 2 if just the spring point locations are used
(Fig..7)1 or 6 1 568 km 2 if the total 1983 home ranges are used
(Fig.8).Density estimates based on the above population
estimates using both of the area ,figures are presented in Table
22.The 1979 estimate of 1/41 km 2 (Miller and Ballard 1983)
corresponds pretty well with the estimates derived from using the
conservative parameters in the above population estimate.This
may indicate that the 19"79 density estimate of 1/41 km 2 is
conservative for the Susi tna dam study area.
F.Brown Bear Denning Data.
Characteristics of brown
As previously·reported
covered to delte would
impoundments (Table 23).
bear den si tes are given in Table 23.
(Miller 1983)no brown bear dens dis-
be inundated by the proposed Susi tna
32
During the winter of 1982/83,female 380 used a den (i101)which
was a natural cavity,all other dens examined have been excavated
.-
(Table 23).Den 101 was in a crack under a large boulder lit
could not be determined if this den had ·been previously used.
G380 was shot in fall 1983 so this bear could not reuse den 101
in 1983/84,her den site in 1981/82 was unknown.
-
No reuse of brown bear den sites has been documented in thi s
study although many bears tend to use the same location·in
successive years (Table 24).A map of known brown bear den sites
is given in Figure 8.Den entrance and emergence dates are given
in Tables 25-28,these data are summarized in Table 29.
33
VIII.Resul ts and Oi scussion-Black Bears
Following the May tagging effort 40 black bears were radio-
collared,.half of these were in the downstream study area.No
cubs or yearlings were marked in 1983.Currently 27 black bears
are radio-marked including 13 in the downstream study area.
During 1983,5 bears were known shot by hunters (367,374,410,
303,and 323),2 bears di sappeared and were suspected to have
been shot (370,372,both females with cubs),J bears shed trans-
mitters .(301,318~349),and 3 bears died (327,379,and 365).
No black bears·were killed or died as a result of handling in
1983.Capture data.from 1980-198'3 are given'in Table 2.Numbers
of point location obtained are given in Table 4.
A.Sex and Age Composition of Study Animals-Black Bears.
-
The sex and age composition of the 14 remal.nl.ng radio-marked
black bears in the upstream study area (all (3 years of age)was
7 males (401,346,358,359, 360,324,387),and 7 females (363,
354, 317,289,321, 329,361).In the downstream area 2 adult
males (408,343)and 11 females (378,376,404,405, 411, 409,
406,402,377,369,375)are radio-marked.Ages of these bear
can be obtained from Table 2.-
B.Population Biology and Productivi ty-Black Bears.
Miller (1983:68)predicted a pulse of cub production in 1983.'.-.
based on the apparent berry failure in 1981.Of 19 radio-
collared females,18 (95%)could potentially have had cubs in
1983 and 14 did (70%)(Table 29).B364,mi ssing at the end of
1982,was also listed as expecting cubs in 1983 but remained
missing throughout 1983 so her status could not be verified.
Three of the 4 bears that were expected to have cubs in 1983 but
didn I t were 5 years old in 1983 and were listed as expecting
their first litters in 1983 (363,367,369),the fourth (378)was
a 7 year old female in 1983.These data may indicate that mean
age of first litter production is older than 5.One bear at
34
~.
..-
;
age 5 did produce a litter in 1983 (377)but lost its cubs·by
19 May.One of the 5-year old females (363)that didn't produce
a litter in 1983 may also have lost an unobserved litter early,
the other 2 females were examined in their dens so it is certain
they did not have cubs.
The predicted 1984 reproductive status of 23'radio-marked females
(including 4 missing bears)is given in Table 30.Excluding the
missing bears,9 of 13 adul t(~5 )female·s (67%)·are -expected'to
produce cubs in 1984.Identification of·a pulse in cub produc-
tion in 1983 based on the 1981 berry failure is not strongly
supported by these data.The data,however,may be confounded by
a capture bias against females with newborn cubs.If such a bias
exists,and this is considered likely,then a pulse in cub
production by radio-marked females would be expected in the year
following initial capture of these females,independent of any
environmental factor.Additional data are needed before these
hypotheses can be analyzed.Because of the initiation of the
downstream study in 1982 and corresponding capture of many new
females,this bias could have caused a pulse in cub production by
radio-marked.females in 1983.It is also possible that the
blueberry failure evident in the upstream area did not affect
i
bears in the downstream study area that are buffered by salmon
and salmonberries unav~ilable to upstream bears.
Black bears captured in the upstream study area included slightly
more males than females while much the opposite was the case in
the downstream.study area (Table 32).This difference may
reflect heavier hunting pressure in the downstream area which is
accessible to riverboats out of Talkeetna and has a resident
p.opulation of homesteaders.The upstream area is accessible only
by plane or,in a few spots,ATVs.Comparisons of age data for
these 2 populations are generally consistent with this hypothesis
(Table 32).Downstream males tended to be younger than upstream
males although the differences were not significant and the
reverse was the case for females (Table 32).Heavier harvest in
35
-
r
I
r
I
the downstream study area is also supported by harvest rates of
marked bears (Table 33),although sample sizes were small.Based
on 100 marked-bears-years in the upstream areCl,13%have been
harvested compared to 29%in-the downstream area (31 bear-years)
(Table 33).Overall rate of harvest of marked bears in both
areas was 14%(19%for marked males and 10%for marked females)
(Table 33).
Apparent natural mortalities of radio-marked black bears are
presented in Table 34.Three natural mortalities of radio-marked
bears .were recorded in 1983.Two of these were females with
cubs,both were thought to have been killed by other bears
(Table 34).
Black bear litter size is presented in Tables 35 and 36.As
would be expected mean litter size is largest for the sample
counted in dens (2.5),smaller when den data are excluded (2.2)
and smaller yet for yearling litters (1.9).These data indicate
a progressive loss of subadul ts from birth through.separation
from their mothers.
Overall,40%of cubs were lost from litters of radio-collared
females (excludes those cubs that were doubtless lost when their
mothers'died).This percentage was higher in the upstream study
area (54%)than in the downstream area (22%)(Table 37).This
difference may reflect the marginal nature of the upstream
habitat for black bears relative to the downstream habitat.This
difference may also reflect the lower proportion of adult males
in the more heavily hunted downstream population relative to the
upstream population (Table 32);adult males may cause much of the
cub mortality through intraspecific predation.
Morphometries of black bear cubs and yearlings are give:;n in
Tables 38 and 39.
36
.....
i
~
I,
i
C..Black Bear Density Estimates~
1.Lincoln Index method.An aftempt to census the.black bear
population using Lincoln Index ltechniques (Ricker 1975)on the
ratio of marked to unmarked individuals observed during transect
flights wa~made in spring 1986.A 'similar attempt in summer
1982 yielded a population estimate of 90 bears (47-172)ages 1
;~~
year old or older in the upst~eam area (Miller 1983:58).The
spring 1983 effort was·an attetupt to replicate this previous
effort during spring condi ti~ns when a different set of
i
observability biases would exist.i
l-
i
The technique was not successful in spring 1983.In the
downstream study area half of i the sample units were counted,
these contained 76%of available 'marked bears but no marked bears
were seen (Table 40).Only 1 adult bear/hour of survey time was
spotted.In the upstream area,10 (of 37)sample units.were
..
counted,these contained 35%of available marked bears but only 1
marked bear was.seen (Table 41).Only 1 bear/146 minutes of
flight time was seen prior to aborting this unstream census
effort.
The results of the summer 1982 census effort are given in Table
42 for comparison purpo.ses.
2.Home range of females method.In Minnesota,Rogers (1977)
found that female black bears tended to occupy largely exclusive
home ranges.Hugie (1982).found simi lar results in Maine but
Lindzey and Meslow (1977)found overlapping home ranges in
Washington.If home ranges do not overlap,an estimate of the
number .of female adul t bears present could be obtained by
parti tioning the available habitat into parcels that correspond
to mean territory size and counting theae.
37
-
\,..
-
Annual home ranges of adult female black bears radio-collared·in
this study revealed overlap (Figures 9-12).This overlap was
especially evident in·1981 (Figure 10)when late summer berry
crops failed and many bears made exceptional movements,appar-
ently to compensate.Even in years of normal berry crops,how-
ever,female annual home ranges overlapped·(Figures 9,11 and
12).
OVerlaps between female home ranges were less marked when only
spring data (1 April-s July.)were included.These data for
"spring"were chosen because they precede the ripening of the
berries and the corresponding movements of bears to areas of
berry abundance.Figures 13-15 illustrate the annual spring home
ranges of .radio-marked bears excluding locations at den sites.
The area of these home ranges is given in Table 43a.The genetic
relationship between these bears was unknown except for 329
which was the 3-year old offspring of 327 and overlapped
extensively with 327 in-1983 (Figure 15).Spring home ranges
defined in this manner overlapped less (Figures 13-l5)than did
annual·home ranges but even these were clearly not exclusive
(Figures 9-12).
Even though annual or spring female home ranges are demonstrably
not exc·lusive,an estimate of the number of bears the habitat
could support can be obtained by assuming that the home ranges
were exclusive.annual spring home ranges of 35 upstream female
black bears (~3 years old)averaged 10.8 km 2 (Table 43a).The
amount of black bear habitat in the upstream study area can be
equated with the area of the sample units delineated during the
census attempt,500 mi 2 or 1300 km 2 (Table 41).If this area
were completely populated by black bear females 'wi th exclusive
home ranges of 10.8 km 2 each,there would be space for 120 adult
(~3 years)fl;.;...'.'~.·.·ales.Assuming equal sex ratios for adults there!-\ri,
would also B:120 males present.Black bear females aged 3,4,
~..
and 5 are not all reproductively mature,bears in these age
classes constitute an estimated 30%of females ~3 years old
38
I'"''
-
--I
leaving 80 females of reproductive age.Based on litter size
data (Tables 35 .:and 36)each of these females would annually
contribute about 1.0 cubs,and 0.8 yearlings.If there is a 50%
mortality of yearlings each female would also annually contribute
0.4 two-year olds.Correspondingly,each of these 80 reproduc-
tively mature females would annually contribute about 2.2 sub-
adults «3 years)to 'the total population ~r.an additional 175
bears.Based on these calculations,.the estimated population
based on these assumptions would be about 400 bears'.Based on
the 506 mi 2 of black bear habitat present this would be a density
of 1.3 mi 2 jbear.or.2.1 mi 2 /adult ~3 years.This estimate would be
exaggerated by the degree to which the 500 mi 2 of habitat is
incompletely occupiedi to the degree that the home ranges overlap
thi s estima·te would be too low.
This result can be compared wi th estimates obtained in other ways.
Miller and McAllister (1982:93)roughly estimated a study area
population of 340 black bears based on a Lincoln Index during the
tagging operation in Au.gust 1980;this represented a density of
1.6 mi 2 jbear.The·summer 1982 Lincoln Index attempt yielded a
corrected Lincoln Index and estimate of 126 bears (Miller
1983:59).My guess on the 1980 bear population in the study area
was 150-200 bears (Miller 1982:59).
·My subjective impression of this'new estimate is that it·is too
high.Part of the reason for this may be that all of the 500 mi 2
is not good spring habitat.Another possible reason for an
overestimate is that the current population is suboptimal,below
what the habitat could support.Miller (1983:58)noted that bear
population appeared to have declined in the study area since the
project started,this impression has been strengthened with the
addition of 1983 studies.
39
-,
-
-
-
.-
-
-
Possibly.this decline resulted from the poor 1981 berry crop.
Regardless of where this population may be at the moment,an
estimate of 400 black bears is a reasonable approximation of the
number of black bears thehabi tat in the upstream study area
could potentially support.
D.Berry Abundance.
Four transects designed to document changes in berry abundance
between years were established in 1982 (Miller 1983).This
procedure was replicated in 1983 although the exact same plots
were not read,the plots read in 1983 were in the same general
area,wi thin 100 feet,of those read in 1982.The results for
both years·are given in Tab,le 47.As mentioned by Miller (1983),
insufficient manpower was avai lable to sample enough plots to
provide good documentation of true variability in berry abun-
dance.Our samples were adequate,however,to provide some
support for our subject interpretations of berry abundance
(Table 48).
E.Food Habi ts.
Analyses of 42 bear scats collected in 1983 are presented in
Table 49.Analyses of 33 scats collected preViously were pre-
sented by Miller (1983,Table 11,page 45).As reported by
Miller (1983)the predominant food in the scats collected on the
s!t0res of sloughs where salmon were spawning in the downstream
study area were berrieS?of Devil's club (Oplopanax horridus).
Fish were even rarer in the 1983 scats (Table 49)than in the
1982 scats (Miller 1983)collected along the salmon-spawning
sloughs.The difference in 1983 probably reflected the decreased-
availability of salmon in 1983 because 1983 had the expected low,
odd year,run of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha),ant...very
high water in the Susi tna during much of the spawning period
(Tables SO and 51).Regardless,of the absence of abundant pink
salmon in the spawning sloughs,many radio-collared black bears
40
"....
-
-
~
I
moved to the vicinity of these sloughs during late summer 1983 as
.t.."'ey did in 1982 (Table 51).These results support our tentative. .
conclusions that these movements are more motivated by the preva-
lence of devils club berries in the riparian habitats along the
sloughs than by the presence of spawning salmon.
Updated records on frequency of Susitna River crossings by
radio-marked black bears are given in Table 5"2.
Efforts to devise a technique using thin"layer chromotography on
bile acids to "separate black.bear feces .from brown bear scats
were unsuccessful.Results of this study are reported in
Appendix 1.
F.Black Bear Den and Denning Characteristics
Characteri sties of black bear dens observed during winters of
1980/81 through 1983/84 are given in Table 53..The known history
of use of individual dens is presented in Table 54.In March and
April 1983 1 13 dens previously used by radio-marked black bears
were inspected.Eight of these were vacant,3 (numbers 10,9,
and 7)were occupied by radio-marked bears,one (#19)was
occupied by an unmarked bear,and one was collapsed~Seven of
the vacant dens revisited were dug dens,the other (#19)was a
natural cavity.History of den use by individual marked black
bears i s given in Table 55.
Twenty-six dens used at least once by a radio-collared black bear
have been found in the vicinity of the Watana Impoundment,15
(58%)of these will be inundated by the .impoundment.By compari-
son on],y 1 of the 21·dens found in the vicinity of the Devils
Canyon impoundment will be inundated by the proposed impoundment
(Table 54).
Den entrance and emergence dates for radio-marked black bears are
given in Tables 56 and 57 for 1982/83 and 1983/84 respectively.
Data for previous years was given in Miller (1983).
41
-
-
-
.~
-
-
Locations of black bear den sites are given in Figure 16 for the
upstream study area and in Figure 17 for the downstream study
area.
42
~,
-
-
..-
-
-
-
-
IX.REFERENCES CITED
Ballard,Warren B.,Sterling D.Miller and Ted H.Spraker.1982.
Home'Range,.Daily Movements,and Reproductive Biology of
Brown Bear in Southcentral Alaska.Canadian
Field-Naturalist 96(1):1-5.
Hugie,Roy Dean.1982.Black Bear Ecology and Management in the
Northern Conifer-Deciduous Forests of Maine.Ph~D~Thesis,
.Univ.of Montana,203pp.
Lindzey,Fredrick G.and E.C.Meslow.1977.Home range and
habi tat use by black bears in southwestern Washington.J.
Wildl.Manage.41(3):413-425.
Miller,Sterling D.and Warren B.Ballard.1982.Density and
Biomass Estimates for an Interior Alaskan Brown Bear,Ursus
arctos,Population.Canadian Field-Naturalist
96(4):448-454 .
Miller,Sterling D.and Dennis C.McAllister.1982.Big Game
Studies,Vol.VI Black Bear and Brown Bear.Susitna Hydro-
electric Project Phase I Final Report (March 1982).Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.233pp.,(mimeo).
1983.Big Game Studies,Vol.VI Black Bear and Brown
Bear.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase II Progress
Report (April 1983).Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game.99pp.,
(mimeo).
Ricker,.W.E.1975.Computation and interpretation of
biological statistics of fish populations ..Department of
the Environment Fisheries and Marine Services,Ottawa,
Bulletin 191.382 pages.
43
Rogers,Lynn L.
Population
Minnesota.
-
-
-
_.
,....
,
-
1977.Social Relationships,Movements,and
Dynamics of Black Bears in Northeastern
Ph.D.Thesis,Univ.of Minn.194pp"
Strathearn,S.M.,J.S.Lotimer,G.B.Kolenosky,and W.M.
Lintack.In press.An expanding break-away radio-collar
for black bears.J.Wildl.Manage.
44
....
-
-I
-
-
"...
-I
APPENDIX I
DIFFERENTIATION OF BROWN BEAR AND BLACK BEAR.SCATS:
AN EVALUATION OF BILE ACID DETECTION BY THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY
BY
ENID A.GOODWIN
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
MARCH.I 1984
4S
.-
-
-
-
DIFFERENTIATION OF BROWN BEAR AND BLACK BEAR SCATS:
AN EVALUATION OF BILE ACID DETECTION BY THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY
SUMMARY
4
A thin-layer chromatographic technique for separation and detec-
tion of fecal bile acids was evaluated for-use in differentiation
of black bear scats from brown bear scats.Fe~al·samples from 21
known black bears and 20.known brown bears were tested.Bile
samples from 4 -black bears and 3 brown bears were al so examined
using TLC.Statistical analysis of,Rf values obtained from the
fecal samples indicated no significant difference between brown
bear and black bear chromatogr'ams.The numbers of bile samples
were too small for statistical analysis,but indications of
possible differences were noted.Variations among individuals
wi thin a species was documented,as were significant variations
,within individuals.Variations were hypothesized to be primarily
caused by dietary influences on bile acid production mechanisms.
Pigment removal methods were also evaluated.Alkaline distilled
water was found to be effective in removing berry pigments,while
hexane was a preferred ..solvent for removal of other types of
plant pigments.
INTRODUCTION
Identifications of scat samples is an integral aspect of food
habit studies,and particularly so when the'studies involve
similar and sympatric species.Identification of scat samples
presents a maj or .problem when the species under study.are as
similar as ..brown bears (Ursus arctos)and black bears (Ursus
americanus ) •All too frequently,scats from one are impossible
to visually differentiate from the other.This problem,as it
relates to the work being done in the Susi tna Hydroelectric
Project Big Game Studies,was what prompted the study reported
here.
46
I
_._-.........;-----------------------------------------
,....
,....
-
studies of bear movements (Miller,1982;Miller,1983)in the
vicinity of proposed impoundments of the Susi tna Hydroelectric
(Su-Hydro)Project indicate that black bears spend the majority
of the year in areaS that will be flooded.Potential impacts on
brown bears are less clear.While the brown bear population
spends most of its time outside the impoundment areas,there
seems to be a directed movement,by males #and females without
newborn cubs,toward the impoundment impact ar.ea in early spring.
It was hypothesized that availability of over-wintered berries
and emergent.vegetation on south-facing"slopes,as well as the
presence of winter-killed or weakened ungulates may be the
motivation for this brown bear movement (Miller,1982),and that
these foods might be more available in areas that would be
inundated than those that would remain unflooded.investigators
sought to test this hypothesis by determining what foods are
being utilized by brown bears through scat analysis,then assess-
ing t1?-e availability of the same foods in other alternative areas
that would not be inundated.
A key to this approach'was'the ability to differentiate brown
bear scat samples t:rom those of black bears.Since visual
examination of the scats is not feasible for reliable identifica-
tion,some other methop.was needed.Maj or et al.(1980)reported
that just such a method had been developed.It was an analytic
method using a technique known as Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC)
to differentiate substances known to occur in vertebrate feces
called bi Ie acids ..
Bile acids are·large molecular weight acids,re~ated to steroids,
which are necessary for the intestinal digestion and absorption
of"dietary fat (Casdorph,1976)'.Bile acids are produced in the
liver and in the intestines,are stored in the bile,are gener-
ally distributed where needed by mean~of the enterohepatic
circulation,and are found in small amounts in the digestive
tract (Nes and McKean,1977;Casdorph,1976;Carey,1982).Ac-
cording to Nes and McKean (1977),"there are about two dozen
47
------------------~---------------'------------------
.....
....
.....
natural representatives of bile acids,differing in the number
and position,of the nuclear hydroxyl groups and in the extent of
oxidation and degradation of the side chain.Certain bile acids
are unique to a few families and suborders,e.g.,IS and ~-muri
cholic.aci~in the Murinae,phocaecolic acid in the Pinnipedia,
and hyocholic acid in the,Suidae."Conjugates of bile acids,
known as bile salts,also occur in the digestive tracts of
vertebrates,and in mammals,certain groups tend to predominate,
wi tli omnivores "(including Ursidae)having a mixture 'of all the
.bile salt groups present in more limited degrees and kinds in
herbivores and 'carnivores (Nes and McKean,1977).The presence
of these bile salts is additionally complicated by extensive
microbial catabolism within the digestive tract,producing a
potentially vast array of fecal acidic steroids (M..C.Carey,
M.D.,Harvard·Medical School;Br:igham and,Women's Hospital,
Gastroenterology Division,75 Francis Street,Boston,Mass.
02115;1983.Personal Communication).
Exactly which fecal bile acids are produced in bears is unknown,
although there is speculation that like man,bears produce only
two primary bile acids:cholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acid
(Carey,1983,pers.comm.i).Primary bile acids are those formed!'
from cholesterol in the liver.Intestinal bacteria form secon-
,dary bile acids from primary bile acids (such as deoxycholic from
cholic and lithocholic from'chenodeoxycholic acid in man).Ter-
tiary bile acids are formed both'in the liver and by intestinal
bacteria from secondary bile acids and are comprised of their
glycine and'taurine conjugates (Carey,1982).
Thin'layer chromatography (TLC)is a fairly sensitive analytic
technique involving the phenomenon of,parti tion,the equili-
bration of a substance between two phases that are not mutually
miscible.TLC utilizes a system in which a liquid is allowed to
move by surface tension through and along a thin layer of solid
(Nes and McKean,1977).This widely used technique has been
applied by'several researchers to investigate the bile acids
48
....
....
....
present in the feces ofa number of different mammals (Roscoe and
Fahrenbach,1963;Johnson,et al.,197.9;Major,et al.,1980;.
Goodwin and Miller,1983i·Welsh and Picton,1983).There are
some limitations inherent wi thin the technique itself,however,
that must be considered when evaluating results obtained from its
use ..Reproducibility is so difficult to achieve with this tech-
.-.,.
nique that it is often used as a qualitative ~ethod only.Use of
internal standards may alter this aspect of i~,but by and large,
results obtained in one laboratory are difficult to·achieve·in
another.Factors affecting reproducibility include thickness of
the layer of sorbent on the TLC plate,moisture content 9f the
sorbent,chamber saturation,temperature,depth of developing
phase,nature of the sorbent,pH of the sorbent,·pH of the devel-
oping phase,sample size,solvent parameters,and relative humid-
i ty,to name a few.Some of·these factors may be controlled
(such a.s sorbentthickness,sample size,pH of developing phase),
others may not (chamber saturation,relative humidity,te~pera
ture).
Extraneous problems,more related to the sample itself,may also
affect reproducibi li ty.In our case,samples containing plant
pigments of one sort or another exerted a I1 masking l1 effect,and
in some cases so much so,that results were initially rendered
usel.ess.
METHODS·
SAMPLES AND TREATMENTS
Fecal samples from 22 known black bears (BLB)and from 21 known
brown bears (BRB)were used in this study.Table 1 lists the
number and types .of samples used.Brown bear scat samples were
obtained from Su-Hydro research animals or their dens,as well as
from the McNeil River viewing area.Black bear scat samples came
from study bears in the Kenai Moose Research Center area,from
Su-Hydro study bears,from hunters in Game Management Unit 14A,
49
,.
acid,cholic
acid methyl
-
~
I
-
-
and from research bears in the Fairbanks area.Bile samples from
4 BLB and 3 BRB were also obtained for use in this study.
Fecal samples were.oven dried (50~C),pulverized by hand using a
·mortar and pestle,and extracted by allowing 1.0 9 to soak for 24
hrs·.in 17 ml of 1:1 benzene-methanol.The.supernatant was
decanted,filtered through coarse filter paper,and E!vaporated.
The concentrated residue was redissolved -in 0 ..5 ml 1:1 benzene-
methanol and spotted on activated (oven:'dried,120oC for 1 hr)
glass TLC plates,using micropipettes.Sample sizes varied from
5-60p1#depending upon pigment content and initial loading
characteristics.Appendix I lists equipment and chemicals used
in this study.
Bile samples were stored frozen after removal by syringe from
gall bladders.1.0 ml of the thawed liquid bile was diluted in
17 ml 1:1 benzene-methanol#allowed to stand at room temperature...,.
for 24-hrs,filtered,and evaporated as described above.Bile
samples were redissolved in 0.5 ml benzene-methanol and applied
to TLC plates,in the same manner as the other samples.Two of
the BLB bile samples were also applied without any treatment with
solvents to p~ovide a controlled comparison.
Standards used were:-choles:terol,chenodeoxycholic
acid,lithocholic acid,deoxycholic acid,cholic
-,,",,-~:::
ester,and dehydrocholic acid.Pure standard solutions were
prepared by di ssolving 0.5 mg per ml in 1:1 benzene-methanol and'
spotting onto TLC plates.A mixed standard solution was prepared
by .di ssolving 5 mg of each standard in 10 ml 1:1 benzene-
methanol,then combining the resultant 10 ml aliquots.
Pigmentation of extracted fecal samples presented a major obsta-
cle in obtaining chromatograms with clarity and spot resolutiol.
Major et ale (1980)used activated charcoal as a solution to the
pigment problem,as did Roscoe (1963).Johnson et al.,(1979)
however,in applying Major's method to bobcat scats,found that
50
r-
I
-
1:;.1
(~
!
--
""'"
-.
.....
bile acids were removed when activated charcoal was used.Our
preliminary trials resulted in similar findings,with the added
feature of artifacts on the chromatogram when charcoal had been
used in the extraction process.
Two major types of bear fecal samples present the greatest
-~
pigmentation problem:(1)those containing primarily plant -fiber
such as grasses and sedges,and (2)tho"secontaining berries.
Four of -the -BRB samples -containing up to 100%·piant matter were
subjected to four different treatments to test for pigment
remov~l.DrieC!-and pulverized aliquots were (a)allowed to soak
in 125 ml hexane for 24 hrs,removed by vacuum filtration from
the solvent,and air dried;(b)allowed to soak in 125 ml chloro-
,)...
form -for 24 hrs,removed by vacuum filtration from "the solvent
before air drying;(c)washed over a vacuum with 125 ml hexane
and air dried or (d)washed over a vacuum with 125 ml cholorform
and air dried.All samples were then extracted and spotted on
_TLC plates as described above.
Two BLB sample aliquots having an extremely high berry content
were soaked in 25 ml pH S distilled H2 0 (pH adjusted with 1.0 N
NaOH)for 2 hrs,then washed over a vacuum with 2 L pHS H2 0.
Samples were air dried overnight-and extracted in the same
fashion as described above.
Removal of pigments from berry-laden fecal samples by soaking
followed by washing with slightly basic pH water produced satis-
factory result-so While some residual "streaking"of pigmented
material up the plate still occurred,the density of the pigmen-
tation was diminished enough to allow individual spots and
visibly different color reactions to be seen under 366 nm light.
Of the two solve:i.its tested for removal of plant pigments other
than berries,hexane was deemed the more desirable.Both soaking
in hexane and washing in hexane removed large amounts of the
typical red-orange fluorescing pigment found in the plant-laden
52
-
feces.Chloroform soaking also removed significant amounts'of
pigment~but seemed to remove bile acids as well.Hexane did not
do so to such an extent as the chloroform.Of the two treatments
(soaking or washing)with hexane,soaking seemed to remove the
most amount of interfering pigment,although with hexane as the
solvent,either treatment produced acceptable results.In the
case of chloroform as"a pigment-removing "soivent,simply washing
the fecal samples over a vacuum did not remove enough pigment to
allow satisfactory differentiation of TLC spots'or colors under
u.v.
TLC plates containing samples were allowed to develop in equili-
brated paper lined tanks c:ontaining Petcoff's solution:hexane,
methyl ethyl ketone,acetic acid 56:36:8 (V/V)(Chavez,1976).
After drying,·the plates were visualized using a fresh solution
of acetic acid:sulphuric acid:p-anisaldehyde,50:1:0.5 (V/V)
and placed in a 120 0 C oven for up to 5.minutes (Kri tchevsky et
al.,1963).Spraying the plates with the visualizing 'solution
provided inconsistent and unsatisfactory results.It was found
that dipping the plates in the fresh visualizing solution pro-
duced much higher quality chromatograms and uniformity of back-
ground.Colored spots appear against a tan-to-pink background.:
After drying,plates .were examined under room light and 366 run
u.V.light.Plates were photographed wi thin 15 minutes of
removal from visualizing solution·to provide a permanent color
record of the plates,as·they tend to fade rapidly as well as
undergo color changes with the passage of time.All photographs
were taken I using a 35 mm SLR camera fitted with a 50mm Macrolens,
and using a Wratten Gel Filter 2a mounted on a filter holder in
front of the lens.Photographs were taken at "30-,60-,and
90-second exposures at F4,using 366 run ultraviolet light onto
Kodak Ektachrome ER 135 ASA 64 film (Jackson,1965).Rf values
were calculated by measuring the distance from the origin to the
center of a given spot,then dividing this by the distance from
the origin to the so 1 vent front.
53
I
-
.-
1""'"
I
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Probably the most important aspect "to be taken into consideration
in the assessment of our results is that of sample size.As .
stated previouslYI we used fecal samples from 21 known BLB and 20
known BRB.This is in extreme contrast to the number of samples
tested by Welsh and "Picton·(1983)who 'used 2.known BLB and 2
knownBRB fecal samples I along with 2 unknowns I and with our own
earlier work (Goodwin and Miller l 1983)which utilized only 2BRB
and 3 BLB samples.Because of the larger number of known sam-
ples l we were able to look more inte~sively at variations between
individuals as well as at the potential differences between Ursus
arctos and Ursus americanus.
Visual examination of the fluorescing scat ~hromatogramsl focus-
ing on proximal Rf's and similarity of color hues l revealed no
consistent differences between scats of black bears and scats of
brown bears.InevitablYI a few individuals would exhibit pres-
ence or absence of colored spots seemingly missing or present in
a majority of samples from the same species.Eventually it
became apparent that a statistical analysis of all Rf's obtained
from all the scats analyzed would be the only reliable and
.comprehensible way to evaluate the potential differences between
the bile"acid production of the two species of·bears.To this
end l a chi square test was applied.The null hypothesis that
there was no significant difference between the scats of brown
bear and black bear could not be rejected (p=0.5125).Figures 1A
and 1B are schematic representations of the Rf values obtained on
chromatograms of four typical BRB and four BLB I respectively.Rf
values from standards mixtures are shown as well.The fact of
variability among individuals within a species is"readily appar-
ent from these figures.
Figure 2 is a schematic representation of Rf values obtained from
fecal samples which illustrate another I perhaps even more impor-
tant l source of variability in bile acid production:that which
54
-
...,
occurs within a given individual.The single fecal sample
obtained from BRB 321 was composed of two adjoining but quite
distinctly different types of-material.The scat was separated
into two parts on the basis of this difference and chromatograms
were run on each part.BRB 321A is the chromatogram obtained
from that portion of the scat which contained some hair ,a large
proportion of unidentifiable amorphous material (presumably of
animal origin given the presence of·the hair),and a small amount
of undigested·plant fibers.BRB 321B is the chromatogram from
that portion of·the scat containing primarily plant fibers.The
schematics of the chromatograms show distinct differences in Rf
values.The chromatograms themselves showed these differences as
weIl,notably in the numbers of spots detectable and the colors
displayed under ultraviolet light.BRB 321A showed '4 more spots
and more varied·color reactions than did 321B ,with spots fluo-
;-escing lavender I bright blue ,and blue green I for instance ,
under the U.V.BRB 321B exhibited mostly red-orange hues along
the entire chromatogram , a characteristic typical of fecal
samples containing high percentages of plant fiber.
Figure 2 also shows the schematic of Rf values obtained from
fecal samples removed from the den of BRB 308B (taken on 5-28-81)
and later from this same bear at its death as a capture mortality
(8-6-81)~While thes~two fecal·samples are more similar than
those of BRB 321,there remains a distinct chromatographic
difference I a verification of the variability possible within a
given individual with respect to production of bile acids and
related steroids.Color differences seen on the chromatograms
under ultraviolet light accentuated this variation.The den
sample showed a large spot at Rf=O.38 which fluoresced a bright
robin's egg blue.The death sample showed a smaller I fainter
spot at Rf=0.37 which fluoresced pale lavender.This same sample
showed a·brown spot at Rf=O.010 whic>..was not present in the den
sample I while the den sample had two pale blue spots (Rf=0.19 and
0.26)which were not vi sible in the other sample .
55
Ii ]'l ],1 l 1 I 1 J j,
'·'1
•~IfI e:s
c:::>;',c::::::>.-e:::t '
c:::=>c:=::J
C!:::)c=>c::::>c:::::::»
c:>c:=:>e::::-.c:::>0,'I c:::>
o.q ..c::::>
c:>c::>
c=>B c::>c:::>
0,&I c::::::::»c:::::>0.6.c:>c::»
<=>
',',:..C=>c:>
C>bvr~""~c:::::>c:::::>e"•••".....
c::::»'"'1.c:::>
.............
,
D·lI c=:>c:::::».C:=:>c::::::>
c:::>
<=:)
c::::>c:::::>C::>.,I c::::-c::::=>
c:::>0 ....•·..""'
,c:::::::>0 .....·._
c::::»c:::>
,c=>
0·C.1
'';\.C:::::::>.
c=>c:::>c:::::::>c:::>
e::;:,~;_.c:::>c:>,.....-
c:>C>c=>c:::>"..•
e::::::>
!.,•0:51 c::::>c:>
if;c:::>"•'toc::::»,c:::>~'1
c:::>c:::::>
'-'"
,01"r c::::.c::>c:=:>c:::»
cY c::><;:::>I 0·,1 c::::>c:=:>e::::::>
c::>c:::::::»C::::>c=>
c::::::.c::::;:).<:::b',
c:::::::>~,c::::>
~
4\31 c::::::>0.:1 c:::>..............,..
c::::>c:::>c::::>':::tI'-,C::=:>'''.
c:::>c:::>y:r c:::>c:>c:::>C:::>'l...~\:.....
c::J.c::::>C;)::.~,-:t
(c=>C:::>1:'~~:'m;,,.c:::::::.
0.2.1 e=:>02.'
"
c::>,c::::>
c:::>c:>c:>
c::::>c::::>6
<=:)~
0.,I c:::>,0.1c==>,c ••w,..T.c::::>c:::>CIl-.....
c=>c::>....':"1....c:>
.............~
c::>-.........e=:>c:>c........,...•
0 ell 0 l y ........',,,,'.lOY""""'-»-1'1
FIGURE lAo Schematic of Rf values of four typical ,brown FIGURE lB.Schematic of Rf values of four typica~
bear fecal samples and standards mixtu~e.black bear fecal samples and .standar~~mixture.
1 1 J I I \.'1 .1.,'l -i 1 1 1 i 1
I ••-c::=J
c:::»<==Jl e:;:,c:=:>....
0;"r c:::>c:=><::::JI .~
·8
c:=::>c:::::>
<::::JI ~"
0.8 1 c::::>~c::::::>c::>
".............c::::::>~c::::>c::::>::;0:1."c:::::»c=:>
0.71
c::::>I <=>I ....
<::::>c:::::>
r·.........LC:>
c::::::::::»..
Ol-e:=>
~':':;.~,.&c::::>~
c:>c:>
".
05
1
c:::>~
iJ'4-(;i'C:>~I ./
:...c:>
0'1'e:;::t
c:::>c::::::>.
1
c::::>FIGURE 2.Schematic of Rf values of .fecal
c::::>c:>c:>e:;::t samples ~ro~two individual bears.
Gst,·,j ·_...
c=:>
BLB 32lA and BLB 3218 repre~ent two
......c:::><:::>distinct pro~ions,of one scat.Portion
J~~:-;'.•C:>c:>c:::>(A)contains,halt,amorphous matter,
~,and small amounts of pl~nt fiber.
tIIla..·•••,...Portion (8)contains primarily plant,............G.a c:::>
c:::;:::>c:::>fibers..
c::>c:::>c::::>
c::>.~B~B 308B(DEN)was taken from s~ats .
0.,I (..M.I"..e·,c::::>c::::>c:::..removed from this Su-Hydro research
-::::1"c:::::>bear's den.BRB 3088 (DEATH)was a
(III.LtC....,.c:>c=::»fecal sample re~oved from the bear's
carcass at the time of its death as
o'Sf••;•••,ele 8L11 •BRB BiB a capture mortality.
"''''S1.1 a~1 •30.6 3Cll6
C't (8)'(bll..)(D ......)
~.
.".,
.~
-
-
-
~
I
-
The variation in fecal bile acids among individuals wi thin a
species,as well as the variation over time within an individual,
is not surprising.The large number of fecal acidic steroids
produced by microbial catabolism within the digestive tract would'
suggest just such a phenomenon in both cases.However,several
other factors also affect the production of fecal bile acids.
These factors have been investigated only ~to a limited extent
even in man,so any conclusions are necessarily speculative,
particularly when extrapolated to the even greater unknown
regions of,Ursine functions.The trends,however,are worth
noting,and must be taken into consideration in evaluating bile
acid production.
Age and weight,not surprisingly,seem to affect p'roduction of
fe,calbile acids (Miettenen,T .A."1973),with increasing body
weight correlat'ing positively'with an increase in fecal'bile
acids,and age correlating negatively.The third factor,and
possibly the most significant from our'standpoint,is that of
diet.The amount and kind of fiber (nutritive or non-nutritive)
and the amount and ki,nd of fats and related plant sterols present
in the diet can increase or de~rease,through various mechanisms,
the production of fecal bile acids (Nes and McKean,1977;Nair
and Kri tchevsky,1976;Grundy,1976).It would seem unlikely,
then,that the identification of closely related species based on
quci.ntifi'cation of fecal bile acids would be feasible,particu-
larly in omnivores such as the two under study here.Scat analy-
sis of both brown and black bears has demonstrated the presence
of plant matter,including'up to twelve different species of
berries,a variety of grasses,sedges,lichens,Equisetum spp,
and animal matter including moose,hare and ground squirrel,
fish,birds,and insects (Miller,1983;Miller,1984.).A pre-
dominance of one'or another in the diet would be expected to
produce differing amounts of fecal bile acids,these ,~mounts
fluctuating over time in response to the correspondent dietary
content changes.'
58
-.
-
-
....
Chromatograms obtained from bile samples were "cleaner"in terms
of numbers of compounds exhibited,and in terms of apparent
differences between species,although our sample size (3 BRB and
4 BLB)was too small to provide any significant information.
Figure 3 shows'Rf values,.schematically represented,of the bile
samples,along with those of the standards mixture.The relative
"purity"of the bile samples is to be expected:only a few bile
acids (and related steroids)are produced in the liver,compared
to the large number of possible conjugates produced by the bacte-
rial intermediaries of the gut (Carey,1983'.Pers.comm.).
Tentative identification of bi le acids in the bi le samples were
made,based on comparisons of a combination of proximal Rf values
and color .reactions under 366 nm ultraviolet light with those'
known bile acids arid steroids in the standards mixture.It must
be kept in mind.that these are in no way definite identifica-
tions;rather,they are highly subjective evaluations which may
or as well may not hold up to more rigorous chemical identifica-
tion procedures.
A blue-green spot,similar in hue to that shown by the choles-
terol standard,and at a proximal Rf (Cholesterol=0.63),appeared.i
in all three brown bear bile chromatograms (Rf's=0.63,0.63,and
0.64).One BLB sampl.e showed a spot at Rf=0.65,but it ·fluo-
reseed a pale orange,and most likely is not the same material as
those in the BRB samples.
Other differences between the bile samples remain less clear.
However,it does seem that compounds having Rf between 0.37 and
0.64 seem to be singularly lacking in BLB bile samples,while
that space on a BRB chromatogram is amply fi lled"Of the 4 BLB
biles examined,none showed spots having these Rf's,and only two
were at the edge (i.e.,.RF=O.36 aI.j 0.65),while the 3 BRB bi les
displayed a total of 9 spots in this range.Similarly,BRB bile
did not seem to have spots occurring above Rf=O.71 (with one
exception at 0.88 in one sample),.while within the 4 BLB biles,7
59
1 '}"1 1 -t i »'I j
.,....10."
l~:'.0
,
.,8.0 0 '0 0,"".'10.•
0 0
0 !-.....'0'
0 0 6 ,0 0 °.:"'11."
....1 0 10••
G 0 0 0 ~'...IUl"10.."...,.0 0.0 0~'I'''''l:.w..
•
'.......,
~..,
:'r,I 0
I)
,h,~
""1 I '10·..
i .
0 0 0
•0
0.11 0 0 0 il.i
0
;o\1::1~C.IO
0 a 0 OffJt!.r..a;
0 OCMtM04,
O.aI ""lin'':.....'
·0 0 0'0 0
0 0 ..
...11
0 8 C>dY:ili.....Io
••00 0 8 '8 "§.~•4Jfr ...
0 0 0 O~NOUC.0 0 "I"
o I j I.
&L6'",A 15&:6..,,,.&L.6 Ih·e ~~l~e1R.S elite 'l'AH04W
81'"Go-N·S 3.".t(.OO·'A"-2AtS •""1'1'1.1
aM .',
FIGURE 3.Scbe~atic of Rf values of bile samples and standards mixture.
-
-
-1
spots \occur above the 0.71 designation.In general,the BRB
biles phowed twice as many spots on the chromatograms as did the
BLB biles (BRB average=12 spots,n=3;BLB average=6 spots,n=4).
Again,!we did not presume to make absolute statements about the
identity.of steroids showing up on the bile TLC plates,noting
only s~milarities and apparent trends.
It is iunfortunate,but not surprising,that TLC analysis of the
;
bear ~ecal samples did not provide such'nice differences as did
i-
the bi.jle·samples.While we cannot unequivocally state that no
signi£lcant differences exist between the·fecal bile acid pro-f .
files lof brown bears and black bears,we do feel'that thisI.
partic?lar method of analysis,subject as it is to the artifacts
and va~aries of technique and the masking effects of·'diet coupled
with individual variation,does not provide a reliable means of
differentiating Ursus arctos from Ursus americanus.It is
entiretY possible that other solvent systems,or modifications of
the chromatographic principle (two-dimensional TLC;serial
elution;gas chromatography I etc.)may be applied in a more...
successful fashion.Certainly the specific effects of diet on
the fecal bile acid profile of bears warrant further investiga-
tions,as does the problem we initially attempted to solve.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation is expressed to Jonathan"Lewis of Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G)for his excellent laboratory assistance;
to Dennis McAllister,Larry Aumiller and Dr.Charles Schwartz
(all of ADF&G)for provision of samples;and to Dr.Sterling D.
Miller (ADF&G)for his suggestions and support.This study was
supported in part by funds from the Alaska Power Authori ty .
61
-
AP:PENDI~1.A:MANUFACTURERS OF SUPPLIES USED IN TLC STUDY
MCB MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS,INC.
P.O.Box 7203
2121 South Leo Avenue
Los Angeles,CA 90022
J.T.BAKER CHEMICAL COMPANY
Phillipsbur.g,N.J.08865
SIGMA CHEMICAL COMPANY
P.O.Box 14508
St.Louis,MO 63178
SUPELCO,INC.
Supelco Park
Bellefonte,PA 16823
SCIENTIFIC MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES (SMI)
Emeryville,CA 94608
OSTER CORPORATION
Milwaukee,Wisconsin
WHATMAN LTD.
London,England
VWR SCIENTIFIC,INC.
P.O.Box 3551
Seattle,WA 98124
W.A.HAMMOND DRIERITE COMPANY
Xenia,Ohio
62
-
-
~.
-
-
-
APPENDIX I.A:(CONTINUED)
ULTRA-VIOLET PRODUCTS,INC.
San Gabriel,California.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Rochester,N.Y.·14650
PENTAX CORPORATION
9 Inverness Drive East
Englewood,'CO 80112
E.M.SCIENCE
2909 Highland Ave ~
Cincinnati,Ohio 45212
63
.~..
APPENDIX Ie B:SUPPLIES AND SPECIFICATIONS USED IN TLC STUDY
ITEM
CHOLESTEROL
CHENODEOXYCHOLIC
ACID
CHOLIC ACID
•
LITHOCHOLIC ACID
DEOXYCHOLIC ACID
SPECIFICATIONS
1)Sigma CH-S;
Chromatography standard;
Grade 99+%
2)Supelco #4-5000
Supelco #4-6507;98%&99%
1)Sigma C-1129;from bile;
99-100%;3-7-12-trihydro
cholanic acid;cholalic acid •
2)Supelco #4-6500
1)Sigma a-6250;5S-cholinic
acid-3a-01;3a-hydroxy-5S-
cholanic acid.
2)Supelco #4-6515
1)Sigma 0-2510;Grade II;
7-deoxycholic acid.
2)Supelco #4-6504
MANUFACTURER*
*See Appendix IA
SIGMA
SUPELCO
SUPELCO
SIGMA
SUPELCO
SIGMA
SUPELCO
SIGMA·
SUPELCO
CHOLIC ACID METHYL Methyl cholate;Sigma C-3508
ESTER
SIGMA
DEHYDROCHOLIC
ACID
Sigma #0-3750
64
SIGMA
APPENDIX I.B:(CONTINUED)
DESSICATOR STORAGE Lucite;S"x9"x10"
CABINET
-
..-
I,
-
ITEM
GLACIAL ACETIC
ACID
BENZENE
2-BUTANONE
HEXANE
METHANOL
p-ANISALDEHYDE
SULFURIC ACID
CHLOROFORM
SAMPLE SPOTTING
AND QUANTITATING
TEMPLATE
SPECIFICATIONS
1)Reagent Grade,A.C.S.
tAX73-14
2)BPLC:reagent;JT 9515-3
1).Glass distilled,
omnisolv;BX212
2)HPLC reagent;JT 9149-3
Methylethyl Ketone;
OInnisolv;BX1673
BPLC reagent;Non-UV;
Omnisolv;HX298
1)Omnisolv;MX488
2)HPLC reagent;JT 9093-3
AX1525 2239
96.1%;JT 9681-3
Reagent grade;Jt 91S0-3
Lucite;20xmx20cm
65
MANUFACTURER?"·
.MCB
J.T.BAKER
MCB
J.T.BAKER
MCB
MCB
MCB
J.T.BAKER
MCB
J.T.BAKER
J.T.BAKER
SMI
SMI
APPENDIX I.B:(CONTINUED)
tilli/iI/§
-
-
-
ITEM
OSTER AIRJET
DRYER
DEVELOP~NT TANK
LINERS
FILTER PAPERS
DESSICATOR
MICROPIPETTE
ULTRAVIOLET LAMP
CAMERA....
MACROLENS
GEL FILTER
GLASS DEVELOPING
TANKS
SPECIFICATIONS
Model 202;120v,460W l
,
0.3mm Chromatography lpaper,
Medium flow rate;47~75 cm.
.
Grade 613;Coarse
Anhydrous indicating Faso4
j
1.0,2.0,5.0,and 10j.Opl;
disposable tips
1)Blak-Ray Lamp;Model
UVL-21;Long-wave'366nm;
.11Sv,0.16 amps.
2)Mineralight Lamp;Model
UvSL-2S;Multi-band Uv-254/
366nm;115v,O.16 amps.
35mm;Pentax Spotmatic;
Single Lens Reflex
50mm;F4;Takumar
Wratten 2A;75x75mm
approx.7x26x28 cm;
glass lids
66
MANUFACTURER*
-OSTER
WHATMAN
VWR
DRIERITE
SUPELCO
.ULTRA-VIOLET
PRODUCTS
ULTRA-VIOLET
PRODUCTS
PENTAX
ASAHI/PENTAX
EASTMAN KODAK
VWR
APPENDIX I.B:(CONTINUED)
-
-
-
......
I
-
ITEM
TLC PLATES
SPECIFICATIONS
Pre coated glass;Silica Gel
60rum pore diameter;0.25mm
layer;fluorescence indicator;
20 x 20 cm.
67
MANUFACTURER*
,E.M REAGENTS
Carey,M.C.
In:The
Popper,D.
New York.-
,....
LITERATURE CITED
Casdorph,H.R.1976.Cholestyramine and ion-exchange resins.
p.221-2SS IN:Medicinal Chemistry,Vol.III Lipid Pharma-
cology;R.Paoletti and C.J.Glueck,Eds.,Academic Press,
New York.
1982.The Enterohepatic Circulation.Chapt.27
Liver:Biology.and Pathobiology;I.'Arias,H.
-.
Schacter,and D.A.Shafritz,Eds.Raven Press,
"
Chavez,M.N.and C.I.Krone.1976.
chromatography of conjugated and
Res.17:54S~S47.
Silicic'acid thin layer
free bile acids.J.Lipid
.-
i
.....
Goodwin,E.and S.Miller.1983.Preliminary results testing
technique to chemically differentiate between scats of black
and brown bear.Appendix 6.in:Susi tna Hydroelectric
Project.Phase I Final Report,Big Game Studies,Volume VI
Black B'ear and Brown Bear.
Grundy,S.M.1976.-Dietary and drug regulation of cholesterol
metabolism in man.p.127-1SS"in:Medicinal Chemistry
Volume III Lipid Pharmacology;R.Paoletti and C.J.Glueck,
Eds.Academic Press,N.Y.
Haslewood,G.A.D.1967.Bile Salts.Methuen and Co.Ltd.,
London.116pp.
Jackson,R.1965.Color recording of ultraviolet fluorescence
in thin-layer chromatoqrams.J.Chromatog.20:410-413.
Kri.tchevsky,D.,D.S.Martak,and G.·H.Rothblat.1963.
Detection of ,bile acids in thin-layer chromatography.Anal.
Biochem.S:338-392 .
68
-
-
LITERATURE CITED (CONTINUED)
Johnson I M.K.I D.R.Aldred l E.W.Clinite l and M.J.Kutilek ..
1979.-Biochemical identification of bobcat scats.In:
Bobcat Research Conference Proceedings I Current Research on
Biology and Management of Lynx rufus.October 16-18 1 1979.
National Wildlife"Federation Scientific and Technical Series
5 .
.....
Maj or I M.I M.K.Johnson I and W.s.
scats by·recovery of bile acids.
1980.
Davis.1980.Identifying
J.Wildl.Manage.44(1):
Miettineri l T.A.1975.Methods for evaluation of hypolipidemic
drugs in man:mechanisms of their action.p.83-125 In:
Medicinal ChemistrYI Volume III Lipid PharmacologYi R.
Paoletti and C.J.Glueck l Eds.1 Academic Press l N.Y.
Miller IS.1982.
Report I Big
Bear.233pp.
Susi tna Hydroelectric Proj ect.Phase I Final
Game Studies l Volume VI Black Bear and Brown
Miller l S.1983.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Phase II
Progress Report I -Big Game Studies l Volume VI Black Bear and
BroWn Bear.99pp.
Miller l S.1984.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Phase II
Progress Report l Big Game Studies l Volume VI Black Bear and
.Brown Bear.
-
Nai r IP •P.and D..Kri tchevsky.1916.
Chemistry I-Phy,:dology and Metabolism.
physiology.p.191-198.
69
The Bile
Vol.3:
Acids.
Patho-
-
-
-
.-
LITERATURE CITED (CONTINUED)
New,W.R.and M.L.McKean.1977.Biochemistry of Steroids and
other Isopentenoids.Univ.Park Press,Baltimore.690pp.
Roscoe,H.G.·and M.J.Fahrenbach.1963,;Removal of fecal
-.
pigments and its application to the·determination of fecal
bile acids in the rat.Anal.Biochern.6-:520-529.
Welsh,C.J.and H.D.Picton.1983.11n investigation of
Grizzly and Black Bear scat separation using bile acids.
I:rl.:Final Report to the National Park Service,Order No.Px
1200-3-G423.
70
J J I 1 j J J 1 1 ]1
Table 1.(continued)SMIL07
SM-1
sex Caeture
DiteTattooAgeWf.Frequency Serial #Ear Tags COlllllents
293#M 4.8 --8/6/81 150.710 1115/1116 collar replaced,r~aptured 5/18/83
(294#)M 11.8 --8/6/81 15~.841 .----recapture aorta11ty
347 M 14.8 500*8/6/81 --1234/1233 collar shed 9/81
342A#M 3.5 250*5/25/82 150.871 1228/1227 collar replaced
(373)M 9.5 450*6/11/82 (150.022)..---no tattoo,w/G283 (F),collar shed 6/83
282#M 6.5 350*6/11/82 150.741 529/1643 recapture of nrked bear
379 F 5.5 300*6/11/82 150.102 1595/1585 w/2@C,Downstream study
(380)F 15.5 275*6/12/82 (153.809).H,sfi8/53U ...,....y.I~@l,..J!Qt...~~p.ty~~.....~b.Qt;.J~/Q~.............................................-...
381 F 3.5 200*6/12/82 151.513 533/1592 alone
313#F 12.5 300*5/14/83 153.890 6259 same w/2@1
382 M 1.5 66 5/14/83 148.110 (lap)12546 2135/2134 w/313 and 383
(383)F 1.5 53 5/14/83 (148.070)nap)12542 (2490/2491)w/313 and 382,died unknown causes
283#F 15.5 --5/14/83 152.550 :6340 same w/eub #3
(003)F 0.5 --5/14/83 (151.430)1024 (1360/1359)w/283,special cub collar,no tattoo,cub eaten.
337#F 15.5 --5/14/83 152.720 6309 same w/385@2 .
385 F 2.5 60 5/14/83 3.42-8.14 (Imp)15210-12548 1695/1694 w/337,breakaway 58 collar
312#F 13.5 350*5/14/83 152.572 .6342 1299/1300 w/386@2
386 M 2.5 200*5/14/83 3.47-8.10 (Imp)15212-12545 (Imp)2146/2141 w/312,breakway 58 collar
344#F 7.5 325*5/14/83 150.891 10445 .same w/2@0,not captured
335#F 5.5 --5/14/83 -- --
same no radio in chopper .
335#F 5.5 236 5/16/83 150.220 15276 .same alone,one year added'to •81 age based on •83 tooth....388 F 14.5 450*5/14/83 153.070 6988 2478/2477 w/388 and 389@2
'"389 M 2.5 135 5/14/83 3.53-8.09 (Imp)15214-12544 2170/2171 w/388 and 390,breakaway 58 collar
390 M 2.5 125*5/14/83 3.46-8.08 (Imp)15211-12543 2148/2147 w/388 and 389,breakaway 58 co11ar-l\lhed
340#F 5.5 250*5/15/83 ~2.510 ~5 same --
384 F 12.5 300*5/15/83 150.300 15279 2499/2500 w/391,392,393@2
391 M 2.5 140*5/15/83 153.490 15213 2078/2079 w/384 et a1.,breakaway 58 collar
392 M 2.5 140*5/15/83 152.971 15246 2111/2110 w/384 et al.,breakaway 48 collar
393 F 2.5 105 5/15/83 152.991 15247 1589/1598 w/384 et a1.,!lreakaway 48 collar
293#M 6.5 439 5/15/83 152.930 15291 same --394 F 6.5 250*5/15/83 150.270 15277 1693/1692 w/cub #4
(004)F 0.5 10 5/15/83 --~--(1358/1357)w/394-chewed on,no tattoo,died 'later
(395)F 3.5 175*5/15/83 (152.910).'.(15289)(241572416)alone,regular 68 collar,shot 9/4/83
281#F 6.5 325*5/15/83 152.480 15284 same w/2@0 (#5 and #6)
(005)M 0.5 8.5 5/15/83 (151.422)(1023)(1350/134)w/281,expandable cub collar,no tattoo,eaten
(006)F 0.5 8.3 5/15/83 (151.460)('102'6)(134611345)w/281,expandable cub collar,no tattoo,eaten
280#M 8.5 482 5/16/83 152.920 1'5En same --
396 F 13.5 274 5/16/83 150.470 14885 1685/1684 w/2@2 (397,398)
397 F 2.5 132 5/16/83 ----2493/2492 w/396
398 F 2.5 135*5/16/83 -- --
.2105/2104 w/396
399 M·9.5 600*5/17/83 150.290 15278 2087/2108
400 M 20.5 542 5/17/83 150.350 15281 2132/2133
299#F 16.5 275*5/18/83 150.480 15283 same w/3@0 (007,008,009),darted in den
007 M 0.5 13*5/18/83 (151.430)1024 1347/1348 w/G299,special cub collar,no tattoo,shed 10/83
008 M 0.5 13*5/18/83 151.440 TO'2'5 1342/1343,w/G299,special cub co11~r,no tattoo
009 M 0.5 13*5/18/83 (151.410)1022 536/535 w/G299,special cub collar,no tattoo,shed 7/83
279#M 12.5 700*5/18/83 150.590 mJ9 1653/1100 recapture,previous shed collar
315#F 5.5 203 5/18/83 152.900 15288 same estrus,alone,just marked preViously
403 F 6.5 275*5/18/83 150.180 15275 1564/1565 w/2@O,not captured,Downstream
407 F 4.5 220*5/19/83 150.680 2905 2401/1543 alone
*Weight estimated,()indicates shed collar or dead bear,#recapture,-collar or mark replaced subsequently,
Last tattoo =411.last cub =#15.
Table 2.(continued)GAME02
1 .~-l ~~-J~-~J -)---I i --1 --J 1 ]--15M-]
Capture
Tattoo Sex Age W£.bate Frequencl Ser1al I Ear Tags Co.ents
362 F 2.5*40*5/27/82 --5031504 no tattoo'
363 F 4.5 120·5/27/82 (1SO.100)505/1593
364 F 9.5 170*5/27/82 (150.060)521/1591 m1ss1ng s1nceSept.182
(365)M 5.5 100*5/28/82 (1SO.502)52311626 do~tream study,see 3/83 recapture-collar loosened,d1ed 9/83
(366)M 6.5 200*5/28/82 (150.891)538/1627 downstream study,shot on 8/5/82 .
(367)F 4.5 100*5/28/82 (152.870)illlls19 downstream study,shot,see belov ~4/16/83 recapture
(368)F 3.5 110*5/28/82 ~-capture mortal1ty,downstream study
369 F 4.5 90*5/28/82 (152.603)527/1578 downstream study"age based on 183 tootb
370 F 7.5 220*5/28/82 152.030 528/1577 downstream study
(371)M 2.5 150*5/28/82 ~---capture mortality,downstream study_
372 F 9.5 135*5/28/82 153.860 537/1576 downstream study
(374)F 7.5 125*6/11/82 (152.680)(530/1584)v/l@l,downstream study,recaptured 5/19/83,shot 9/83,aged +1 (183)
375 F 9.5 160*6/11/82 153.871 50171630 v/3@1,downstream study,recaptured 5/19/83,age changed (+4)
376 F 6.5 125*6/11182 150.080 531/1587 v/l@l,downstream study,see 9/2/82 recapture
377 F 4.5 126 6/11/82 150.721 509/1659 downstream study,recaptured 5/19/83,age changed (~1)
378 F 6.5 175*6/11182 150.031 510/1628 downstream study
376#2 F 6.7 160·9/2/82 150.080 530/1584 recapture,slough 88,snare
301#2 F 10.3 135 3/20/83 153.820 6298 sue v/2(?JJ,recapture 1n den,collar shed 7/83
317#2 F 10.3 --3/23/83 152.521 6338'1547/1196 v/2(?JJ,recapture 1n den
(318#2)F 8.3 --3/23/83 (152.661)(6351)sue w/2@O,recapture in den,shed 7/83
323#2 M 5.3 --3/21/83 153.000 626"1696/1650 recapture 1n den
324#2 M 8.3 --3/22/83 153.450 6443 1661/1251 recapture 1n den
329#3 F 3.3 56 3/22/83 same sue sue recapture in den,old collar loosened......(327#2)F 8.3 --3/23/83 (153.180)(6416)sue v/2@O,recapture 1n den,died summer 1983
0&:>0 346#2 M 11.3 --3/21/83 150.530 12449 same recapture in den
(349#2)F 6.3 --3/22/83 (153.480)(6446)sue v/2@O,recapture 1n den,sbed 7/83
361#2 F 8.3 --3/21/83 153.841 6305 sue v/4@O,'recapture in den
(365#2)M 6.3 --3/23/83 (same)(same)same recapture 1n den,collar l09Sened,d1ed 9/83
(379)F 9.3 3/24/83 (153.510)(6449)none v/3@O,captured in den 119,d1ed 7/83
369#2 F 5.3 --4/14/83 sue same sue collar loosened 1n den,no cubs
372#2 F 10.3 --4/15/83 same same sue w/3@O,collar loosened in den
376#3 F 6.3 --4/16/83 sue same same v/3@0,collar okay 1n den
370#2 F 8.3 --4/16/83 same same same v/2@O,collar loosened in den
(367#2)F 5.3 --4/16/83 (same)(same)same collar loosened 1n den,no cubs,shot July 1983
378#2 F 7.3 --4/16/83 same same same w/2@O (not sexed or ve1ghed),collar okay,1n den
387 M 4.5 175*5/14/83 153.831 6288 2126/2127 --321#2 F 13.5 115 5/15/83 152.830 15286 same had cubs (n=I'),not captured -.
343#2 M 7.5 225*5/16/83 152.850 15287 same --401 -M 3.5 96 5/18/83 150.330 15280 2103/2102
402 F 10.5 130 5/18/83 150.190 3616 2373/2372 v/3@1,not captured,Downstream study
375#2 F 10.5 --5/19/83 same same same v/l@O,not captured,old collar loosened,age changed +4 (183 tooth)
(374#2)F 8.5 120*5/19/83 (same)(same)(sue)v/3@0,all captured,old collar loosened,shot 9/83,aged +1
010 F 0.5 --5/19/83 ..---1351/1352 v/374,no tattoo
011 F 0.5 --5/19/83 ----1354/1353 v/374,no tattoo
012 F 0.5 --5/19/83 ----135611355 v/374,no tattoo
377#2 F 5.5 --5/19/83 150.450 15282 sue alone,collar replaced,neck infected,age changed'-1 (183 tooth)
404 F 11.5 135*5/19/83 150.090 15272 2449/2450 v/l@O,captured,Downstream stUdy
013 F 0.5 10 5/19/83 ----2449/2450 no tattoo,v/404,Downstream study
405 . F 17.5 180*5/19/83 150.111 6314 2418/2417 H/2@O,both captured,Downstreu study
014 F 0.5 6.5 5/19/83 ----1364/1366 v/405,Downstream study,no tattoo
015 F 0.5 6.0 5/19/83 ----1365/1366 v/405,Downstream study,no tattoo
4n6 F 11.5 125*5/19/83 150.160 15273 2444/2445 v/2@O,not captured,Downstream study
408 M 3.5 160*5/19/83 150.170 15274 2119/2120 alone,Downstream study409F5.5 90*5/19/83 150.142 6310 1527/1526 alone,Downstream.study
(410)F 7.5 120*5/19/83 (152.980)(6262)(1536/1537)w/2@O,not captured,Downstream study,shot 7/19183
411 F 8.5 130*5/19/83 150.130 0107 1548/1549 w/2@1,not captured,Downstreu stud
*Weigh~or age estimated,0 shed coflar or dead bear,#recapture,_sUbsequently changed,Last Tattoo =411,las
SMUll
SM-15
Table 3. Number of brown bear pQint locations, 1980-1983 Su-Hydro studies.
-
1980 1981 1982 1983 1980-1983
Number of observations
of marked bears 144 401 328 576 1449
Number of radio-marked
. bears with 5 locations 11 17 19 34
Number of observations of -unmarked bears (ID=99) 23 33 55 26 137
Number of observations by
month of marked bears (%)
Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 1 (1) 0 5(2) 20(3) 26(2)
April 9(6) 17(4) 7 (2) 8(1) 41(3)
May 32(22) 111 (28) 36(11) 110(19) 289(20)
June 24 (17) 105(26) 98(30) 133(23) 360(25)
July 26 (18) 41 (10) 47 (14) 64(11) 178(12)
August 27 (19) 41(10) 62(19) 105(18) 235 (16)
September 9(6) 56(14) 38 (12) 96 (17) 199 (14)
October 16(1l) 30(7) 35 (11) 40(7) 121(8)
75.
SHILll
SM-15
Table 4.Number of black bear point locations,1980-1983 Su-Hydro studies.'
1980 1981 1982 1983 1980-1983
Number of observations
of marked bears 212 421 603 614 1850
Number of radio-marked
bears with 5 locations 20 23 35 39
Number of observations of
unmarked bears (ID-99)48 54 69 43 214
.-Number of observations of
marked bears by month (%)
Jan';"Mar,Nov-Dec 1(0)6(1)6(1)21(5)45(2)
April 0 7(2)6(1)0 13(1)
.....May 47 (22)98(23)59(10)104(17)308(17)
June 28(13)102(24)167 (28)162(26)459(25)
July 26(12)57(14)94(16)75 (12)252(14)
August 66 (31)66(16)134(22)114(19)380(21)
September 31(15)75(18)87 (14)83 (14)276(15)
F'"'"October 13(6)10(2)50(8)44(7)117(6)
'.
.-
I
-
76------------------@-"------------------------
·~
""".'I\'(See Table 5 in Miller 1983,p ..22)..**bear occurs in the downstream study area..
.....
-
77
SMIL10
SM-1
Table 6.Predicted spring 1984 reproductive status of radio-collared fema1~brown bears.
..-
-
-
....
ID
281
283
394
312
337
384
388
396
315
335
340
381
407**
299
344
313
385
393 (missing?)
Predicted
1984 status
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
3 JIgs
1 JIg
1 ylg
,,/1@2
w/l@2
barren
barren
Comments
lost '83 Utter(2)in May
lost '83 l1tter(l)in May,bred
lost '83 litter (1-)in May,bred
weaned 1@2 in"83,bred
weaned.l@2 in '83,bred
weaned.3@2 in '83,bred
weaned.2@2in '83,bred
weaned 2@2 in '83,bred
first Utter?
first litter
first litter,bred in '83
first litter
aloue in '83,first litter?
bad cubs in '83
bad cubs in '83
bad cubs in '83·
with 1@1 in 183
vith rIgs in '83
weaned.from G337 in '83
weaned from G384 in '83
Observed
1984 status -.
NA .
NA
NA
NA
~A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.....
.....,
**bear occurs in tbe d~stream study area
78
1 J
Table 7.Summary of Nelchina Basin brown bear litter size data (based on spring
observations of radio-collared bears).
Part 1.Litters of newborn cubs
Usable
BEAR ID(year-age)LITTER SIZE (year)COMMENTS__________SUmmary_
&n ...J09
SM-l
I~
207 (1~78.11)
213 (1978.10)
231(1979.13)
206(1978.13)
313 (1981.10)
313(1982.11)
312(1981.11)
283 (1981.13)
283(1983.15)
337 (1981.13)
3(1978)
2(1979)
3(1979)
3(1979)
1 (1981)
2(1982)
2(1981)
2(1981)
1(1983)
3(1981)
When last seen on 10/7/78 had all 3 cubs
on 5/31/79 had only one yearling which',
stayed with her until last observation
on 9/12/79
lost apparent yearling due to 1978 capture.
had newborns when transplanted in 1979.
lost these 8-16 days after release,bear
apparently died in study area after return
Turgid in 1978.bred.lost 2 of 3 cubs
by 11 June 1979.survivor lived at least
until last observation on 3 August 1979
(no exit data in 1980)
lactating female with male in 1978,during
last observation prior to shedding collar
the cubs were not seen but undergrowth was
thick (6/17/79)
bear had a 2-y offspring in 1980,lost,
cub (possible capture-related)
both survived
had a 2-year old in 1980.lost 1 cub
by 6/18.other weaned in 1983
weaned 2 at 2 in 1980.lost 1 cub by 9/1
other'lost as yearling
killed by brown bear by 5/17/83.cub was
collared
cubs and female reunited.1 cub lost in
81/82 den.other 2 survived to exit (1
____~_.'I nn,."_.....'1.___1 _.~....._ ___1 _'\
2 of 3'lost
none-transplant
bias
2 of 3 lost
none
•
1 of 1 lost
(capture related?)
o of 2 lost
1 of 2 lost
1 of 2 lost
1 of 1 lost
1 of ~lost"
J ...1 1 I .1 )1 J 1 1 !bl."u.J09
SM-l
Table 7.Part 1.(cont'd)
BEAR ID(year-age)LITTER SIZ!{year)CO~NT~Summary
coo
344(1981.5)
344(1983.7)
379 (1982.5)
341 (1981,6)
299 (1980.13)
G299(1983.16)
281(1983.6)
G394(1983.6)
G403.(1983.6)
Summary
2(1981)
2(1983)
2(1982)
2(1982)
1(1982)
3(1983)
2 (1983)
1(1983)
2 (1983)
both lost in '82 as yearlings
lost 1 in early July -other survived,
both s~rvived
survived'until 7/15/82 when bear
was lost
bear weaned 2 @ 2 in 1981,cub
lost by 6/9/82 .
all cubs collared,alive thru Oct •.
both killed by brown'bear by 6/1/83.
cubs collared
,lost (capture related?)by 5/1~.bred
may have lost 1 in.Sept.
o of 2 lost·
1 of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
none
1 of 1 lost
o of'3 lost
.2 of 2 lost
1 of 1 lost
'(capture related?)
.1 of 2 lost
No.of cubs
39
No.of litters
19
mean litter size (range)
2.05 (1-3)
15 9f 32 cubs lost in first year of life
.'(20£these pQssib1y capture related)
1 _I ]1 1 1 i i J I ]1 Sru-J.ob 9
SM-1
Table 7.Part 2.(litters of yearlings)
BEAR ID(year-age)LITTER SIZE (year)COMMENTS __
d
SUnmtary
(X)....
220(1978,5)
221(1978,8)
234(1978,5)
240(1979,5)
244(1979,6)
251(1979,10)
254(1979,9)
261(1979,7)
269(1979,16)
.1(1978)
2(1978)
2(1978)
2(1979)
1 (1979)
2(1979)
2(1979)
2(1979)
2(1979)
ylg entered den and w~s weaned in 1979,bred
survived,weaned in 1979
Paxson dump bear,lost apparent .ylgs
between 6/23/78 ,nd 8/4/78,reportedly
had cubs in August 1979,radio failed
bear transplanted with ylgs,not known
if ylgs,survived,to return to expt.
area,bear was alone on 7/18/80
thin female transplanted with ylg,
ylg.survived at least 21 days,female
bred,but alone in July and August 1980
very large yearlings lost 10-17 days
after transplant,bear had no cubs in 1980
(August)
female died after transplant (ylgs??),
lost 1 ylg between 1 and 7 days after
transplant,other survived at least until
Sept.,didn't return to study area
transplanted,returned to study area with
female,no cubs on 9/29/80,shot in fall
1981 reportedly without cubs
o of 1 lost
o of 2 lost
none
none
none-transplant
bias
none,transplant
bias
none
none-transplant
bias
none,transplant
bias
274(1979,11)1 (1979)transplanted,no radio none
207(1978,11)1(1979)survived until 9/12/79 o of llost
231(1978,12)1(1979)survived until 8/79 none
213(1978,10)1(1978)apparent ylg was not captured,had 1 of 1 l~~t'
cubs following year (capturerela~ed?)
J I I 1 ~·········1 1 }I I ]I 1 81&......J9
SM-l
Table 7.Part 2.(cont'd)
BEAR ID(year-age)LITTER SIZE (year)COMMENTS Summary
277(1980,10)2(1980)ylgs.visually aged.not captured.survived
to enter den.no 'exit data as bear shed
collar in den
o of 2 lost
299 (1980,13)
312(1982,12)
283 (1982,14)
337(1982,14)
380(1982,15)
344(1982,6)
313 (1983,12)
379(1983,6)
Summary
2(1980)both survived.weaned next year o of 2 lost
1 (1982)survived.weaned next year o of 1 lost
1(1982)lost by 5/18/82 1 of 1 lost
2(1982)lost 1 by 6/17/82.other survived 1 of 2 lost
2(1982)both survived to den entrance,at o of 2 lost
least 1 exited den and was weaned
2(1982)lost 1 by 6/17,other'by 7/26/82 2 of 2 lost
2(1983)lost 1 (surgery related?)by 6/2/83.o of 1 lost
,other survived thru Oct.
2(1983)lost 1 in June-Sept.period 1 of 2 lost
No.of yearlings
36
No.litters
22
mean litter si~e (range)
1.64 (1-2)6 of 20'lost
I -J--J J 1 1 -1 I J .----I 1 LA~Jo9
SM-l
Table 7.Part 3.(litters of 2-year old offspring)
BEAR ID(year-age)LITTER SIZE (year)COMMENTS
weaned by 6/19/78.bred
I
weaned in mid-June.bred,~ew litter next year
weaned right after capture in May.new litter
in 1981
weaned by 6/13.bred
weaned by May.bred.new litter in 1981
weaned by 6/17.bred
weaned in 5/81.new litter in 1982'
weaned by 5/15.bred
weaned by 6/13.one of these 3 may not have been '
part of this litter.bred
weaned-by 6/.13.bred
weaned by 6/1.bred
weaned by 6/15.bred.no cubs in 1982.
died in 1982 (reason?)
Summary
No.of 2-year olds
24
No.of litters
14
Mean litter size(range)
1.7(1-3)
~I 1 i -]1 J 1 ]1 J 1 1 ]1 I i8M:..........:;
8M-1
Table 8.Brown bear offspring survivorship and weaning,GMU 13 studies.(~cludes.bears tra.nsplantedi'n 1979).
MOTHER'S ID (ageJ.!!year when first captured)
y'!a!_G207 (ll in 1978)~~20(5'in 1978)G:i211a-In 1978)G204(7 in_~78)G321(12 in 1978)
1978 3 cubs,April-Oct.1 y1g.,May-Oct.2 ylgs.,May-Oct.2 @ 2 in May,weaned
in June and bred
bred
1979
1980
1 ylg.,May-Sept.
2 ylgs.,lost in
78/79 den?)
no data
1 @ 2,weaned in
June
no data.
2 @ 2 weaned
in May,
radio failure
no data
no data
no data
2 of 3 cubs lost
in June,1
survived
April-Sept.
no data
MOTHER'S
year G299 (13 in 1980)G312(lO~~1980)
ear when first captured)
1980l G283(13 ,in 1980)G277(10 in 19801
1980
1981
1982
1983
October
2 of 2 ylgs.
survived
May-Oct.
weaned 2 @ 2 in
May and bred
lost 1 of 1 @ 0
in June
3 @ 0 survived
(all marked in
dens,nos.7-9)
.weaned 1 @ 2 in
May breeding
not observed
1 of 2 cubs lost
in June,other
survived May-
Oct.
yearling
survived
weaned 1 @ 2 in
June,bred,off-
spring=G385,
transmitted
weaned 1 @ 2 in
May,bred
1 @ 0 lost in
May (?capture
related?)
2 @ 0 survived
1 @ 1 lost in
June (trans-
mitted inter-
nally),sibling
382 alive thru
October).
weaned 2 @ 2 in
June,bred
1 of 2 cubs lost
in Aug.,other
survived
lost 1 @ 1 in
May,bred
lost 1 @ 0 in
May,bred.
lost cub had
transmitter
2 @ 1 survived April
thru August,collar
shed in den
no data
no data
no data
1 1 1 ••1 1 "j -1 I )J Sn......b9
SM-l
Table 8.(cont'd)
MOTHER'S ID (age in ~ear when first captured)
year «;331(6 :l.n 1981)_G:):)400 in 1981)G337(l3 in"198T)---C344(5 in 1981)G344(6 in 1981)
OJ
U1
1981 .
1982
1983
(thru
Oct.)
2 @ 2 weaned in
May.bred
no cubs.bred.
died in July
(reason?)
weaned 1 @ 2 in
May,bred,bear
missing since
Sept.
no data·
no dat~
lost 1 @0 in
winter den,2
survived
lost 1 @1 in
June other
survived
weaned 1 @2 in
[had May.bred
2 @ 0 survived
lost 1 @1 in May,
lost other in
early July
2 @ 0,lost 1
by late June.
other survived
alone.bred in May
had 2 @ 0 thru July.
bear missing sub-
sequently
no data·
year G379(S in 1982)
!f.91!!I!:It'S ID (age in year when first captured)
'G380(S in 1982)G384(l2 ·in 1983)G388(l4in 1983)G394(6 in 1983)
1982
1983
(thru
Oct.)
2 @0 survived
2@ 1.think
lost 1 (June-
Sept.)
2 @ 1 survived
until denning.
one may have
died in den
at least.1 @ 2
weaned in May.
possibly both.
shot in Sept.
no data
weaned 2 or
3 @2 in June.
bred
no'data no data
weaned 2 @ 2.lost 1 @0 in May
bred (?capture related
possible?).bred
year
1983
(thru
Oct.)
G396(l3 in 1983
wean~d 2 @ 2 in
May.bred
MOTHER'S ID (age in year when firs~~~ptured)
G403(6 in 1983)
2 @ 0 thru Aug.
May have lost
1 in Sept.
SMILIO
SM-l
Table 9.SUIIIIIIIlIY of known losses from brown bear litters of cubs and yearlings.Losses dated from ...
emergence 111 year indicated to emergence the following year.
-
,....
Year of emergence
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983 (thru Oct.)
TO'rALS:
Excludinq possible
capture-related deaths
and incomplete data:
losses of cubs
2 of 3 lost (G207)
2 of 3 lost (231#)
no data
4**of 10 lost IG~12,G313,.G283,
G337,G344)
1***of 5 lost (G299,G313,G379)
6'of 11 lost (G283,G344,G299,
G281, G394,G403)
15 of 32 lost =47'
11 of 27 lost =41\
losses of yearlings
o of 3 lost (G22l,G220)·
o of 1 lost (G207##)
o of 4 lost (G299,G277*)
no data
4 of 8 lost IG3l2,G283, G337,
G344,G380****)
2 of 4 lost IG379,G3l311 )
6 of 20 lost =30%
5 of 15 lost =.33\
#last observation on 8/3/79
##last Observation on 9/12/79
*G277 shed collar in den so family status in spring 1981 was not determined,assumed 2 offspring were
alive at emergence in 1981.
**One lost cub may have been capture-related lfrom litter of 1 with G313).
***From litter of one with G299 lbears not handled).
****G380 had 2 yearlings tbru den entrance in 1982,onli one was verified wi.th her in spring 1983 but
both were counted as surviving.
One lost cub may have bben ~apture-related lfrom litter of 1 with G3941.
r ,One of G3l3's yearlings died within 1 month of surger:r to install intemal transmitter lother
survived),assumed this death was not surgery-related.
86
SMIL09
SM-l
....
Table 10.Morphometries of brown bear cubs-of-the-year handled in GMU 13,
1978-1983 .
CUB MOTHER'S
ID ID
DATE
HANDLED SEX WT(lbs)COMMENTS
003 G283
004 G394
G336 G313
005 G281
006 G281
see Spraker,et al.(1981)
cub abandoned?,ear tagged
collared
collared·
neck=23Omm,ear tagged
transplanted,see Ballard
et a1.(1980)
collared
·ear tagged
ear tagged
8.5
8.3
10.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
13.0
F
F
Mover 10.0 neck-225mm,collared
Mover 10.0 neck-245mm,collared
Mover 10.0 neck-225mm,collared
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
M
6 May 1981
6 May 1981
6 May'1981
14 May 1983
15 May 1983
15 May 1983
15 May 1983
18 May 1983 (den)
18 May 1983 (den)
18 May 1983 (den)
22 May 1979
22 May 1979
27 May 1978
27 May 1978
G213
G213
G207
G207
G338 G283
G339 G283
001
002
007 G299
008 G299
009 G299
I'-
!
..,..
-
Totals:8 males and 6 females
87
SMIL09
SM-l
r-
Table 11.Morphometries of brown bear yearlings handled in GMU 13,.1978-1983
YLG MOTHER'S DATE
ID ID HANDLED SEX WT(lbs)COMMENTS
G297 G399 4 May 1980 M 65 ~tagged
G298 G399 4 May 1980 M 65 .tagged
G382 G313 14 May 1983 M 66 :iinplant transmitter
G383 G313.14 May 1983 F 53 implant transmitter
G238 G240 23 May 1979 M 95 transplanted,see
~G239 G240 23 May 1979 F 65 Ballard et ale 1980
G245 G244 24 May 1979 F 46 transplanted,op cit.
G252 G251 27 May 1979 M 134 transplanted,op cit.
G253 G251 27 May 1979 M 139
~
G256 G254 27 May 1979 M 47 transplanted,op cit.
G257 G254 27 May 1979 M 47
G262 G261 2 June 1979 M 90 transplanted,op cit.
G263 G261 2 June 1979 M 87
F G270 G269 6 June 1979 F 100 transplanted,op cit.
G271 G269 6 June 1979 F 95
~G275 G274 7 June 1979 M 68 transplanted,op cit.
i
G232 G234 23 J~ne 1978 F 100(est.)Spraker,et al.(1981)
G235 G234 23 June 1978 F'100(est.)
~
Totals:11 males and 7 females
88
])1 )I .-1 'J 1 i 1 ~.kIL(,~1
SM;...l
Table 12.Brown bear harvests in the Su-Hydro study area (Figure 1).Includes DLP kills.
SPRING SEASON FALL SEASON
Total %males Mean age(n)range Total %males Mean age(n)range
MALE HARVESTS
Year
1970 -4 80 5.3(4)2.8-9.8
1971 -4 27 3.3(4)1.8-5.8
1972 -6 67 8.0(6)3.8-17 .8
1973 -4 100 4~3(4)1.8-5.8
1974 -12 55 .6.4(11)1.8-16.8
1975 -18 53 7.4(16)2.8-14.8
1976 -10 42 7.3(10)1.8-21.8
1977 -13 100 7.0(13)1.8-23.8
1978 -21 48 5~2(16)1.8-14.8
1979 -19 58 6.7(15)1.8-14.8
1980 5 71 7.8(5)2.4-17.4 '12 57 3.8(11)1.8-6·.8
1981 7 78 5.1(7)2.4-7.4 22 65 5.3(21)0.8-25.8
1982 6 67 6.4(6)3.4-12.4 (20 61 3.7(20)1.8-8.8en
\D
'74-'76 -40 50 7.1(37)1.8-21.8
'77-79 -53 66 6.2(44)1.8-23.8
'80-'82 18 72 6.3(18)'2.4-17 .4 54 61 4.3(52)0.8-25.8
FEMALE HARVESTS
1970 1 6.8(1)·•-
1971 -11 8.4'(11)1.8-15.8
1972 -3 4.1(3)3.8-4.8
1973 -0
1974 -10 7.4(8)1.8-12.8
1975 -16 :7.6(16)1.8-13.8
1976 -14 4.6(13)1.8-10.8
1977 -0
1978 .-13 6.1(12)2.8-11.8
1979 -14 6.5 (10)1.8-16.8
1980 2 5.4(2)3.4-7.4 9 4.8(6)2.8-11.8
1981 2 3.4(2)2.4-4.4 12 6.5 (11)2.8-20.8
1982 3 6.1(3)3.4-8.4 13 7.6(12)1.8-14.8
'74-'76 -40 6.5 (37).1.8-13+8
'77-'79 -27 6.3(22)1.8-16~'8·
'80-'82 7 5.1(7)2.4-8.4 34 6.6(29)1.8-20.8 '
F'SMIL10
SII-2
Table 13.Status of brown bears first marked in 1978.(A=alive,T=transp1anted in 1979,NR=no return,
R=returned,NO=no data available,F=sbot in fall season,Sp=shot in spring'season).
/
Bear#:Sex/age 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 .1983 1984-
Upper Susitna Expt.Area
209 MiS in '78 A T,n A Sbot-F
212 F/10 in '78 A A A A·Sbot-F
217 M/3 in /78 A A Shot-F
219 F/4 in '78 A A A A Sbot-F
218 M/4 in '78 .A T,R Shot-F
230 H/9 in '18 A T,sbot Sp
211 M/4,in '78 A T,NR NO NO NO NO
216 Mill in '78 A T,n ND ND NO NO
210/242 M/2 in '78 A T,ND NO ND NO NO
214 M/4 in '78 A A A ND NO NO
215 F/2 in '78 A T,n NO ND NO NO
I""'"213 F/10 in '78 A '1'*
Not Upper Susitna Expt.Area
205 M/4 in.'78 A A A A A Shot-Sp
206 F/13 in '78 A A A Shot-F
201 MilO in '78 A ,A 'A A A Shot-Sp
202 F/8 in '78 Shot-F,
221 F/8 in /78 A A A A Shot-Sp
228 M/7 in '78 A A A A A Shot-Sp
207 Fill in '78 A A NO NO NO NO
208 F/12 in '78 A A NO NO NO NO
220 F/5 in '78 A A NO NO NO .NO
222 !U11 in '78 A ND ND NO NO NOI"""
M/9 in '78227 A NO NO NO NO NO
234 F/S in '7S-·",A ND NO NO NO NO
200 MI7 in '78 A NO"NO NO NO NO-204 F/7 in '78 A A NO NO NO NO
225 M/4 in '78 A A NO NO NO NO
231 F/12 in '78 A A NO NO NO NO..,Max.No.Bears,
potentially alive in
year includes NO (M:F)28(15:13)26*(15:11)25(14:11) 23(12:11)21(11:10)18(10:8)15(7:8)
No.marked bears known
shot in year (M:F)1(0:1)1(1:0)2(2:0)2 (1:1)3 (1:2)3 [3:0)
.....
\of potentially alive
bears known shot in year 4\4%8\9\14\17\
Cumulative \(mn.)of
marked bears shot (N=27)4\7\15\22\33\44\
Not Included:
Subadu1ts @2 in 1978,=203,223,224 (all ND)
Subadults @1 =232 (ND)-*suspected mortality of 213 in 1979,not included as alive in 1979 or subsequently
90
SMILIO
""'",SM-2
mEllll:!ll
Table 14.Status of brown bears first captured in 1979 (all were transplanted from upper Susltna drainaq~)-"
(A-alive,NR=no return;R=returned,ND=no data available,F=shot in fall season,SP=shot in sprinq
,~"'i!t\1i!I season).Does not include transplanted bears first captured in 1978 (see Table 13).ND in year of
capture indicated bear was not collared or soon shed its collar and no subsequent data were
collected•
....
.Bear m sexlage 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
-11/3 in '79·246 Shot-F
247 H/8 in '79 A A A A Shot-F
243 H/2 in 179 A A Shot-F
265 H/4 in '79 A Shot-Sp
268 H/4 in '79 A Sbot-Sp
269 F/18 in '79 A A Shot-F
"
I"-270 F/1 in '79 A Sbot-F
272 H/9 in '79 .A A A Shot-F
260 11/4 in '79 A A A A Shot-F
241 M/3 in 179 A,NO NO NO NO NO
249 MIS in '79 A,NO NO NO NO ND
258 H/21 in 179 A,NO NO NO NO ND
264 F/4 in '79 A,ND HD NO NO NO
r-'267 F/4 in '79 A,NO NO ND NO NO
274 FIll in 179 A,NO NO NO NO ND
276 H/4 in 179 A,NO NO NO NO NO
r-'236 F/5 in '79 A,R NO NO NO NO
237 HI10 in '79 A,R NO NO NO NO
240 F/5 in '79 A,R A NO NO NO
....244 F/6 in '79 A,R A NO NO NO
251 FIla in '79 A,R A NO NO NO
273 F/3 in '79 A,R A NO NO NO
248 F/4 in '79 A,NR NO NO NO NO,....
261 F17 in 179 A,NR NO NO NO NO
Max.No.Bears-potentially alive
in year includes NO (M:F)24 (12:12)23(11:12)20 (9:11)18(8:10)17(7:10}14(4:10)
No.marked bears
known shot in year (M:F)l{1:0)3 (2:1)2 (1:1)1 (1:0)2(2:0)
....Known %of potentially alive
bears shot in year 4\13%10\6\12\
Cumulative \(min.)of
I"-
marked bears shot (N=24)4\17%25%29%38%
Not Included:.-Subadults @2 in 1979 =259
Subadults @l in 1979 =275,262 or 263,256,257, 252,253,245,271,239, 238.
-
-
91
-(continued on next paqe)
92
F"'"Table 15.(cont.)SMIL10-
.SK-.-2
~Bear ID Sex/age 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1983 captures
385 F/2 in '83 A
386 Ml2 1n '83 A
388 F/14 in '83 A
389 M/2in '83 A
390 M/2 1n '83 A
384 F/12 1D '83.A-391 M/2 in '83 A
392 Ml2 in '83 A
393 F/2 in '83 A
394 F/6 1n '83 A
395 F/3 in '83 Shot-F
396 F/13 in '83 A-399 M/9 in '83 A
400 M/20 in 183 A
403 F/6 in '83 A
407 F/4 1n '83 ND
A.-Max.No.marked bears
potentially alive 1n year,
I"""includes NO.Excludes
tagging and natural
mortal!ties (M:F)22(12:10)30{14:16)29{12:17)43(18:25) 40(17:23)-B.No.!!!2!!shot
1n year (M:F)1 (1:0)3 (3:0)1(1:0)3 (1:2)NO
Min.\known shot (B/A)5\10\3%7%NO
C.No.known shot plus-suspected (~eported)
shot 1n year (M:F)lC1:0)4 (3:1l 2(1:1)3 (1:2)NO
Probable min.%shot (C/A)5%13%7%7%NO
D.No.bears known alive
.....(excludes NO,died 6i
lost)17 23 21 34 31
Probable %shot (C/O)6%17%10%9%i,:i;i!
Cumulative \shot (bear-
years=124,from row A).1%4%6\8\NO
~
Not Included:
Subadu1 ts @2,1980:285,314,
1983:397,398
Subadu1ts @1,1980:298
1983:382-
93
SULlO
SM~2
Table 16 •Summary of Tables 13-15,hunter kiJ.ledbrown bear marked in GMU 13.
....
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
,~-Maximum No.of marked
bears potentially
allve myear (includes
N.D.)OI:F)27(14:13).50(27:33)70(37:33)73(35:38)68(·31:37).78(35:43)69(28:41)-
No.marked bears
known shot*(M:Fl 1(0:1)2 (2:0)6 (5:1)7 (5:2)5(3:2)8 (6:2)NA-
Min.,of marked
bears shot in yeer .n 4\9'10\"10%NA
%males in population
of marked beers 52%54%53'48%46'45'41%
,males in harvest 1978-1983
of marked bears 0 100'83'71'60%75%72'-*includes row C in Table IS
-
-
.-,
-
94
SMILll--I -1 J 1 1 J 1 I 1 I !J -~~A -\5 )
Table 17.Home range si~es (km 2 )of two-year old radio-marked brown bears in 1983.
BEAR ID Sex Mother's ID/Entire 1983 home range/Post-separation home
(1283 I!Q~e range)(No.of PQiIl1:~)range/(No.of points)COMMENTS
,·.__..__"~~H_••""'.~,,_,•••_.",_.H ~••'_.__._.__.,__~.._.__'"••~__••.••"••••~••__••,',••,_••••_••_..•••._•....-••_._••_•••'--••,--
I~
389
390
391
392
393
386
M
M
M
M
F -.
M
388/(146)
same
384/(199)
same
same
312/(191)
;'.....
1.954/(16)
86/(14)
1 t 169/(15)
1,252/(15)
156/(14)
939/(l3)
I 1.947/(10)
51/(8)
782/(10)
826/(10)
156/(12)
243/(8)
Dispersed.Figure 2
Didn't disperse.
-Figure 2
Dispersed.Figure 3
Dispersed.Figure 3
Didn't disperse.no den.
Figure 3
Dispersed.Figure 4
SMIL09
611-1
Table lS.Annual use of Prairie Ct.area by radio-collared brown bears during July and August king sallllOn
spewing period.Reproductive status reflects July data for females (c=newborn cubs).
67 7S
2.3
4 5
342&342&
19S'3
yes
no
yes
no
no
ND{sbed)
no
no
no
no
DO
yes
DO
3
12
7
342a,3S6,3S9,
391,392
43
19S2
-,
-'
NO
,DO
yes '
yes
-(dead)
.no
yes
3 4
19S1**
NO
no
yes
yes
no
ND(shed]
no
no
19S0
yes
yes
Subtotals:
Males (age in year
first captured]
279 9{SO)
280 5 (SO)
214 4(SO)
282 4 (SO)
293 3{SO)
294 10(SO]
342a*2{Sl]
373 9{S2)
386 2(83)
389 ;HS3)
390 2(83)
391 2{S3)
392 2(83)
399 9{S3)
400 20(S3)
(continued on next page)
96
SMIL09
51(-1
Table 1S o (conto)
~
Females (age in year
first captured)19S0 19S1**19S2 19S3
277 10(SO)no?NO-(sbed)NO NO
281 3 (SO)no,alone no,alone no,alone no,-alone
283 12(80)yes,alone nOr:w/2c yes,alone yes,alone
299 13(80)DO,w/2@l no,alone .no,alone no,w/3e
30Sb 5(SO)yes,alone no?,alone -dead
312 10(SO)no,w/1e
",
no,-w/1@lDO"alone no,alone.,....
313 ge80}DO,alone alone no,w/2e no,w/1@lno,
315 2 (SO)..yes,alone
331 6 (S1)no,alone -dead
334 10(81)no,alone -missinq
335 2 (S1)Do,alone DO,alone no,alone
337 13(81)no,w/3c no,w/1@1 no,alone
.-340 3(81)no,alone no,alone no,alone
341 6(81)no,alone no,w/2e -missing
344 5(81)no,w/2e no,Y1@l no,alone-379*5(82)no,w/2e no,w/2@l
380 15(82)yes,w/2@l yes,alone
381 . 3 (82)no,alone no,alone
385 2(83)no,alone-388 14(S3)no,alone
384 12(83)no,alone
393 2 (83)no,alone
394 6(83)yes,alone
395 3(83)no,alone
396 13(83)yes,alone-403*6(83)no,w/2e
407*4(83)yes,alone
Subtotals:-No.using Prairie CIt.
(females)2"0 2 6
Total No.of collared
females 7 13 13 22
-,females using Prairie Ck.29 0 15 27
TOTALS:
No.bears using Prairie CIt.4 2 5 9
No.bears radio-collared
(excluding dispersing males)"11 16 17 29.-
,bears using Prairie Ct.36 13**29 31
.-*Downstream study area
**Poor monitoring conditions in 1981-
5MILll
1 J J ]-,1 1 1 l I 1 )~··-i j t)~115
Table 19.Annual home range sizes for Su-Hydro upstream study area brown bears.(Includes individuals witb 5 or more relocations).
1980 1981 1982 1983
Bear 10 ObS:t'eriod Home Range Obs.Period Home Range Obs.PeriOd HOme RangEt Obs.Period Home Range
J::le @ capture)(No.locations)(km2 )(No.locations)(km 2 )(No.locations)(km2 )(No.locations)(km 2 )
ES
342a (2)------Hay-Oct (8)1776 May-Oct (17)730 Apr-Oct (15)932
386 (2)------------------Hay-Oct (13)939
389 (2)-----------------..Kay-Oct (16)1954 (died)
390 (2)'-..----------------Kay-Oct (14)88
l I
391 (2)------ ---
------,..--May-Oct (15)1169
392 (2)-------------_..---Hay-Oct (15)1252
293 (3)May-Oct un 1409 May-Sep q.U 2727 Jun-Aug (12).2578 Hay-Sep (10)222
no den no den no den
214 (4)Apr-Sep (11)975 sbed
280 (5)Apr-Oct (10)499 Apr-Oct (25)570 May-Oct (17)376 Apr-Oct (17)'
282 (6)------------Apr-Oct (17)1534 Apr-Oct (21)2135
'"CD 373 (9)---------Jun-Oct (11)606 shed in Jtme
279 (9 in 180)(shed)------ ---------Hay-Oct (20)1431
399 (9)------------ ------May-Oct (19)1183
294 (10)May-Oct (14)495 Hay-Aug (9)143 (dled)
400 (20)------------------.Ma~-Oct (14)1733
x(all males):(10.8)845 (13.3)1304 (11.4)1165
S.D.;;:439 --1174 ..--902
range::::(8-1~)495-1409 (9-25)143"'2127 (9-14)376-2578
FEMALES
335 (2)------May-Oct (34)180 May-Oct (20)131 Apr-Oct (19)183
315 (2 in 180)not collared ---------------Hay-Oct (18)280
393 (2)------------------Hay-Sep (14)156 (lost)
no den
3£15 (2)------------------May-Oct (16)253
395 (3)------------------May-Aug (II)458 (shot)
281 (3)Apr-Oct (13 )189 Apr-Oct (41)368 Kay-Oct (22)233 Apr-Oct (19). .302 (w!J@c)***111
-(continued on next page)
j ----1 ~-l -_--J j 'I j -1 J 1 1 j _.~l.u
Table 19.(Continued)SM-15
1980 1981 1982 19M
Bear 10 Obs.Period Home Range Obs.Period Home Range Obs.Period Home Range Obs.Period Rome Range
(age @ capture)-(No.locations)(klD a )(No~locations)(klD 2 )(No.locations)(kID:!)(No.locations)(klD 2 )
340 (3)------May-Oct (39)613 May-Oct (23)712 Apr-Oct (18)539
381 (3)------..~-..Jun-Oct (17)265 Apr-Oct (18)251
(no den)
407 (4)*-----~--------,.May-Oct (17)186
308b (5)May-Oct (1~)142 M~y-~g (14)(died)---------..
!:I·'
344 (5)------i May-Oct (21}270(wI2@C)May-Oct (22)401h,/2@1)***Apr-Oct (18)287h,/2@C)
379 (5)*--------..---Jun-Oct (19)3389 hJl2@C)Apr-OCt (20)1248 h,I 2@l)
331 (6)------May-Oct'(24)1281 lfay-Ju1 (10)252 (died)---
341 (6)---Hay-Oct (28)889 Hay-Jul (9)23(w/2@C)lost
394 (6)-----...--..---.------May-Oct (20)201 (w/l@C)****
403 (6).-----------..--May-Oct (19)1890(w/2@C)
0 313 (9)May-Oct (14)82 Apr.Oct (25)211 May-Oct (22)i28(w/2@C)Apr-Oct (20)272 (w/2@l)
0
277 (10)Apr-Dct (6)147(w/2@U (sbed)
'312 (10)May-Oct (13)157 Apr-Oct (24)181(w/2@C)May-Oct (20)252(w/1@1)Apr-Sep (15)191
(no den)
334 (10)------May-Sep (31)111*missing
283 (12)Apr-Oct (12)233 May-Oct (20)94(w/2@C)**Hay-Oct (20)206(w/1@1****)Apr-Oct (20)416•
384 (12)------------,May-Oct (16)199
299 (13)May-Oct (10)188(w/2@l)Apr-Oct (24)358**May-Oct (21)191 (w/1@C****).May-OCt (24)224(w/3@C)
337 (13)------May-Dct (19)270(w/3@C)**May-Oct (20)356(w!2@l)May-Oct (20)246
396 (13)---------- -----May-Oct (16)254
388 (14)----------------May-Oct (16)146.
380 (15)'------------Jun-Oct (9)493(w/2@l)Apr-Sep (12)450(shot 9/83)
i(a11 fema1es)=(11.7)163 (26.5)380 (18.1)286
S.D.=---47 ---352 --323
Range=(6-1S)82-233 (14-41)94-1281 (9-B)23-1216
i(a11 males &femalesJ=(11.4J 411 (23.4)597 117.3)677
S.D.=---421 ---717 --889
Range=(6-1S)82-1409 (8-41)94-2727 (9-23)23-2578
. •.~I"..
*%Qgl"r~~fBae8t~gYs~rfstica1 comparisons •:::t~ft:HR3~~~s~~~»lYin May
o·•
1 J 1 J 1 1 ·····-1 -.-]J J J 1
Table 20.Number of Susitna river crossings by radio-mArked brown bears,1980-1983.SMIL07
SM-1
Yr.InitiAl No.of River Crossings
Bear ID capture (age)1980 1981 1982 1983 COlllDlents
Males
389 1983(2)---1 388's cub,died fall '83
390 1983(2)--..0 388's "cub,imp1e.nt active
391 1983(2)..-..1 384's cub
392 1983 (:~)....-0 384's cub
393 1983(2)-....4 38.'s cub,~issing **
293 1980(3)2 0 1 2 Hide-ranging
214 1980(4)0 ......shed collar in '80
399 1983(4)......4 active
280 1980(5)2 10 3 8 active
308A 1980(6)0 ......Missing in '80,shot in '83
282 1982(6)-..6 4 active
279 1980(9)0 -..3 active
373 1982(9)....3 0 shed collar
294 1980(10)1 0 ..-recapture mortality
295 1980(12)1 ......shed collar in '80
309 1980(12)0 0 ....shed collar in '81
347 1981(14)..0 ..-shed collar in '81
400 1983(20)..-..1·active
342A@ 1981(2)..1 0 2 Active
Total males 6 11 13 30
(continued)
SMIL07
SM-l
No.of River Crossings
1980 1981 1982 1983 Co_ents
4 radio-collared in 1983,active
0 337's cub
0 .active
1 6 5 6*2 cubs killed by other bears
0 0 0 334'8 cub,active
0 6 8 4 active
4 1 active
1 shot (hunter)'83
5 7 - -
recapture mortality
0*2 °y2 0*2 active
4+2 3 -died July 1982
9 0*2 -missing 1982 **
10 lost cub as capture mortality?
0 0 0*2 2y1 active
°y2 ---collar shed -in 1980
0 0*2 °yl 0+1 active
0+1 - -
missing 1982 **
0+2 0*2 4 2 1983 cub killed by another bear
0*2-3 active
2y2 2 2 0*3 active
0*3 °y2 0 active
0*1 active?slow pulse
-1 l J
Table 20.(continued)
Yr.Initial
Bear 10 capture (age)
Females
315 1980(2)
385 1983(2)
386 1983(2)
281 1980(3)
335 1981(3)
340 1981(3)
381 1982(3)
395 1983(3)
3088 1980(5)
344 1981(5)
331.1981(6)
341 1981(6).
394 1983(6)
313 1980(9)
277 1980(10)
312 1980(10)
334 1981 (10)
283 1980(12)
384 1983(12)
299 1980(13)
337 1981(13)
396 1983 (13)
--I
(continued)
--J ___J
.,,'
,.
1 )
1 j
Table 20.(continued)
I "1 J
SHIL07
SM-l
Bear ID
388
380
407 @
379 @
403 @
Total females
Total both sexes
Yr.Initial No.of River Crossings
capture (age)1980 1981 1982 1983
1983 (14)- - -°+2
1982(15)--°y2 0
1983(4)---0
1982(5)--1*2 5yl
1983(6)---1*2
8 34 27 36
14 45 40 66
Comments
active
l;ihot
active
,active
acUve
@=Downstream bears
Reprod.status,
as of 31 Hay:*-alb
y =yrlg
+=2 yr old
**possible unreported hunter kill,collar failure,or emigration.
1 I i 1 .:J J I .J.J ._J .-J S.A;LlUJ9
SM-l
Table 21.Associations of radio-marked brown bears during spring 1983.(Includes only bears in
upstream study area,ex~ludes bears with cub or yearling offspring throughout this
period and excludes 2 year-old bears,as companions).Sex is in parenthesis •
•Bears seen w~-Jt
unmarked bears Bears seen Bears:seen
(pre~umably of with other without adult Bears radio-locate4
opposite sex)marked bears cC?~p~~tQ~I:I ~.noLsee~YJfI,!a~l,y
23 May,1983 Flight
Total No.of radio-
collared adult*bears
located (No.seen)
.....
;:)
JJ
G394(F,cubs lost
earlier)
1-2 June 1983 Flights
G281(Fw/2@O)
.G315(F)
G337 (F)
G388(Fw/2@2)
G293(M)
G340(M)
G280(M)
G381 (F)
G312(Fw/1@2)
G395(F@3)*
G335 (F)
G400(M)
G279(M)
G282(M)
G396(Fw/1@2)
G283(F)
17(17)
16
G396(F)
G283(F)
G312 (F)
G400(M)
G315(F)**
G337 (F)w/G279(M)G381 (F)
G384(Fw/2@2)
G395(F@3)*
G388(Fw/2@2)
G399(M)
G340(F)
G281(F cubs had been killed)15(12)
G335(F)
G293(M)
--:l 1 1 5Mb...,,)
SM-1
Table 21.(cont'd)
Bears seen with
unmarked bears Bears seen Bears seen
(presumably of with other without adult Bear radio-located
opposite sex marked beara companions but not s~~nvisually
6 June 1983 Flisht
G283(F)--G380(F)G396(F)
G282(M)G395(F@3)*.G280(M)•G31S"(F)G337 (F)'G281(F)
G33S(F).G399(M)G381(F)
G400(M)G340(F)
G279(M)G384(Fw/2@2)'
G394(F)
G340(F)
13-14 June 1983 Flisht
G380(F)G283 (F)w/G282 (M)G315(F)--
G279(M)&another bear**.G394(F)
G399(M)G396 (F)
G33S(F)G312(F)
G400(M)G388(F)
G384(F)G39S(F@3)*
G283 (F)***G340(F)
G281(F)
G280(M)
G381(F)
20-21 June 1983 Flight
G282(M)G388 (F)w/G400 (M)G312(F)G31S(F)
G396(F)G283 (F)w/G279(M)G384(F)G394(F)
G337 (F)G280(M)G33S(F)
G340(F)G399(M)G281 (F)
G380(F)G381(F)
(Continued)
Total No.of radio-
collared adult*bears
located (No.seen)
17(13)
17(17)
18(13)
1 -~--I ----J --~-1 1 )]-IsMTLiU;7]
SM-l
Table 21.(cont'd)
*G395 is a 3 year old female that was not in estrus when captured.
therefore it is not ·unusual that she was never seen with another.,.'.
bear during this period.
**G315(F)was seen with G394 (anoth~r female)and an unmarked bear
on the 1-2 June flight,since only One unmarked male (presumably)
was seen in.this group of3 bears,G394 was not counted as 'being
with another bear in the totals and neither G394 or G315 was
counted as being with another marked bear.
***G283(F)was seen with G282(K)and another bear on 13-14 June,
'therefore it is counted twice (in each of the first two columns).
.'
J ]]J -1 J I »J -~]_._f:~~~~J
Table 22.Parameters used in formulating brown bear population estimates based on estimated proportion
of adults (excluding non-estrus females)in the population that are radio-marked.Cautionary
statements in text should be reviewed in interpretation of these estimates.
Calculated number of adult bears
excluding females with cubs or
yearlings based o.n calculation
that 15%of population is marked
("X"in above equation)
93
Minimum
93
Midpoint
93
Maximum
Estimate of the proportion of the
adult female population with cubs
or xearling offspring .
(tla in equation)..
Estimate of the proportion of adult
~opulation co~.osed of females
(lib"in equation)_
'"Total number of adult bears (N in
above equation)''"
.~osition of N
num er of adult males
number of adult non-estrus females
number of estrus females
Number of cubs and yearlings (number
of non-estrus females times mean
cub and yearling litter size of 1.8)
Number of 2 and 3 year-old bears
(25%of number of cubs and yearlings)
Estimate of total spring population
Area inhibited bi above po~ulation(km2)Area (km )inhab~ted by ra io-marRed individuals
during breeding season 1983 (Fig.1)
Corresponding density estimate (km 2 /bear)
Area (km 2 )inhabited by radio-marked individuals
during all of 1983 (Fig.8)
Corresponding density estimate (km 2 /bear)
0.19 0.43 0.67
0.50 0.63 0.76
103 128 190
52 47 46
12 37 97
40 45 41
22 67 175
•
6 17 .'44
131 212 409
4,391 4,391 4,391
33.5 20.1 10.7
6,568 6,568 6,568
50.1 31.0 16.1
..
11-f J -1 .---l J I 1 1 :)--1 _~:~~7
VeaetatioD
Bear Age at Elevation Slope Aspect
ID NOii-,~it (Feet)(Degrees)(True N.)
Den
No.
~ab1e 23.Characteristics of b~wn bear dens in the Susitna study area during vinters of 1980/81,1981/1982,1982/1983.
ENTRANCE CHAMBER Total Previously
Ht.Widtb tn.WIdth Ht.Length Used?
(CID.)(ClD.)(ClIl.)(cm.)(CIll.) (ClIl.)(Yes/No)COBents
FEMALES
With offspring (@ exit)
v/2 @O 14 G283(sp.)13
v/2 @O 16 G283(vt.)13
v/1 @O 22 G313 10
59 G299
37***?
***89 G379
Collapsed/not visited
Collapsed/not visited
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed/not visited
Spring den/collapsed
Winter den
Collapsed
Collapsed
Partially collapsed
Spring den,collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
S};lring den,collapsed
Collapsed
No
No
No
No
No
'.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
•No
207
350 No
196
291
410
219
~No
177
136
'!"
84**290,'No
230 No
86 345
92
165
138
203
104
152 90
...
239
69 103 101
56 136 88
76
66
•102 221
76**
83
6476
53**79
58 69 151 136 101
49 65
64
67 52 117 127
61
58
102**•
Willow,Alder
Alder
Grass
Willow,Grass
Grass
Tussock grass
Willows
Tundra
Tussock/rock slide •
Tussock/1g.rocks 57 69
Tundra/rock
Moss/rock slide
Tundra/rock
Alder
Alder,Ferns
Tundra
Tundra
Tundra,Willows
Tundra
156
346
189
220
218
40
**23
176
198
118*.
192
210
166
252
15~
145
93
138
213
182
201
202
34
27
26
45**
28
26
35
31
31
36
17
27
28
42
45
25
30
**35
39
33
3900
3725
5150
4825
4760
4900
4925
4660
3950
4575
4925
4250
4575
3525
2075
4150
3975
1375
1050
**4750
3725
4575
1
11
12
6
7
15
?
16
16
6
6
12
15
6
13
5
11
11
14
G313
G283
G281
G299
G331
G337
G344
G313
G312
G344
G341
G312
G277
76 G299
78 G299
***87 G379
28
42
U
47
52
54
24
30
31
25
102
103
104
v/3 @O
v/2 @O
,,/2 @O
v/2 @1*
.v/2 @2
!v/2 @O~~v/2 @O
IV/I @1
I v/2 @1
v/2 @O
v/1 @O,
v/2 @1
v/3 @O
w/3 @O
w/2 @1
w/2 @1
w/2 @1
w/1 @O
w/2 @O
(continued OD next page)
I .-]I 1 1 i ..]!'l..~IL07hM-l
Table 23.(continued)
ENTRANCE CHAMBER Total Previously
Den Bear Age at Elevation Slope Aspect Ht.wIdth tn.WIdth Ht.Length Used?
No.lD No.Exit (Feet)(Degrees)(True N.)Vegetation (cm.) (cm.)(em.)(cm.)(cm.)(em.)(Yes/No)Comments
******.,----,.--,..,0__._••••_._.•...~.~_._••'"_......_~~••4.~_._~.~,..._,...__.~."..~._.._."._.~......_..,.,.'n..~~_
w/l @2 105 G337 15 5150 45 336 Tundra -------Collapsed
****34**Spring den,collapsedw/l @2 107 G337 15 4900 35 Tundra -------
**40****Collapsedwll@2108G31213454051Tundra,Grass ...... ...-,--...
** ****Collapsedw/2 @O 109 G344 7 4750 50 101 Tundra -..-....--
w/o 23 G281 4 4700 39 142 Tussock/rock slide ..61 -......No Collapsed
w/o 5 G308b 6 2330 26 358 Alder 69 82 lU lU 110 ·230 No
w/o 46 G340 4 5150 ...................-..Not visited
w/o 56 G335 3 3525 32 261 Willow,Alder '.47 39 .......224 No Partially collapsed
****w/o 79 G335 4 4350 60 354 ..............No Collapsed
....w/o 4950**45****Collapsed10603405306Tundra..................
0
00 w/o G381 **30**62**Tundra CollapsedIII44500.......-.........
MALES
1 G280 6 3950 32 \.158 Tundra/grass/rock 48 86 -231 -269 No Collapsed
,-'~,
15 G2841 3 3990 23 216 Tundra/grass 56 83 135 154 77 239 No,ID uncertain
29 G294 11 2650 30 146 Alder/grass 52 80 -157 89 188 No Partially collapsed,
36***G342A 3 2375 31 288 :Alder 38 71 81 86 94 124 '.'No Partially collapsed
60 G280 7 4125 26 210 Grass,Wil low ..... .........No ,Collapsed
94***2525 **G342 6 26 299 Alder 66 74 ...84 81 147 No Collapsed
86 G282 7 3200 33 46 Alder,Willow ....-........No Collapsed
**110 G280 8 3950 26 54 Grass,Willow ........ ..........Collapsed
(continued on next page)
,
)-1 I i -I 1 I -]
,
S'!IL07
--JM-l
i ---1 ~--I --J SMT ..1 p
SM-l
,
Table 24.Distances between den sites (miles)used in different years by radio-collared brown bears.Based
on principle winter den,early spring dens not considered.
Bear ID Sex Age 80/81-81/82 80/81-82/83 80/81-83/84*81/82-82/83 81/82-83/84*82/83-83/84*x S
G283 F 13 in'81 3.2 2.4 1.6 5.3 4.9 1.7 3.2 1.6
G313 F 10 in'81 4.1 4.4 3.4 6.7 1.0 '5.7 4.2 2.0
G337 F 13 in'81 3.3 2.4 1.9 3.7 3.1 0.6 2.5 1.1
G344 F 5 in'81 3.1 1.5 3.8 1.6 1.2 2.5 2.3 1.0
G299 F 14 in'81 8.9 6.7 7.1 3.5 3.5 0.5 5.0 3.1
G280 M 6 in'81 8.1 6.3 6.0 2.0 2.5 0.5 4.2 3.0
G281 F 4 in'81 1.9 1.7 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.1
1.0,0.9
G335 F 4 'in'82 ---2.4 2.0 0.9 1.8 0.8
.....G340 4 in'82 0.3 17~7 17 .6 11.9 10.0.....F ---0
G342 M 3 in'82 ---1.3 7.1 7.4 5'.3 3.4
G312 F 11 in'81 2.1 0.6 -1.6 --1.4 0.8
G282 M 7 in'83 --- --4.5 4.5
G379 F 6 in'83 -----5.3 5.3
.\-4.3 3.3 3.6 2.6 4.3 3.9 (N-56)-3.7x..x
S ..2.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 5.~5.1 s =3.5
Range =0.1-17.7
*83/84 den locations are preliminary,based on aerial locations.
i I ~:-=-1 ---1 ---~1~~~1 -_I "'fUL07
!3M-2
p.2
Table 25.Den entrance and emergence dates of radio-collared brown bears for the Winter of 1980-81 (liS"is the standard deviation,but it
inc1udesvart "lbUity from the fluctuatinq time between observations,as ~e11 as variability in denning times).
1980 Entrance 1981 Qaergence Days In Den
Bear ID ~Rln.MaX.Rld.Rln.Sx.!M:..!!!!:.-Max.Rid.
280 M 13 Oct 21 Oct 20 Oct 7 Apr 21 Apr 14 Apr 162 190 176
281 F 13 Oct 27 Oct 20 Oct 7 Apr 21 Apr 14 Apr 162 190 176
283 F 9 Oct 27 Oct 18 Oct 30 Apr ,May 2 May 185 208 197
294 M -27 Oct -21 Apr 30 Apr 26 Apr 176
299 F 13 Oct 27 Oct 20 Oct.7 Apr 21 Apr 14 Apr 1.62 190 176
308 F 13 Oct 21 Oct 20 Oct 30 Apr 5 May 2 May 18~204 195
312 F 29 Sep --30 Apr 6 May 3 May
313 F 9 Sep 9 Oct 24 Sep 21 Apr 24 Apr 22 Apr 194 207 200
277 F -27 Oct -NO NO NO -..........MEAN Tncr ~n-ncr 19 APr 28 APr 23 Apr 175 198 ----nr7....."s"13 6 11 11 7 9 13 9 12
n 7 8 6 8 8 8 1 6 6
---
I J J t 1 1 _J 1 SM""''''''
5"'-4 j
p.3
j
Table 26.Den entrance and e.rgence dates of radio-collared brown bears for the ,inter of 1981-82 ("S"is the standard deviation,but it
includes variability from the fluctuating time between observations,as well as variability in denning times)
1981 Entrance 1982 Emergence Days In Den
Bear 10 Sex Min.Max.Mld.MIn.!!!!:....m:....AIn.Max.Rid.
280 M 22 Sep 1 Oct 27 sep 19 Apr 6 Hay 28 Apr 200 226 213
281 F 1 Oct 7 Oct ..Oct 6 Hay 12 Hay 9 Hay 211 223 217
283 F 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 12 Hay 18 May 15 Hay 217 229 223
293 M 22 Sep 1 Jun
299 F 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 19 Apr 6 Hay 28 Apr 194 217 206
312 F 1 Oct 16 Oct 8 Oct 12 Hay 18 Hay 15 Hay '208 '229 218
313 F 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct ~8 Hay 26 Hay 22 Hay 214 231 222
331 F 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 6 Hay 12 Hay 9 Hay 202 217 210
335 F 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 19 Apr 6 Hay 28 Apr 19~217 206
~....337 F 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 18 Hay 26 Hay 22 Hay 223 237 230
I\J
340 F 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 19 Apr 6 JIlly 28 Apr 185 211 198
341 F 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 12 Hay 18 Hay 15 Hay 217 229 223
342 H 30 Oct 19 Apr 4 Hay 26 Apr
344 F 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 19 Apr 6 Hay 28 Apr 185 211 198•
MEAN T'OCE 12 OCt 6 OCt 1 Miy R May 7 May 204 223 ----nI
liS"5 7 5 12 9 10 13 8 10
n 13 13 11 13 14 1~12,12 I 12
•".1
")1 -1 -~-"1 '--"~1l-.1 .]
---------j ------~---_~_J
MCALLI
i MC-':"J
Table 27.Den entrance and emergence dates of radio-collared brown bears for the winter of 1982-83 «liS"is the standard deviation,but it
included variability from the fluctuatin9 time betWltltn observations;as well as variability in denning t_s)~
1982 Entrance 1983 Emergence Days in Den
Bear In Sex Min.Max.~!!!!:.!!!!:.Mid.Min.!!!!:.~---
280 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 184 201 193
281 F 6 Oct 20 Oct .13 Oct 14 May 16 May 15 May 206 222 214
283 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 14 May 15 May 15 May 211 221 217
299 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 23 May 1 Jun 28 May 220 238 230
312 F 6 Oct 20 Oct 13 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 I-pr 187 210 199
313 F 15 Oct 20 Oct 18 Oct 14 May 15 May 15 May 206 212 '209
335 F 20Sep 6 Oct 28 Sep 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 193 217 205
337 F 20 Oct 15 Nov 2 Nov 10 May 14 May 12 May 176 206 191
340 F 6 Oct 15 Nov 26 Oct,25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 161 210 186
344 F 20 Oct 15 Nov 2 Hov 14 May 15 May 15 May 180 207 194
282 M 20 Oct 15 nov 2 Hov 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 153 187 170
379 F 20 Oct 17 Nov 4 Hov 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 159 196 177.
381 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 184 201 193
380 F H.D.H.D.H.D.10 May 19 May 15 May
342 M N.D.N.D.H.D.17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr
•.•._"".•~..••.•~••.,'._•.,..•."••._.~_.__._..:...•••_•••_.~~_.~'_•••M._•._.........\••---MEAN 12 Oct 28 Oct 19 Oct 1 May 8 May 5 May 186 210 198
"5"7 16 12 13 11 12 21 13 17
n 13 13 13 15 15 15 13 13 13
"
.','
J 1 ",1 'J .-------]'1 i Mcul'l'l
MC-7
Table 28.Brown bear den entrl!lD~and emergen~dates,winter of 1983/84.
1983 Entrance 1984 Emergence Days in Den.
Bear 10 ~~~!!!!:.Min."!!!!.:.!!!!:.~!!!!.:.Mid.
G279 II 26 Sep 24 Oct 10 Oct
G280 II 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct
G281 F 26 Sep 24 Oct 10 Oct
G282 II 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct:
G283 F 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
G293 M 27 Sep _._-
-~..
G299 •F 27 Sep 24 OCt "11 OCt
G313 'F 5 Oct 24 Oct ~5 Oct
G315 F 26 Sep 24 Oct 10 Oct
G335 F 15 Sep 26 Oct 6 Oct
G337 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G340 F.5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G342 M 26 Sep 14 Noy 21 Oct
G344 F 5 Oct 14 Nov 25 Oct
G379 F 5 Oct 14 Nov 25 Oct
G381 F 25 Oct
G384 F 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct
G385 F 26"Sep 24 Oct 10 Oct
G386 II 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G388 F 26 Sep 15 Noy 21 Oct
G390 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G391 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G393 F 27 Sep
G394 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G396 F 27 Sep 25 Oct 11 Oct
G399 II 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct
G400 II 27 Sep 24 Oct 11 Oct
G403 F 24 Oct 14 Noy 4 Nov
--Mean 2 Oct 27 Oct 15 Oct
"S"8.2 9.6 7.5
n 28 25 25
-
·=l.J5
-
Table 30.Predicted and observed spring 1983 reproductive"status of radio~ollared female black bears•.
1D
289
301
317
318
327
321
349
361
363
354
329
367**
369**
378**
376**
374**
372**
375**
370**
377**
1983 age
10
10
8
8
13
6
8
5
6
3
5
5
7
7
8
10
10
8
5
Predicted
1983 status*
cubs
cubs
cubs"
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
yearlings
barren
cubs'!
,cubs"
Cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
cubs
Comments
weanedr1gs and bred In '82
weaned r1gs aDd bred -in '82
weaned y1gs in 'Sl,no cubs in '8~
weaned r],gs in 'Sl,no cubs in '82
bred in '82
weaned y1gs in 181,no cubs in '82
lost cubs in '81,no cubs in f8Z
no offspring in '82,or fall '81
no offspring in '82
no offspring in '82,bred
cubs in 'S2
subadu1t,not bred in '82
first litter?
first litter?
first litter?
first litter:?Thought might have
had rIgs in spring '82,based on
age this is now considered unlikely
weaned yearlings in '81 (probably)
bred in '82
may have weaned yearlings 1D 'S2
alone in 1982
alone in 1982
Observed
1983 status
2 cubs
2 cubs
2 cubs
2 cubs
2 cubs
cubs
2 cubs
4 cubs
alone
weaned litter
alone
alone
alone
alone
3 cubs
3 cubs
2 cubs
2 cubs
2 cubs
1 cub at least
-
*See Table 18 in Miller 1983,p.69
**bear occurs in the downstream study area
116
-SMIL10
SM-l
Table 31.Predicted spring ,1984 reproductive status of radio-collared female black bears.
.Predicted Observed "
1D 1984 age '1984 status Comments 1984 status
321 14 cubs lost '83 litter in Kay NA
349 (missing)7 cubs apparently lost 183 lit,ter,shed collar NA
354 7 cubs weaned 183 yearlings NA
363 6 cubs alone in 183 NA
369**6 cubs?first litter -expec,ted in '84 NA-377**6 '"c::ubs 'apparently lost 183 litter,slled collar NA
402**11 cubs weaned 183 -yearlings NA
409**6 cubs 'apparently alone in 183 NA
411**9 cubs weaned 183 yearlings NA
289 13 1]'1q cubs in '83 NA
301 (JDissinq)11 ]'1gs cubs in '83,shed collar NA
1""'1 317 11 1]'1q cubs'in '83 NA
!
3,18 (lI1ssinq)9 1 1gs cubs in 183,shed collar NA
361 9 3]'lgs cubs in '83 NA
370**<missing)9 ]'lgs cubs in 183,lost contact-shot?NA
372**(lIl1ssinq)11 ]'198 cubs in 183,lost contact-shot?NA
375**11 1-2 ylqs cubs in 183 NA
376**8 3 ]'lgs cubs in 183 NA
~
378**'83 NA!8 211qs cub~in
404**12 1-2]'198 cubs in 183,last seen in Ju1]'183 NA
4OS**18 2]'lqs cubs in 183 NA
406**12 2 ]',19S'CUbS in 183 NA
329 ..barren?first litter expected in 1985 NA
**bear occurs in the downstream study area
,-
SMIL09
SM-1
p.19
--
Table 32:Comparisons of blac~bear ages and sex ratios in upstream and
downstream study areas.Includes bears 2.0 years old and older;.-
age and sex ratio data based on first capture (recaptures not
counted again).
.....,
I
....,
UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM BOTH .
STUDY AREA -STUDY AREA AREAS
No.males captured 25 5-30·
No.females captured'J 20 17 -37
No •males/100 females 125.0 29.4 81.1
Mean age (males)5.5 4.2 5.3
range (age of males)2-10 2-6 2-10
S.D.3.0 1.6 2.8
Mean age (females)6.9 7.5 7.1
range (age of females)2-12 3-17 2-17
S.D.2.9 3.5 3-2
mean age (both sexes)6.1 6.7 6.3
S.D.3.0 3.4 3.1
Statistical Tests:
•Mean age of males is the same in each study area
t •0.92,d.f.•28,P >0.2
-Mean age of females is the same in each study area
t-0.59~d.f.-35,p >0.2
-Mean age of bears is same in each study area
t -0.78,d.f.•65,p >0.2
•Mean age of males •mean age of females (ul-atream data)
t •1.56,d.f.-43~p >0.10
•Mean age of males -mean age of females (do~stream data)
t -2~00,d.f.-20,P <0.10*
•Mean age of males -mean age of females (both areas)
t -2.53,d.f.•65,p <0.025*
-reject HO)
BO •Same s~x ratio in each study area
X •13.6,d.f.•3,p <0.005.*
BO
Bo
BO
HO
HO
HO
(*
~SMILIO
SM-2
Table 33.Status of black bears marked during Su-Hydro studies,1980-1983.(A=al1ve,ND=no data,-.
F=shot in fall season,Sp=shot in spring season,S=Summer capture or mortality).
Bear 10 Sex/Age 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Upstream Study Area
287 MIlO in '80 A A 'Shot-F
288 Fl10 in 'SO A(shed)NO NP NO
.-289 F/9 in '80 A A A A
290 F/8 in '80 A A(remvd)NO NO
301 Fl7in '80 A A A NO (shed)
302 Nl8 in.·'80 A A A(shot?)
303 MIs in '80 A A A Shot-F
304 Hl10 in '80 A A A(shed)NO
30S M/9 in 'SO Shot-F
307 Ml2 in '80 A Shot-S
310 M/2 in '80 NO NO NO NO
316 F/12 in '80 Shot-!'
317 F/7 in 'SO A-S A A A
318 F/5in '80 A-S A A NO-shed
319 Nl3in'SO A-S died
320 Ml4 in '80 Shot-F
321 Fl10 in 'SO A-S A cubs A A
322 Hl4 in '80 A-S A died
323 Nl2 in 'SO A-S A A Shot-F
324 MIS in '80 A-S A A A
32S FIll in '80 A-S A Shed NO
326 F/5 in '80 Shot-F
!327 FI5 in '80 A-S A A Oied-SI
,.328 F/6 in 'SO A-S A Shed NO
329 Fl1 in 'Sl A A A
330 MIl in 'SO died-S
342])MIS.in 'Sl Shot-F
346 Ml9 in.'Sl .A A A
348 M/9 in '81 A-S Shot-F
349 F/4 in '81.A-S A shed
354 F/5 in '82 A A
357 Nl4 in '82 died-If
358 Ml2 in '82 A A
359 Nl4 in '82 A A
360 KI7 in '82 A A
361 FI7 in '82 A A
362 F/2 in '82.NO NO
363 F/4 in '82 A A
364 F/9 in '82 A,shot?
379 F/9 in '83 died-S
387 F/4 in '83 A
401 K/3 in '83 A
(continued.on next page)
119
.-SMILIO
Table 33.Cont.SM-2
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
~
Upstream subtotals '.
,
1Iax:1mum No.bears
potentially alive
(includes NO)in year-(excludes natural
mortalities UhF)24(12:12}24(12:12)27(12:15)25(10:15)
"No.known shot U!:F)4(2:2)2(2:0)2(2:0~2(2:0)..-
No.additional bears
SUSPeCted shot (H:F.)0 0 2(1:1)0
'..-
,known or susPeCted shot 17%8'15'a,
Downstreu Study Area
343 HIs in '81 A A A
365 HIS In'82 A Dled-F
366 H/6 in '82 Shot-F
367 F/4 111 '82 A Shot-S
369 P/4 111 '82 A A
370 p/7 in.'82 A (ShoU)-S
372,P/9 in '82 A (ShoU)-S
374 FI7 1D '82 A Shot-F
375 PIS 1D '82 A A
376 P/6 111 '82 A A
377 PIS 1D '82 A A
378 P/6 1D '82 A A
402 pII0 1D '83 A
404 pIll in '83 A
405 1'/17 111 '83 A
406 1'111 in '83 A
408 H/3 1D '83 A
409 PIS 111 '83 A
410 1'17 1D '83 Shot-S
411 F/8 in '83 A
Downstream subtotals
Max.No.bears potentially-alive (includes NO)in year
(excludes natural mortalities)
(H:F)1 (1:0)12(3:9)18(2:16)
No.known shot (H:F)0 1(1:0)3 (0:3)
No.additional bears
suspected shot (H:F)0 0 2(0:2)
,known or suspected shot 8'28%
.-(continued on next page)
120
.....
,.,..
.-
r-
--
..SMILIO
Table 33.Cout.SM~2
1980·1981 1982 1983 1984'
Upstream &Downstream Areas Combined
Total bears potentially
aUve 1D year (excludes
natural IIOrtallties,
includes NO)(M:F).24(12:12)25(13:12)'39(15:24)43(12:31)
No.known shot (M:F)4(2:2)2(2:0)3(3:0)5(2:3)
No.additional bears
susp!cted shot (M:F)0 0 2 (1:1)2 (0:2)
\;known or suspected
shot 17%8\13\16\
.......
121
SMILlO
'SK-l
Table 34.SWIIIIIilry of apparent natural mortalities of radio-collared adult bears.Susitna Hydro
project.Includes black bears '::'1 year of age and brown bears '::'2 year of 'age.
sexlage (at death),
Bear m reprod.status
Black bears
Comments
B288 F/Wv:ith 3c
8319 H/4·
8330 Hll
B357 11/4
8322 11/6
B321 F/8 w1th 2c
8379 F/9 with 3c
8365 8/6
-
B291
8300
Brown bears
G33l
Hl3
Hl7
F17
Died 2-28 JUly,1980,2.months 'after capture,cause of death unknown.
D1ed6-14 May,1980,2-10 days after .capture.,cause of death unknown
but capture myopathy possible (H99/RoDlpun used,im!Dobil1zation and
recovery were apparently normal)•.
Not sure bear died but suspect that it did and collar was moved away
froID carcass by predator.·Probably died 22-27 August,1980,6 months
after capture.
D1ed 29 July-4 August,1981,11 months after capture,cause unknown.
D1ed 17-24 August,1981,5 months after capture in den with IIIOther and
sibling,apparently killed and eaten by predator.Radio-collared
female sibl1ng s~1ved (B329).
Died winter of 1981,6 months after capture,apparently k1lled by
another bear (spec1es?)at or near 1ts den and eaten.
D1ed 24-29 June,1982,4 weeks after recapture (was very skinny and
weighed an est.90 lbs),cause unknown.
D1ed 20 June-l July,1983,4 months after recapture in den,killed by
predator (probably bear)but not eaten (cub defense?).
D1ed early July,1983 (?),3 months after recapture in den,canine
punctures in scapula,in brown bear habitat,lost cubs earl1er.
Suspect was k1lled by brown bear.
Died Oc:t.1983,9 months after recapture in den.Scavenged (killed?)
by wolves.Guess may have been wounded by hunter (no evidence).Good
condition.
Died 1-31 July,1982,14 months after capture,cause ot death unknown,
hed DO cubs in 1982 but should have (weaned 2@2 in 1981).Bones not
scattered.Weighed 284 lbs.on 5/81 (large).
122
SMIL09
8M-I.
Table 35.Summary of black be"ar litter size data based on observations of bears
with litters of newborn cubs.""".
both'survived to yearling age
lost 1 in August,2 survived
COMMENTS
lost 1 cub in Sept ••other survived
·survivorship undetermined,female
shed collar
ini.tia1 capture in summer,both
survived to fall,cubs not seen
with bear at initial capture
MOTHER'S ID (age-year)LITTER SIZE
B289 (IO in spring '81)3
B289 (I2 in spring '83)2
B301 (8 in spring '81)2
B301 (IO in spring '83). "2(in den)
[2 "at exit]
B317 (7 in SUDDDeJ;'80)2 (summer)
M
, i
'i
;I
I
I
B317 (10 in '83)2(in den)
[2 at exit]
"""B318 (5 in SUDDer '80)1 (summer)I
i
B318 (8 in 183)2 (den)
[2 at exit]
·B328 (7 in SUDDDer '81)2 (summer)
lost 1 in June;other survived
survived
both lost by 6/6/83 apparently,
shed collar
bred in 1980.Lost 1 by 7/29/81.
shed co1la~in den (not sure if
survived until exit)
B326 (5 in SUDDDer '80)2 (summer)bear shot in 1980,cubs may have
been adopted by B317
B321 (11 in spring '8l)2 110 cubs in summer 1980,both cubs
lost by 8/24/81,no litter in '82,
no litter verified in 1983 but may
have lost a litter early in 1983,
bred in 1983
~
i
""'"; I
B327 (5 in summer '80)
B327 (8 in 183)
B349 (6 in spring 183)
2 (summer)
2 (den)
[2 at exit]
2 (den)
[0 at exit?]
both survived to yearling age
cubs survived into June,female
died in July
first litter,no cubs in summer '81
or spring '82.cubs apparently lost
in May.collar shed in July
B354 (5 in '82)2 both survived to den entrance.at
least 1 y1gs.at exit in '83
B361 (8 in '83)4(in den)
[3 at exit]
lost 1 in den prior to exit.
others survived
B370 (8 in '83)2(in den)
[2 at exit]
bear missing after 5/23/83,cubs
alive at that time
Table 35.(cont'd)
MOTHER'S ID (age-year)
B372*(10 in '83)
B374*(7 in.'83)
B375*(6 in '83)
B376*(5 in '83)
LITTER SIZE
3{in den)
(3 at exit]
3
2
3(in den)
[3 at exit]
COMMENTS
lost 1 in early July,others
survived to 7/20,female lost
in Sept.
think lost 2 in July,bear shot
in Sept.
think both survived
all survived
SMIL09
8M-I ..
",
B377*(6 in '83)[1-211]
NOT COUNTED
cubs may have been lost prior to
or during capture,cubs not seen
during capture but saw at least
1 cub 9 days ~arlier on 5/10/83
B378*(7 in '83)2 (den)
[2 at exit]
B379 (9 in '83)3 (den)
[2 at exit]
B404*(11 in '83)1
B40S*(17 in'83)2
B406*(11 in '83)2
B41O*(7 in '83)2
both survived
lost all cubs by 5/23/83,bred
again,died in July
survived thru 7/20 at least
both survived
both survived
both survived thru June,bear
shot in,July
Total number /number of
of cubs litters mean litter size (range)comments
59 27 2.2(1-4)all cub litters counted
at earliest observation
46 .21 2.2(1-3)spring observations only
(w/o den data or summer
litters)-52 22 2.4(1-4)earliest observationI
I excluding summer litters
-27 11 2.5{2-4)observations in dens only
*Downstream study area
124
SMIL09
SM=l
Table 36.Summary of black bear litter size data based on observations of bj!ars
with litters of yearlings.
MOTHER'S ID (age-year)LITTER.SIZE
B289 (9 in 1980)2
B289 (11 in 1982)2(in den)
....B301 (7 in 1980)1
I
B301 (9 in 1982)2
B317 (8 in 1981)2
COMMENTS
weaned by5/22/8Q,bred,3 cubs
in '81
weane~by 6/9/82,bred,had 2
cubs in 1983
weaned by 6/12/80.bred,had 2
.'cubs in 1981
weaned by 6/17/82,bred,had 3
cubs in 1983
weaned by 6/18/81,bred,1 ylg
returned and was with female
until 9/9/81,no cubs in 1982
-
B318 (6 in 1981)
B327 (5 in 1981)
1 (den)
.2(den)
ylg (B330)weaned by 5/29/81,
bred.ylg died by 8/24/81 ,no
(reason?)cubs in 1982,bred
again,2 cubs in 1983
ylg B329 and sibling,sibling
weaned by 6/5/81,B329 by 6/21,
bred,no cubs in 1982,bred
again.cubs in 1983
~B354 (6 in 1983)1(?)
~
B402 (10 in 1983)3
B411 (8 in 1983)Z
B288 (10 in 1980)3
~
B290 (8 in 1980)2
at least 1 ylg exited den
(perhaps both?),weaned by
6/2/83
weaned in early July
weaned after 6/13
Bred in 1980,ylgs.with female
into August,shed collar in 1980
weaned by 6/23/80,bred in 1981,
collar removed on 8/5/81 (neck
scarred)
Total number number of
of ylgs.observed litters mean litter size (range)comments
23 12 1.9(1-3)
125
all litters with
ylgs.counted
·._}-~·-1 1 S~~:;~Jg
SM-l
Table 37.Summary of ~own losses of black bear cubs.Losses calculated during fir$t season out of den
(in dens or at emergence from dens as cubs to entrance into dens as cubs)
•.•.•."J
Year Upstream study area downstream study area Both areas
1980 no data no data
1981 3 of 7 lost (289.301,321)no data
1982 0 of 2 lost (354)no data
1983 complete data 6 of 11 lost (289,317,361,379).1 of 12 lost (375,376,377,
.378,405,406)
3 of 7 lost
o of 2 lost.
7 of 23 lost
1983 incomplete data.4 of 4 lost (328,349)3 of 6 lost (372,374)
1983 preliminary total 10 of 15 •67%lost........,
Q'I
TOTALS (all years)13 of 24 •54%lost
4 of 18 •22%lost
4 of 18 ~22%lost
7 ·9£10 lost
14 of 33 ~42%lost
17 of 42 •40%lost
*incomplete data ~a8u1ted from not observing the IamilY-·status of the bear before it entered,its 1983/84 den,
shed collars,collar failures,or early hunter ki1ls~Tabulated losses occurred prior to 10s8 of the
female to these causes.'
B404 (last seen on 7/20/83)not included in 1983
B377 may have lost 2 of 2 rather than the 1 of 1 tabulated in 1983,the initial litter size was not known with
certainty.
..
........
SMILO~
,SM-l
Table 38.Morphometries of black bear cubs-of-year handled,in the Susitna Hydro"
Project.
CUB MOTHER'S DATE
ID ID HANDLED SEX WT(lbs)COMMENTS
""'1 B301 20 March 1983 (den)F 2.6-
!B301 20 March 1983 (den)F 2.5
""",'B361 21 March 1983 (den)M 3.5
,I B361 21 March 1983 (den)F 3.8
I B361 21 March 1983 (den)F 3.5
B361 21 March-1983 (den)F 2.8
B349 22 March 1983 (den)F 3.5
B349 22 March 1983 (den)F 3.4
B317 23 March 1983 (den)M 4.3 neck-175mIil
B317 23 March 1983 (den)M 4.3 neck-180mm
B318 23 March 1983 (den)M 2.8
B318 23 March 1983 (den)F 2.7
B327 23 March 1983 (den)M 5.3 neek-19Omm
B327 23 March 1983 (den)F 4.5 neck-180mm
B379 24 March 1983 (den)M 2.8
B379 24 March 1983 (den)M 3.3-B379 24 March 1983 (den)M 3.3
1~
,B372 15 April 1983 (den)F 3.7I
I B372 15 April 1983 (den)F 4.1
I""i"B372 15 Apr11 1983 (den)M-4.5
, I
I i
, I B376 16.April 1983 (den)M 6.0 neck-190mm
B376 16 April 1983 (den)F 5.5 neck-190mm,""'i".B376 16 April 1983 (den)F 5.8 neck-190mm!
B370 16 April 1983 (den)F 7.5 neck::02OOmm
~B370 16 April 1983 (den)F 7.0 neck=19Omm
!
010 B374 19 May 1983 F neck-175mm,ear tags
011 B374 19 May 1983 F neck-200mm,ear tags
012 B374 19 May 1983 F neck-195mm,ear tags
013 B404 19 L:ay 1983 F 10.0 neck-215mm,ear tags
014 B405 19 May 1983 F 6.5 neck-180mm,ear tags
015 B405 19 May 1983 F 6.0 neck-175mm,ear tags
355 B354 26 May 1982 F ear tags
356 B354 26 May 1982 'M ear tags
Totals:11 males and 22"females,In dens-l0 males and 15 females.
127
~
I
-
SMILO~
,SM-1
Table 39.Morphometries of black bear yearlings handled in the Susistna Hydro
Project.
•·~.o';'·.•••
YLG MOTHER'S DATE
ID ID HANDLED SEX WT(lbs)COMMENTS
B329 B327 23 Marc·h 1981 (den)F 15 (est.)-tagged and collared
B330 B318 25 March 1981 (den)M 31 ~.agged and collared'
B350 B289 '1 April 1982 (den)M 14 ear tagged
B351 B289 1 April 1982 (den)M 16 ear tagged
B353 B301 26 May 1982 'M 29 with mother,capture mortality
Totals:4 males and 1 female
128
SMIL05
SM-22
,-Table 40.Results of downstream (Curry-Devils Canyon)black bear census effort on
24 May 1983.
....'
-Marked black.
Sample Unitl Size Time spent Total black (No.bears present*
(observer)(mi 2 )(min.)bears seen marked)(bear ID
37 20.1 0 343
40 12.4 0 .369;406
41 9.8 0
42N 12.8 0
42S 15.0 o·367
43 (sm)14.6 72 2 (0)409
44 (dcm)37.7 105 0 (0)410;411;
372;370
45 (dcm)20.8 115 2+3c ··(0)405;408;
377;376;
402;404
46 (am)12.3 62 1+1c (0)
47 (sm)14.7 29 1 (0)375;378
TOTALS:170 ..2 present ·383 6+4c (0)17 (13 in
100.1 counted SUs counted)
*Based on precensus radio-tracking flight on 23 May 1983.Black bears 374 and 365
were outside of the sample unit borders on this flight although 374 had moved inside
(SU 46)by June 1.
-
129
SMIL05
SM-22
Table 41.Results of upstream (Devils Canyon-Oshetna)black bear census effort on""
24-25 May 19'83.
..."~
""i
I
1
!
.1"'1', I
I
Sample UnitU
(observer)
.1.(dcm)
·2
3
4 (sm)
5 (dcm)
6 (sm)
7A (dcm)
7B
8 (dcm)
9 (dcm)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 (am)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
TOTALS:
11.6
25.6
18.9
15.4
14.0
13.4
11.3
10.1
12.6
20_..1
9.0
14.9
19.4
12.5
11.4
7.6
13.1
9.6
11.2
8.7
22.7
14.2
7.7
9.6
11.8
20.9
20 •.7
8.6
13.4
14.0
10.8
12.1
11.9
9.5
19.5
14.6
17.9 ".
496.9 present
131.5 counted
Time spent
(min.)
54
o
o
57 '.
63
52
43
o
64
68
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
71
o
o
68
45
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
585
Total black
bears seen,
o
o
o
o
o
1+2c
3
o
o
o
£"+2c
"(No.
marked)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1-317)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
Marked black
bears present*
(bear ID)
324;303;321
379
401
317;318
329;327
289
349;387
361
359
360;358;323
363
354
301
20 (7 in
SUs counted)
*During precensus flight on 23 May 1983.All radio-marked bears were found inside
the sample units except B346 and this bear was inside SU 29 on 2 June 1983.
130
SHIL11
SM-15
.,-
Table 42.Results of upstream (Devils Canyon-oshetna)!black bear census effort on,_-.
19-20 August 1982.
""'i
I
"l
I
i
I
Sample Unit'
(observer)
1 (sm)
2
3
4 (sm)
5 (sm)
6 (sm)
7 (n)
8 (sm)
9 (sm)
10 (sm)
11
12.(dcm)
13 (dcm)
14 (am)
15 (dcm)
16 (dcm)
17
18 (dcm)
19
20 (sm)
21 (dcm)
22 (dcm)
23 (am)
24 (dcm)
25 (sm)
26
27 (n)
28
29 (dcm)
30 (dcm)
31 (dcm)
32 (dcm)
33 (dcm)
34 (dcm)
35 (am)
36 .<sm)
37**(dcm)
Size
(111 2 )
11.6
25.6
18.9
15.4
14.0
13 ..4
21,,4-
12.6
20.1
9.0
14.9
19.4
12.5
-11.4
_7.6
13.1
9.6
11.2
8.7
22.7
14.2
7.7
9.6
11.8
20.9
20~7
8 ..6
13.4
14.0
10.8
12.1
11.9
9.5
19-.5
14.6
17.9
20.1
Time spent
(min.)
55
47
3~
34
79
47
46
35
67
54
42
41
47
4.7 ,
92
73
51
38
29
79
65
25
55
55
50
40
58
56
74
40
67
Total black
bears seen
(No.[marked)
3(1)
!
i _";;-
otO)
0(0)
2(1)
3(3)
0(0)
1(0)
1(0)
\
1(0)
2(0)
1(1)
1(0)
Of 0)
0(0)
2(0)
1(0)
0(0)
2(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(0)
1(1)
•2(0)
1(1)
5(1)
0(0)
6(0)
1(0)
1(0)
Marked black
bears present*
(bear ID)
321
289
287,303,324,317
329,327
361,364
349
357,358,323
363
354,359
301
346
360,318
TOTALS:5l7.0 present 1627
439.3 counted _
38(9)21 (all in
SUs counted)
,....*During precensus flight on 17-18 Aug.1982.All radio-marked bears were found inside
the sample units.
**In 1982-SU 37 was included in the downstream study area.
131____________________.......::~:......_-------------------1
132
SMIL10
SM-1
Table 43b.Spring home ranges (Jan -10 July)sizes (km 2 )of individual female black bears upstream
of Devils Canyon used as basis for density calculations.Only bears ~3 y included in
SUIIIIIli1rY •Number of points indicated in brackets.
"'...
Il-~Bear m(age
in first year Inclusive ..,
monitored 1980 1981 1982 1983 1980-1983 .,
B288 (10)3.8[10](shed in
sep)
8289(9)30.6 [8}21.5 [9](w/3o)15.8[81.2.7[8],48.7[33]
!""'"B29O(8)34.2[11]19.0[11}(tbru 8/6 -49.1[22}
collar removed)
B301(7)8.0[11]1.3[7}(v/2o)8.9[10]0~8[8](wf2c)18.50[36],....tbru July-shed
B317 (7)-(summer capt.8.0[9]6.5 [8]6.1[9](v/2o)13.9[26]
v/2cr shot 9/8
8318(5)-(SU8er capt.)11.7[9]16.3 [9]4.4[7](tbru 23.4[25]
7/8 shed
B321 (10)-(summer capt.)4.2{7](w/2c)12.9[10]24.1[10] 27.4[27]
8325(11)-(suauaer capt.)-(summer)-(shed)
B327 (5)-(summer capt.,30.1[26]13.0[8]"5.5[9](v/2c)34.1 [43]
v/2o)died 7/8
B328·(6}-(SUJlllller capt.)2.1[9](v/2c)-(shed)
8329(1 in 1981)7.3 [8](aqe=1)4.1[8](age=2)4.5 [9]19.1[25]
8349(4)-(SUllllller capt.)8~6[10]15.8 [7](lost 24.4[17]
cubs in May)-
shed 8/1.....
B354 (5)16.1 (7](v/2o)50.2{8]67.3[15]
B361 (7)22.6[7]46.1[7](w/3c)72.6[14]-B363 (4)13.4[7] 18.3[9]24.6 [16]
8364(9)82.8{7](tbru
~Sep radio failed?)
B379(9)3.8[7](3 cubs
lost in May,
died 7/1)
~SUZ:ri!by.bear-lear (all females)(Overall mean)
=9.2 12.2 19.7 15.2 16.4
S.D.=15.5 10.4 21.4 17.0 16.7
N=4 8 11 12 35
range=:3.8-34.2 1.3-30.1 6.5-82.8 0.8-50.2 0.8-82.8
Females w/o cubs
Mean=19.2 17.2 20.1 17.4 11~t8
S.D.=15~5 9.7 22.5 18.3 1~.8
H=4 4 10 6 24
r-range=3.8-34.2 8.0-30.1 6.5-82.8 2.7-50.2 3.8-82.8
Females w/cubs
Mean=7.3 16.1 13.0 11.2
S.D.=9.6 17.0 13.5
H=0 4 1 6 11
range=1.3-21.5 0.8-46.1 0.8-46.1
--------
],;33
SMIL10.
SM-l
Table 44.Sprinq home ranqe (Jan -10 July)sizes Ckm 2 )of individual female black bears downstream
of Devils Canyon used as basis for density calculations.Only bears >3 years of aqe
included in sUIIIIIIarY.Number of points indicated in brackets.-
134
--~l 1 -··-1 1 -1 )1 J
SMIL11
5H-15
1 ]
Table 45.Annual home range sizes for the Su Hydro dowstre8lD black bears (inciudes individuals with 5 or IIOre locations).
1982 1983
10 (age in first ObservatIon PerIOd Home RiDge ObservatIon period ROme Ringe
year monitored)(No.of Locations)(02 )(No.of Locations)(02 )Co_ents
MALES
408 (3)------Hay-Oct (16)217
365 (5)Hay-Sep (11)656 Hay-sep (15)252 died 9/83
366 (6)May-Aug (10)136 shot 9/82
FEMALES
369 (4)Hay-sep (18)10 Hay-Oct (20).26
367 (4)tfay-sep (17).18 Hay-Jul (9)4 •..
317 (4)Jun-Sep (15)12 May-Oct (18)25 (w/oubs)*
409 (5)----Hay-Oct (16)26
376 (6)Jun-Sep (13 )21 .May-Oct (21)34(w/3@c)
....378 (6)Jun-SeJ»(14)8 May-Oct (20)10(w/2@C)w
U1 370 (7)Hay-Sep (18)16 Hay [4]--(w/cubs)lost 5/83
374 (7)malfunction [3]--Hay-Sep (16)30(w/3@c)shot 9/83
410 (7)----Hay-Jul (9)19(w/2@C)shot 7/83
411 (8)----May-Oct (17)31
372 (9)May-sep (17)56 Hay-Aug (13)76(w/2@C)lost 9183
375 (9)Jun-Sep (16)17 Hay-Jul (9)4(w/2@C)
402 (10)----Hay-Oct (17)13
404 (11)----Hay~Oct (16)36(w/l@c)
406 (U)----Hay-Oct (1l)18(w/2@c)
405 (17)----Hay-Oct (17)25(w/2@£)
i(aU females)=(16.0)19.8 (15.7)25.1
S.D.=--1.9 15.3 4.0 17.3
range =(13-18)8-56 (9-21)4-76
x(all males and females)=14.9 95.0 15.7 50.4
S.D.=2.9 200.9 3.7 73.2
range =(10-18)(8-656)(9-21)(4-252)
*litter lost In May ...
--I )-I ]]1 )--]--B j
SMIL11
SM-15
Table 46.Annual home range sizes for Su-Hydro upstreQ ,tudy area black bears.(Includes individuals with ,or lIIOre locations).
1980 1981 1982 19B!
Bear ID Obs.Period Ho_Sqe Cbt1!.PerIoll Rome Sge Cbs.PeriOd Home RiDge Cbs.PeriOd Home Range
(age @capture)(No.locations)(ga)_(No.locations)(ga)(No.locations)(ga)(No.location)(tm a )
Males
~1)-----f!ay-Oct (14 )10 dead 7/81
323 (2)Aug-Oct (6)20 May-Oct (19)383 May-Oct (20)1126 f!ay-Sep (17)1089(shot 9/83)
358 (2)------------May-Oct (17)11 f!ay-Oct (17)53
319 (3)May-Ju1 (6)67 f!ay-Jul (10)'.3 dead 7/81 ---,.~~
401 (3)--..-----------f!ay-Oct (18)91
291 (4)May-Ju1 (7)-20 Dead 7/80 ---~--~-....-..
322 (4)Aug-oct (5)10 Shed 12/80 May-Ju1 (7)n dead 7/82
359 (4)---------..--May-Oct (18)-83 f!ay-Oct (19)154
357 (4)------------May-Oct (18)11 dead 10/82T....
w l87 (4)---~~---------f!ay-Oct (16)164en
324 (5)Auq-Oct (6)29 f!ay-Oct (20)248 f!ay-Oct (21)140 May-Oct (17)170
3428(5)---..--May-SeP (40)611 shot 9/81
343 (5)------f!ay-Oct (16)289 f!ay-Oct (19)370 -May-Oct (20)501
302 (8)May-Ju1 (6)4 May-Oct (36)326 (shed)May-Ju1 (11)51 'missing,
303 (8)May-Oct (15)95 f!ay-Oct (18)(93 May-Oct (20)74 May-Aug (11)U(shot 9/83)
305 (9)May-Aug (9)48 shot 8/80 ---------..--
346 (9)------May-Oct (16)62 May-Oct (22)91 May-Oct (16)119
348 (9)------Aug-Oct (7)389 May ..Jun (9)136 .shot 9/82
287(10)May-Oct (17)136*May-Oct (15)268*May-Sep (18)250 shot 9/82
304 (10)May-Sep (15)35*May-Oct (18)41*shed 7/82
x(a11 ma1es)=(9.2)46.0 (18.3)230.3 (16.7)197.0 (16.8)253.8
S.D.:;--42.0 --184.5 --311.0 --343.4
range :;(5-17)4-136 (7-40)10-611 (9-22)11-1126 (11-20)43-1089
(ContInued on next page)
......
1 '~~~])1 )1 1 -~1
SMILll
SM-15
Table 46.(continued)
1980 1981 '1982 1983
Bear ID Dbs.Period Home Range Obs.Period Home RiDge lils.Period HOlDe RiDge'Obs~Period Home Ringe
(air;@ capture)(No.locations).(km 2 ),(No.locations)(km2 )(No.locations)(km2 )(No.locations)Ucm 2 )
p~
J 1 --I 1 j 1 -1 1 »SIULU}
SM-1
Table 47.ColDparisons of berry abundance in 4 transects in 1982 &1983 (10 plots of one s~are meter:/transect)in the impoundment study area.
TnDsect 1 Transect 4 Transect 2 Tnnsect 3
Location ~tween Vee Canyon Con'luence of Vella Canyon-Middle Deadman-
and Oshetna Susitna R.and DeadmllQ Oshetna Ck.Natana Camp
(upstream)(downstnuJ (upstr:eam)(downstream)
Elevation 2325 feet 2100 feet 3050 feet 2450 feet
Aspect 218 0 239 0 216 0 201 0
Slope 8 0 40 50 70
Veg,tation tme .NSB NSB B*B
Date 8721782 8/18/~.8/21782 8718/83 8/21/82 .8/18783 8/21782 8718783
Blueberries (Vacciniua u1iginosua)
No.berries 303 238 32 U 489 1104
range (no/plot)1-191 0-120 0-8 0-19 0-164 59-202
S.D.5?39 3.2 6.2 54.9 53.6
,canopy cover:
lDean 21.2 24.0 31 :U.5 36.0 41.0
range 5-60 10-40 15-70 10-60 5-80 15-70
S.D.15.9 11.3 17.9 15.9 24.6 19.3
Lowbush cranberry (V.vitis-idaea)
No.berries -21 94 0 127 45 604
range 0-15 0-23 -0-114 0-16 4-109
1-6 S.D.5.1 9.1 ~35.6 -36.7w,canopy cover:CO lDean 3.4 15.1 3.9 9.3 6.7 36.5
range 0-10 1-50 0-15 0-25 2..,.10 15-80
S.D.3.5 14.8 5.1 11.7 3.0 19.6
77
0-31
11.7
57.0
15-80
23.0
23
0-15
8.7
0-30
8.6
297
0-119
39.4
44.5
30..,.70
15.0
102
0-33
U.S
20.0
10-60
15.5
344
0-128
40.1
16.5
0-30
11.1
0.4
0-2
,1
18.0
0-50
17.5
10.9
0-50
14.5
18.5
5-35
11.1
10.2
0-30
10.2
8.0
0-30
8.9
2.9
0-10
3.4
CrOWberrIes (EDlpetrum ~)
No.berries -'7 65 112 614 200 452 '
range/plot 0-10 0-39 0-58 0-261 0-50 0-169
S.D.3.1 13.0 17.9 80.8 19.7 52.8
,Canopy cover:
lDean
range
S.D.
Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursl)
No.of berries 22 22 0 0 0 0 '0
range/plot 0-20 0-19
o
*Transect #2 was clearly in a birch shrub type although according to the vegetation map it was in woodland black spruce (NSS).
Berryweights on 8/18/83=
130 glOs/lODO for V.vitis-idaea
304 glOs/10CO for v.ullglnosum
260 glOs/lODO for E.nlgrum
.'.',I'
"j"
SMIL07
SM-1
Table 48.Subjective characterization of berry abundance in the upstream study
area since 1980.
Year
1980
1981
Characterization of
Berry Abundance
normal
very poor
Comments
No special effort "was made to evaluate berry
abundance,black bears were very common in the
shrub lands adjacent to forested habitats and in
forested habitats.
Extensive unanticipated movements of radio-marked
black bears in late summer provided first clue that
something was amiss.On the ground inspection
supported hypothesis that blueberries were very
scarce.Bears were in very poor condition the
following spring in both upstream and downstream
area.Three marked black bears died (Table 34)in
1981 following the summer berry failure.Bears were
common in semi-open shrub lands.
-
1982 slightly sub-aver~ge Berry transects supported hypothesis that berries
were more abundant in shrublands than in adjacent
forests.Low reproductive success evident in spring
1982 and bears tended to be very skinny.In summer
bears foraged"in shrublands but there appeared to be
many fewer bears in the study area than in 1980.
Would have concluded a massive emmigration in 1981
except that the marked bears that moved away had all
returned.Possibly there was an increased mortality
rate resulting from the 1981 berry failure.One
marked bear died in 1982 compared to 3"in the
previous and following years.Mortality could have
been most marked on subadults,only 2 of these were
radio-marked.
(continued on next page)
139
SMIL07
SM-l
Table 48.(continued)
.:'..-.
-[
I
-!
r
!
1983 above-average Berry transects suggest more berries than in 1982,
especially crowberriesand lowbush cranberries.
Although not evident !n the transect data it appeared
that blueberries were locally very abundant in
forested habitats "and bears did not have to,and
didn't,move into "the shrub land habitat types to
forage for berries in late summer.Some black bears
expected to produce their first litters in 1983
failed to do so suggesting delayed age of first
reproduction may have resulted from 1981 berry
,
failure.Appeared to be many fewer bears present
than in 1980.
140---------------,--------_-:-_-----
1 I ····-1 --1 -1.]1 -1 J
SMI
SM
Table 49.Scat analyses of broWQ bear and black bear Ilcats collected 1n the Su-Hydro study area,1983.(Analyses done by Paul Smith,ADF&G,
Soldotna).Values are'volume (T=trace,2=6-25\,3=26-50\,4=51-75\,5=76-100\).
Date Species of Sample
Collected bear Location No.Comments 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 lQ 11 12 13 14 15 '16 17 18
Summer -Fall -Sloughs
8/25/83 1 downstream 5 Slough SA 5 2
8/25/83 1 downstream 7 Slough 8A T 5
8/25/83 1 downstreu 8 Slough SA 5
.8/25/83 1 downstr,u 28 Slough 8A T 5 2
8/25/83 1 downstream 31 Slough SA 4 2 T T
8/24/83 1 downstream 13 Slough 8B '1'5 '1'T
8/24/83 1 downstream 4 Slougb 8B 5-0 '1'T T
8/24/83 1 downstream 21 Slough 8B T 5 T
8/24/83 1 downstream 17 Slough 8B 5 T T
8/24/83 1 downstream 30'Slough 8B '1'T 4 '1'T T
8/24/83 1 downstream 6 Slough 8B l'4 '1'2
8/24/83 1 downstreu 18 Slough 8B 3 ~T 2
8/24/83 1 downstream 9 Slough 8B 3 '1 3 T
8/24/83 1 downstream 15 8B +'nelDatode 3 3 3
8/25/83 1 downstream 14 Slough SA 4 T T T
8/25/83 1 downstream 22 Slough 8A '1'2 2 5 l'(ants)2
8/25/83 1 !lownstream 3 Slough 11 5
8/26/83 BRB1 downstream 43 Slough 20 ."....3...8/26/83 BRB1 downstream 33 Slough :n 5 T
c:o.8/26/83 BRB1 downstream 29 Slough 21 .'1'5 '1'T...8/26/83 BRB1 downstream 26 Slough 21 5
8/26/83 1 downstream 24 Slough 21 3 3 2 T
8/26/83 1 downstream 16 McKenzie ct.5 T T T T
8/25/83 1 downstream 19 Moose Ck.2 5 T T T
8/25/83 1 downstream 27 Moose Ck.5 T
8/25/83 1 downstream 11 Moose Ck.5
8/24/83 1 downstream 12 Slough 8 '1''1'5 T
8/25/83 1 downstreu 23 Slough 8A '1'5 or (ants)
8/25/83 1 downstream 20 Slough SA 5
8/25/83 1 downstreu'25 Slough A'T 3 3 T "T T
8/18/83 1 upstream 42 Berry Plot #1 3 T T 2
8/18/83 1 upstream 44 Berry Plot #2 3 3 T T T T
8/18/83 1 upstream 45 Berry Plot #1 T 3 T T 3
8/18/83 1 upstream 46 Berry Plot #1 2 3 2
Spring Samples
5/19/83 Bl<B upstream 36 B404 2 5
6/7/83 ?upstream 32 Forest area 5
6/7/83 Bl<B upstream 34 B36l den 5 T 2
6/8/83 1 upstream 35 +nematodes 3 3
6/8/83 BKa upstream 40 B372 den 5
6/9/83 BKB upstream 10 B374 5
6/10/83 BKa upstream 37 B358 den 2 2 2 T T ,T
6/9/83 ?downstream 38 Deadhorse Ck.5 T
(Contlnued)
"/''
I l j j j ]I 1 J -)-]J ]
....
01:00
N
Table 49.(continued)
1.Eratsetum SPP.(borsetall)8.L ebens
9.Grasses or sedges
Berries
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
17 •
Animal Matter
11.Hoose
U.Hare Or gr9Ulld squinel._ise.
13.Featbers
14.Fisb .
.15.Insects
16.Other Hlac.·
,
SMIL03
8M-4
,I .,"•.'
.....
SMILll
SM-15
Table SO.Salmon abundance in downstream sloughs and streams,1981-1983.
AREA RIVER MILE
No.Adult Salmon Enumerated*
1981 (N**>1982 lR**)1983 (R**)
-
Slough 21
Slough 11
Slough SA
Slough 20
Slough 9A .
Hoose Slough
SloughSB
Slough 8e
Slough 17
Slough 15
Slough B
Slough 9
Slough 6A
Sloughs A &A'
Slough 8
Slough 98
Slough 19
Slough 22
Mainstream
Zone 3
141.0
135.3
125.1
140.0
133 ..3
123.5
U~.~
-121 ..9
138.9
137.2
126.3
128.3
112.3
124.7
113.7
129.2
139.7
144.5
.135.2
747 (5)
5483 (9)
1283 (5)
27 (2)
484 (6)
555 (5).
1 (1)
(0)
169 (7)
1 (1)
NA
380 (5)
27 (3)
437 (10)
8SS (5)
678 (7)
84 (6)
HA
NA
2424 (9)
4806 (11)
1804 (10)
220 (7)
146 (3)
115 (7)
190 (6)
105 (3)
29 (4)
178 (3)
225 (6)
911 (6)
101 (4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
NA
HA
1904 (13)
5067 (23)
843'(20)
.201 (20)
217 (3)
392 (is)
240 (6)
(0)
182 (8)
20 (5)
9 (1)
1081 (9)
2 (1)
528 (16)
(0)
(0)
18 (6)
274 (4)
252 (2)
-.
Slough 2 .100.~44 (5)0 103 (4)
Indian R·~1v~e~r:,.w-----l"'3!1"1!8l""'.:1!"'6-----2.-o!3l'll1'2-.,..(1"')-----~61""1!'1'10:or3-l,...1"1'12T"'---1l'1l958I!"!'1""'"I"'U'"'6"'l"-
..r-Lane Ck
4th of JUly Ct.
Litlle Portage
ek.
Lower McKenzie
Ct.
5th of July Ct.
Skull CIt.
Portage CIt.
113.6
131..0
1b.7
123.7
124.7.
148..9
569 (7)
247 (6)
HA
97 (6)
2 (1)
24 (3)
22 (1)
2508 (11)
283~(11)
407 (9)
492 (6)
224 (4)
36 (4)
2238 (7)
118 (9)
636 (9)
10 (2)
46 (6)
24 (4)
1 (1)
4651 (13)
(conUnuea on next page)
143
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I * These data sum all live and dead fish (Chinook, Sockeye, Pink, Chum, and Coho Salmon)
recorded by Su;'Hydro AA personnel (ADF&G) during stream surveys. Different areas
were surveyed from 1 to 11 times during the year which contributes to variation .
observed between areas and between years in this data, survey conditions also varied.
Note that the same fish would likely be recorded numerous times in replicate surveys.
** N is the number of surveys conducted where salmon were enumerated, surveys where no -salmon were seen are not counted.
*** The portion of the Indian River evaluated by Fisheries personnel varied in 1981 and
1982. Most fish were found in 1982 in a tributary about ~ mile up from the mouth
(Crowe, per. commun.) during our investigation of the Indian River we did not observe -
this location.I
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
II
144
SMIL07SM-l
\Ranking \of bear and salmon use of downstream sloughs and creeks on 24-25August,j1983.(O-lowest on scale of 0-10)...'.
~Index of Index of
salmon presence bear use
BRB tracks
1 salmon eaten by'abear,BRB tracks
entrance into slough blocked
B404
B404,B411
B376,B402 -
B378
apparent use by radio-
collared individualsComments
flooded
less bear ~ign than last year
flooded and muddy
flooded
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
2
'2
2
3
1
1
1
'I
1
3
0-
1
3
Z
1
o
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
.,
I
~
~
I
j
I
j
I
"""
Table 51.
.....
I
.....Slough No.
7
8
~
SA
8B
l"~
I 8e
aD
A
A'-9
9B
~9A
10
-11
17
_19
20
21
I Lane Ck
_Lower McKensie 'Ck
McKensie Ck
~Portage Ck
DeadhorseCk
Moose and Clear
I'-Creeks
5th of July
_4th of July
-2.
1
o
o
o
I
1
5
1
1
I
1
o
3
1,
I
about 20 pinks'seen
few salmon
human trail along Ck to homesite
B343
B374
lots of salmon at mouth of creek B405,B411
*Had been lots of rain and sloughs were very high and muddy,salmon were difficult to
spot in the sloughs.
145·
1 1 1 J 01 J ]]-01 1 ]
Table 52.(continued)
Yr.Initial No.River Crossings by '1stre8lll bears
Bear ID capture (age)198(j 0 J981 1 82 1983 Comments
SMIL07
SM-1
shed collars 1981,1982
2 0 '--!ihed .c..Q11ar~1981,1982
Females (upstream)
329 1981(1)
349 1981(4)
363 1982(4)
379 1983(4)
318 1980(5)
326 1980(5)
327 1980(5)
354 1982(5)
328 ~'i80(6).....
~364 .1982(6).....
301 1980(7)
317 1980(7)
361 1982(7)
290 1980(8)
289 1980(9)
288 1980(10)
321 1980(10)
325 1980(11)
316 1980(11)
Total females
.(upstream)
Total both sexes
(upstream)
0*1
o
1*2
2
0*2
4*1
4
0*3
o
o
o
11
22
2
o
o
14
46
2
o
o
o
18
44
(continued)
5
o
o
o
o
1*2
o
0*1
0*3
1*2
o
7
32
327.'s cub
shed collar 7/83
active
dead;possibly killed by other bears
shed collar
shot
dead 7/83
active
shed collar 1982
missing **9/82
shed collar 8/83
.active
active'
not reco11ared (infected neck),
active "
shed collar 9/80
active
1 I J i ,..·~·l ~}1 1 J 1 1 ')1 ~~1 1 1 ]I
Table 52.(continued)I SMILO'
SM-l
Yr.Initial
Bear ID capture (age)1982 1983 CODDents
Males
(downstream)
408 1983(3)~0 active
365 1982(5)0 0 dead 9/83
366 1982(6)1 -shot 8/82
Total Males 1
Females
(downstream)
369 1982 (3)Q 0 active
367 19~2(4)0 0 shot ("DLPII)
377 1982(4)2 3 active
409 1983(5)-0 active
376 1982(6)2yl 4*3 active....
~378 1982(6)0 0*1 active
00
410 1983(7)-0 shot (IIDLPI I 7183)
374 1982 (7)0 0*3 shot 9/83
370 1982(7)0 0*2 missing**
411 1983(8)~2y2 active
375 .1982(9)5 4litl active
372 1982(9)0 0*2 missing**
402 1983(10)-2y3 active
404 1983(11)~2*1 active
406 1983(11)-.0*2 active
405 1983 (17)0*ii1 active
Total females
(downstream)9 17
Total both sexes
(downstream)10 17
.....POSSlbHf~unreportea hunter XUI,collar fallure,or emigration..'.
Reprod.status:*=cub of year y ;::yrlg.
'I 1 I 1 1 j 1 1 '"i --I C::MTL07..,J:l
Table 53.Characteristics of black bear'dens in the Susitna study area during winters of 1980/1981,1981/1982,1982/1983,1983/84.
E1eva-
Den Bear Age at tion Slope Aspect
No.ID No.Exit (feet)(Degrees)(True N)Vegetation
,Canopy DnRAHCE '
Tree 'Ht.Width
Coverage (CJD.)(CIlI.)
CHAMBER "Totl1 Previouslytn.Width Ht.J,engtb Used?
(CJD.)(CIll.)(CII.)(cm)(YeslNo)A 8 C
NATURAL CAVITIES .,,----
'FEMALfS w/offspring (at exit)
w/2 cubs 8 8321 11 2825 42 208 Alder 0 79 26 127 68 71 610 Yes 2 No
w**Alder,Bircb,Moss
Alder,Birch,Spruce 85
1220
\>?..
w/2 Qlbs
w/l@l
w/2 @O
w/1 @O
w/3 @O
w/3 @O
19
32
73
88
92
93
8328
8328
8327
8375
8374
8374
7
8
8
6,
7
7
1950
2075
2070
875
1825
1775
40
64
58
26
22
42
218
270
270
253
,204
Alder
Alder
Alder,Willow
Alder,Grass
o
50
90
30
60
41
49
43
n
33
93
39
41
48
81
84
249
54
91
44
58
36
180
328
1220
117
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
4
3
4
2
1
No
No
Yes
FEMALES w/o offspring (at exit)
....
~
\0
85 8377 6 2270 47 127 Alder,GraslS 10
33
,?collar
shed in den 6
8318
8325
7
12
1890
1490
41
30
361
178
8ircb
8ircb/alder/spruCe
o
50
51
49
U
27
69
100
76
74
62
55
654
113
Yes
Yes
3
2
No
No
13*8304*11
18*B322*5
96'8346
7#8287
9###8324
10#8303
Alder,Birch,Spruce 40
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-;No
'-
2
3
1
4
3
3
5
3
5
?*
?*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
488
465
318
272
'fes
869·Yes
48
51
42
45
94
71
97
91
89
70
82
89
64
185
122
137
108
211
216
44
34
36
53
86
38
48
39
53
38
76
81
46
58
20
62
38
93
o
55
50
o
40
o
o
o
40
Alder,Tundra
Cottonwood/wil10w/
bircb
Alder
Willow/alder/aspen
Rock pile/tundra
Alder/rock slide
Spruce,Birch
Alders
8irch,Spruce
8irch,Spruce
198
58
283
170
88
48
52
158
168
300
153
46
30
50
24
53
30
60
48
42
30
30
1875
3450
1700
2240
1690
4340
1840
2370
1900
2150
2200
5
7
8
11
5
3
11
6
8
B323
B343
B360
8359
8358
95
51
66
98
100
MALES
(COntlnued on next page)
1 1 "-1 .-.-1 -J ]1 I
SMIL07
SM-1
Table 53.(continued)
E1eva-
Den Bear Age at t~on Slope Aspect
No.10 No.Exit (feet)(Degrees)(True N)Vegetation
,Canopy DlTRANCE CHAMBER Total Previously
Tree Ht.CWIDi'LIi.width Ot.Lengtb Used?
Coverage (em.) (cm.)(em.)(CIlI.)(CII.)(em)(Yes/No)A 8 C
UNKNOHN SEX 72 2370 30 168 Spruce,Bireb o 41 23 58 **89 1068 Yes 3 No
DUG DENS
FEMALES v/offspring (at exit)
v/2 cubs 2 8301 ~
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Ye~
No
No
No
No
...
3
1
3
5
4
2
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
'?
'No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
.No
173
124
119
185
170
151
290
128
145
198
193
366
51
41 188
43'188
72 173
72
71
60
76
74
58
51
55
78
40
116
98
...
122
160
119
114
107
130
206
147
91
92
127
93
8.
203
136
'-.
11.
1.2
119
76
117
84
97
142
93
95
163
76
43
72
41
42
59
56
58
38
43
79
69
38
43
66
74
69
49
39
27
24
22
28
46
43
27
38
30
36
30
38
33o
90
o
80
20
20
40
90
o
70
70
90
90
A1der/birch
Alder,Fem
Alder,Bircb
Wil10vs,Alder
Alder,Spruce
Alder
Alder,Birch,Spruce 90
Alder/Vi110~/spruee 70
Alder 0
Alder,Bircb
Cottonvood,Spruce
Alder,Spruce
Birch
Alder,Birch
Alder
Dwarf birch/mossl
tundr,
A1der/bireb
191
211
86
122
379
219
o
28
130
245
273
350
212
50
298
151
19
24
31
17
24
24
34
18
36
24
35
43
32
35
26
38
21
I 34
2065
2000
2050
2725
2000
2275
1975
1820
2400
3250
2300
1960
1750
1825
1225
1425
2375
4
8
10
12
6
6
9
8
10
10
6
10
8
8301
8318
8317
8301
8349
8361
8289
8370
8372
B378
B376
B354 .6
74
75
81
83
84
90
91
97
4#8289
11 8317
12 B318
21##8327
50
68
69
70
v/3 cubs
v/2 y1gs
vII y1g
v/2 y1gs
v/2 y1gs
v/2 @O
v/2 @O
.....v/2 @O
11l
°v/2 @O
v/4 @O
v/2 @O
.,,/2 @O
v/3 @O
v/2 @O
v/3 @O
v/2 @1
FEMALES,v/o offspring (at exit)
34 B321 12 2125
80 B329
82 B367
Grass,Alder,Spruce ~5
43
55
58
67
B317
B349
B327
B369
9
5
7
5
3
5
2250
2650
1675
1410
1725
1960
22
8
21
26
21
31
30
184
153
207
321
78
28
323
Alder
Dwarf Bircb
Alder,Spruce
8ircb,Alder
Alder
Alder,Fem
10
o
10
70
90
80
29
32
39
35,
36
24
36
43
36
54
49
51
43
38
99
92
56
86
102
102
118
89
92
73
91
84
130
79
63
55
61
71
53
81
193
15'0
124
160
104
165
152
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2
2
3
3
·5 .
'4
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
(continued on next page)
1 1 o -.-,1 ---1 1 1 1 -,_0 I 1
Table 53.(continued)SMILC
E1eva-,Canopy mTRANCE CHAMBER Total Previously SM-]
Den Bear Age at tion Slope Aspect Tree.Rt.AIdth Lii.AidEli Ht~Length Used?
No.ID No.Exit (feet)(Degrees)(True N).Vegetation Coverage (em.)(em.)(em.)(CIIl.)(em.)(em)(YeslNo)A B C
******99 B363 5 ~775 21 177 Alder 90 30 74 ...112 53 94 No 3 ...No
MALES
20*B323*3 1950 46 176 A1derlbireb ----...--?*...-Yes
35 B304 1~1650 36 19 Bireb 25 53 147 100 173 ...660 Yes 2 No
38 B343 6 1200 39 313 Bireb,Alder,Spruce 60 35 6~-.........No ?
39 B348 10 1375 43 240 Bireb,Spruce 20 57 91 116 1n 183 530 Yes 1
57 B302 10 2025 41 236 Spruce,Bireb 40 -55 ·-63 ---94-------138-·----·101--··---188-----··.Yes---··.--·2···.-'·--",,--··---Yes
71 B365 6 ,900**10**...Alder;Bireb,Spruce -SPECIFS UNKNOWN
3 ...-2340 35 (254)Dwarf birch 0 50 54 --...170 No ......No
UNKNOHN CAVITY TYPE
MALlS
40 B324 7.1400**......--- -
...-...... ...-...?
~49 B323 4 1875**U 204**Spruce,Bireb .........-...-............?
\J1
~51 B346 10 2370**30 168**Spruce,Bire~0 38 53 -...48 -Yes --No
62 B319 4 1600**60**90**Spruce,Alder
FEMALES
6S B329 1 1900**45**0**-----
63 B290 9 1850**15**45**
64 B290 9 1700**15**0**-------- -
'-
UNKNOWN SEX
61 ? ?2400 35**163**Spruce,Alder,Bireb 80 --...--_.No 4 ...No
*Actual den sUe not found or too difficult to enter.,I Used by the same bear two consecutIve wInters
**Approximate value II Used by tbe offspring during natal winter and subsequent winter
A Subjective characterization of quality,1 =highest and 5 =lowest.iii Used by different radio-collared bear during subsequent winter
B Ni11 be flooded by Devi1 1 s Canyon impoundment?
C Hill be flooded by Natana impoundment?Dens No.8,19,6,7,9 10, 13,18,2,4,11,12,21,20,62,63,64
used during winter of 1980/1981.
Dens No.32,33,50,34,43,55,58,35, 38,39,57,40,49,51,61,
65,7,9,10,4,21,used during Winter of 1981/1982.
Dens No.73,88,92,93,85,51,66,95,96,98,100,72,68, 69,70,
74,75,81, 83,84,90,91,97,67,80, 82,99,71,10,7,9,
19 used during winter 198211983.
...
)1 1 1 1 J J ..j J 1 )·1 ~JAr.Ll
HC-9
Table 54.History of use of indiv1dual black beer dens by rad10-marked black bears,1980/81 -1983/84 (blanks1nd1cate no data.
available,den not rev1sited and no ra410-marked bear there).
***Den No.Den Tyf~Flooded Location 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84
2 Dug Yes W ~30l female w/2@O Vacant Vacant
4 Dug .Yes W 8289 female w/3@0 8289 female w/2@1 Vacant
6 Nat No D 8325 female w/o
7 Nat No D B287 male 8287 male 8321 female w/o
8 Nat No D 8321 female w/2@O
9**Nat "0 D 8324 male B325 felll(lle wlo 8324 male B324 male
10 Nat No D B303 male 8303 male B303 male
11 Dug "0 D 8317 female.w/2@1
12 Dug No D B318 'female w/l@l Collapsed-----------------------------
(B330 ule)
13 Nat No D 8304 male
18 Nat Yes W 8322 male
19 Nat No D 8328 female w/2@O 8379 female w/3@0
....20 -Yes W 8323 male
11I 21 Dug Yes W 8327 female w/2@1(B329,F)8329 female '1110 CollapsedN
32 Nat No D B328 female w/l@1 Vacant
33 Nat No D B3l8 female w/o
34 Dug No D B32l female '1110
35 Dug No D 8304 male Vacant
38 Dug No DS B343 male
39 Dug No DS 8348 male Vacant
I 40 -Yes D 8324 male
43 Dug No D B317 female '1110
49 -Yes W B323 male
51*Nat No W 8346 male 8323 male B346 male
50 Dug No W B30l female '1112@1 Vacant
55 Dug No W 8349 female vlo
57 Dug Yes H B302 male Va.cant
58 Dug Yes H 8327 female w/o Vacant
61 Dug No H -Unmarked 8KB
62 -No D B319 male
63 -No D B390 female w/o
64 -No D 8390 female w/o
65 -Yes W 8329 female wlo
66 Nat No D B343 male
67 Dug No DS 8369 female wlo
68 Dug No D 8318 female w/2@0 ....'.
69 Dug No D B3l7 female w/2@0
70 Dug No H B30l female w/2@0
71 Dug No DS B365 male
1 '1 1 1 -'-1 --'.-------I -1 i 1
MCALLI
Table 54.(Continued)MC-9
"'...Den No.Den !ype Flooded Location 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84
72 Nat No N 1Jnmorked BIB
73 Nat Yes W B327 fem",le w/2@0
74 Dug No W B349 female w/2@O
75 Dug No N 8361 female w/4@O
8D Dug Yes N .8329 female w/o
81 Dug Yes N 8389'female w/2@0
82 Dug No DS 8367 female w/o
83 Dug No DS 8370 female w/2@0
84 Dug No DS 8372 female w/3@O
85 Nat No DS 8377 female w/o
88 Nat No DS 8375 female w/2@O 8375 female wI?
90 Dug No DS 8378 female w/2@0
91 Dug No DS 8376 female w/3@O
92 Nat No DS 8374 female w/3@0 B404 female wI?
93 spring Nat No DS 8374 female w/3@O
95 Nat Yes N 8360 male
I-'96 Nat Yes N 8346 maleU1
W 97 Dug No N ,8354 female w/l@l
98 Nat Yes N 8359 male
99 Dug No N 8363 female wlo
100 Nat No N 8358 male
*,**Attempted initial denning location for 8323,B346,&8360 in 1982/1983.B346 &8360 subsequently lDOved.
***Attempted denning location for 8324 &8325 in 1981/1982.8324 subsequently moved.
N=Natana,D=Devils Canyon,DS=Downstream of 1lDpoundment zone.
SUMMARY OF TABLE:
60 Dens identified to date tbrougbout entire study area (reused dens not counted more tban once).
31(51.7\)dug dens,22(36.7\)natural cavity dens,7(11.6')Unknown cavity type.
Natana dens (N=26)DevUs Canyon dens (N=21)Downstream dens (N=13)
Dug 15(57.7\)Dug 7(33.3')Dug 9(69.2\)
Natural 8(30.8\)Natural 10(47.6\)Natural 4 (30.8\)
Unknown 3(11.5\)Unknown 4 (19.1\)Unknown 0(0.0\)
Flooded 15(57.7\)Flooded 1 (4.8\)Flooded 0(0.0\)
Not flooded 11(42.3\)Not flooded 20(95.2\)Not flooded 13(100.0\)
-OJ -.--1 J 1 1
HCALLI
HC-10
Table 55.History of den use llY individual radio-marked black bears,1980/81 -1983/84.
Cavity **"Cavity **Cavity **Cavity
type Dent ..~.._Assoc ."ty~~I Assoc 'ly~_H nenl Ass(lQ TypeBearNoSex
1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84*
Denl **As soc
Dea4-----~--------·--~---~-~~~·-------~----------·---------~~-------.------------------
Shed ,Dead--------------------------------------------.------.------------------------
Released----~------------·~~------~---~---------~--------------------------------~-----
She4~-~----~---------------------------·------------~----.~----------------------------
Dead---------------------
Shed--.------------------
Sbed-------------~--~----
Dead---------------------
Nat 9 wlo
Shed---------------------
Dead~-------------------
Dead---------------------
"issing------------------
"issiDg------~~----------
Dead----------------7----
.Nat 8Q·wi?
w/2@O
w/2@0
w/2@O
w/o.
wlo
WID
,7
70 'w/2@O
10 wlo
81
69
68
51
9
74 w/2@O
97 w/1@1
100 wlo
98 WID
95 WID
75 w/4@0
99 WID
71 wID
82 wlo
67 wlo
83 N/2@0
84 w/3@0
92 w/3@0
88 w/2@O
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Dead-----·---~------~-----------~-----~----------------
Dug
Dug
Dug
Dug
Nat 73 w/2@0 Dead---------------------
Shed-----------------------.-.-------------------------
Dug 80 wlo
Sbed--------------------~-------·----------------------
Nat 66 WID'
Nat 96 wlo ~at 51 wlo
Dead----------------------------~~-.-------------------
Sbed------------------~-----·-------~-------~----------
Dug
Dug
Nat
Nat
Nat
Dug
Dug
Dug
Dug
Dug
Dug
Dug
Nat
Nat
WID
w/2@l
wlo
wlo
wlo
wlo
wlo
w/l@l
wlo
w/2@1
wlo
WID
wID
wlo
7
4
34
38
51
39
SS
10 WID
35 wlo
013 wlo
33 'wlo
50
49
40
9
58
32
65,21
Nat
Dug
Dug
Dug
Nat
Dug
Dug
Nat
Dug
Nat
Dug
Nat
Dug
Dead-------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------
Dug
Nat
Dug
Dug.
Nat 7 \WID
Dug 4 w/3@Q
63,64 wlo
Dug 2 w/2@O
Dug 57 wlo
Nat 10 wlo
Nat 13 wlo
Dug 11 w/2@l
Dug 12 w/1@1
62 wlo
Nat 8 w/2@0 .
Nat 18 wlo
20 wlo
Nat 9 wlo
Nat 6 wlo
Dug 21 w/2@l
Nat 19 w/2@0
Dug 21 wlmam ,sibling
Dug 12 wlo
H
F
F
F
H
"H
F
F
"F
"H
"F
F
F
F
H
"H
"F
F
"H
H
F
F
H
F
F
F
F
F
F
287
289
290
301
302
303
304
317
318
al9
321
322
323
324
325
327
328
329
330
343
346
348
349
354
358
359
360
361
363
365
367
369
370
372
374
375
ra
lJ1.po
(continued)
1 j 1 1 "1-"]")1 J ~~I 1
.,
Dead-----.---------------
De~---------------------
Cavity **Cavity **Cavity **Cavity
Type Dent Assoc -----'!'l'P~L ~Dent ~~~g __~~_..~nt Assoc Type
Table 55.(Continued)
Bear Ho.Sex
376 F
377 F
378 F
379 F
387 M
401 M
402 F
404 F
405 F
406 F....408 MU1
U1 409 F
410 F
411 F
1980/81 1981/82
Dug
Hat
Du9
Hat
1983/83
91
85
90
19
W/3@0
w/o
w/2@O
w/3@O
Hat
1983/84*
Dent
92
Il:ALLI
He-10
**Assoc
wI?
*most 83/84 Data are unavailable
**Associations are at time of emergence
,,
MCALLI
1 "1 1 1 1 ---1 ---1 j -J 1 1 1 --1 ..].7
Table 56.Den entrance and emergence dates of rodio-co11ared black bears for the winter of 1982-83 ("S"is the stondard deviaUon,but it
includes variability frOlll the fluctuoUng Ume between observoUoDS,8l!l well as varla.biUty in denning UlIles).
1982 Entrance 1983 Emergence Days in Den
Bear ID ~~!!!!:.~!!!!:.!!!!..:.~Min.!!!!:.~
289 F 28 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 10 May 15 May 13 Hay 216 230 223
303 F 29 Sep 20 Oct 10 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 196 223 210
317 F 20 Sep 29 Sep 24 Sep 10 May 23 May 17 May 223 245 234
318 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 Hoy 207 229 218
321 F 20 Sep 29 Sep 24 Sep 10 tlay 15 Hoy 13 Hoy 223 237 230
323 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 Hoy 30 Apr 192 ·210 201
324 M 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 201 217 209
327 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 4 May 10 Hoy .7 Hoy 201 216 209
329 F 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 25 Apr •4 Hoy 30 Apr 201 217 209
343 M 6 Oct 20 Oct 13 Oct 4 Hoy .10 May 7 Hay 196 216 206
346 H.6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
349 F 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 10 Hoy 18 Hoy 14 May 216,231 224
~,\:354 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 Hoy 23 May 17 Hay 207 229 218VIIi
0\.,f.357 H 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct (BEAR lCILLm DURING HINTER)
358 M 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 4 Hoy 10 May 7 May 210 223 217
359 H 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 Hoy 201 216 209
360 H 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 Moy 30 Apr 192 210 201
361 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 207 229 218
363 F 6 oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
365 H 6 Oct 20 Oct 13 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 187 210 199
367 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 May 19 May 15 Hay 207 225 216
369 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
370 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 4 Hoy 10 May 7 Hay 201 216 209
372 F 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 10 May l~May 15 May 216 232 224
375 F 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 201 217 209.
376 F 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25.Apr .-.~~Y ...._..~Q~P!_.._..._.....__..__.._...}~~...\.....~.~<:l ...........~<:l!...-...
377 F 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 4 May 10 Hoy 7 May 210 223 217
378 F 20 Sep 29 Sep 24 Sep 4 May 10 May 7 May 217 232 225
379 F N.D.N.D.N.D.4 May 10 May 7 May
301 F N.D.N.D.N.D.4 May 10 May 7 May
374 F N.D.N.D.N.D.10 May 19 May 15 May
------.--
MEAN 2 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 3 May 11 May 7 May 204 221 213..
l'S"5 6 6 6 7 6 10 10·.10
n 28 28 28 30 30 30 27 27",27
---'I"1 I 1 c--l ~---I --1 -1 )Jj
SMILll
SM-15
Table 57.Black bear den entrance and emergence dates,vinterof 1983/84.
1983 Entrance 1984 Emergence Days in Den
Bear 10 Sex Min.!!!!:.!!M:.!m:.!!!!:.Mid.~!!2:.~
G289 F 5 Oct ;;14 Oct 10 Oct
G317 F 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
G321 F 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
G324 M 15 Sep 27 Sep 21 Sep
G329 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G343 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct (
G346 M 16 Sep 27 Sep 22 Sep
G354 F 27 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
G358 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G359 M 5 Oct 24 Oct,15 Oct
G360 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
~G361 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
l,n G363 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
~:G369 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G375 F 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
G376 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G377 F 15 Sep 26Sep 21 Sep
G378 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G387 M 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct
G401 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct .,
G402 F 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
G404 F 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
G405 F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G406 F 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct
G408 M 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct
G409 F 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct
GUI F 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
-Hean 2 Oct 16 Oct 8 Oct
"S"6.6 .10.6 8.3
n 27 27 27
...'
~
"
J !-J -]-)1 J 1 j ]
C!c,
\
l '~L
,J
'j.
\]
(~
(!)
t
...
(!)
I-,.
"i-
r tCi
-I-
+~
j•
.~
""t L ""-'......--A1.:.'--../-""_....1J-CiA~-'T
'.",t ......."'-----/'t-(=:"~(!)(!)j .
•.&it ".,r'
..,."'(!)~
•>f""".~'.r ~'.A~./~~'
....\J ....\
ow ""~
+
++A (!)SUS It na RI v.a r,
o ...r (!)u.n specified IOC\!.Q..Q
----+(!)A ~_l~_/..,
0')
.(/\.
/
..
'r 0
~.f!)
+
+
+
•:j~.,/+ +
...
++0
o~~
:A
t
%
....,~-,__J++°ITalkeetna Rl ...er·,.
o 4t.unspecified location+~.
J
I
)
't~
(
+male
(!)f~male
6sex unknown
1 cm =9500 m
~\..
\
.....
U1
(Xl
Figure 1.Approximate kill location.of 351 brown ~e.,.reported killed by -hllnter.In the period 1881-1882 In the Su.ltna
.Study Area.
---]J --1 J '---1 J J ~-j •----I '----j cJ '1 ]
..
i
~--\
./
/'
./
//
all//
,
)'
J.
r
'/
~I,.~.~
,1f Dre-l>eparatlon
<!l 0388 p.ost-~eparatlon+6389 {male post-separation
X 6390 (male post-separation
\'>1983-64 don lor G390
l.1983-84 den for G388
1 em =5200 m
j
(
-\
....-../...--.-_./-_..-./""---_.-
)
j..,-\"-
,-,
"-:7
(
post-separation
dispersed male 388
'I.<_
...'-.....
"
\
{
/
\
\".\.:t/r
/
(
\
\
\
"'-"\
\
-',..~",I i.\.
"--""
",
\,
J \"
\"\\\(\\'tr
/'7;
]',r'
Icc.~''''''"'".""'"", ,
"-"\.:'~:;:./\:,i \_'~\\I"LM':\"I.~4t,(,"",'".1,'"};..,
/
J
rj
\
1'1(.-
r-
i
/
/
I
nondlaperalng ",.Ie 380
poat-aeparatlon
\.
I
j
f
/
\.
mothor
j
'4ft -
J (/.ly~r
('f £..
../.~
J '.\h-"~~~::'::.~:'~~_,.__._/'l"~:'".....:..,-.I(
'-J'--)Ie;:)(",,>:,
/'''1
/,'J
(
I(
\
,.)
./..)(2 /..,
('"'
l-'
V1
\0
Figure 2.1983 home ,angee of female 0388 and 2-yesr-old male offspring 0389 and G380.
I J J r,--_J 1 I ]I ]-J 1 -J -]I -j 'J
~p.re-separatlon
•G384post-separatlon
Ii.1983-84 de~for G364+G391 !male post-separation
'/..G392 male ost-separatlon I"~G393 female~post-separation 111"-~1983-64 dens for G391 &G392
1 em =5200 m
,
\
,
;.
l.,
\
It
.[
.r
j ,
J J
\f'_.'-";,
j
I
"..-.:;.r-...'._".~~.-
(
)
'f
~"~~~./
:<~/
v·
~.,
+f'.
•'!JJ<or-~'.J )(
r·f ""--/
r'
/'
,J_C _",
\./"\...
--J
poet-••paratlon ~
nondlep.,.lng f.mal •."3
.,~
'i;::-;.,
poet-e.paratlon
..~dleper..d mal••382
and 381
)
'..,
,....,.\1
/
i
);
,.'
/''---'''''-''
('
.~
('
"(
I'
I
/
./
)
/;¥-
'1/'-.v\1...r\--.l'(,~.',/C./'( .
.J ,I "')r ,I,,_~_{_\,~:::::"c:;;:_,·l,,-.;::<?~\.-'~tJ
/)
Y ".I '1"-
,'f
I \''.Jtt~,."
.'mother ~"...-.'-;'-;:.:"'~
~'---"
\
\
)
(
l
t,
\......
0'1
o
Figure 3.1883 home rang.e of femal.G384 and 2-year-old offspring G381 and G382 (male a>and G383 (fema'e).
J t I ').-1 j ...-)I -]1 t 'I -'J .,...'.---1 1 ~>
r··.
(
)
*§re-:eparatlonIII31post-separation+38post-separa tlon
.t.~982-83 den site for G3121983-84 den site not found)
6 983-84 den site for G386
..em =5200 m
J ....'.
/
J"••-__.•,-~f
._J'-r---~
).1'''/
,i ",/,
,,
"·..l,.'\.rvl
~."-,
.,,";
I
\
)
////_'_../-r-I~~/
(//"/,j
/",:'
~"•.,>'..--\.._.~..
".:\
'~~
,\
+
.\
····.."L
fT'/j,/
v'
:'dlaperaed mal.
)
t
i'-,
I "'..,,[,'t _,_
,.'\--._~._-,.~~/~/..-'''
......."....'-..-._.._,---_._/,/~'---"
+
>
'.'-
..,-'
....,'..
...\~..
,':(
~J
...............~-....\
\
'"
~('"~I
;"}
t>
I
r)
()
(
l
~-..",,'.
,..'
I.
lK l!l
f!)
~-~'''~''',,\,~~:'l"
......\..,\l ,"'"~y~r"'-,
'''.".--.
l!l
)
\.1 h1:f.~.;\_'U f\??/r-c.f .,-'j . /..,..,/.J ..sL-1.....__/_....~'.[...""
,;C .•..='---,~""".,-~.~cv~""'_'_'_,"'I',.,"'~,,>~.)',,<
....".-',j'.1;·,,,.-..,''',
r,
-(
j j
__',,••T /W \
......
m
......
Figure 4.1983 hO'iO r.nge.of femal.B312 and 2-y••r-old mal.offaprlng B386.
-1 -1 i .....]J 1 1 ~--l -1 ~"'J 1 )
)
:(.
,r
)
I-'
0\
tv
,.
"
"
~~t
J
l.
<,
\------
I,
I
Included:"
FEMALES (-)
#283-1980,82,83
#308-1980
#315-1983
,.#380-1982,83.#394-1983
#396-1983
#407-.1983 )MALES J-
#279-1983
#282-19828'3
#293-1980;81.82
#294-1980,81
#399-1983
1cm =5800 m
~i.,
1"
~
Figure 6.Annual home range.of bears documonted as using Prairie Cre.k .almon runs.Area Incorporated for 7
female.=2,184 sq.km,for «5 male.=7,218 Sq.km,.for both ,exe.=7,884 .q.km.
.!....••e-:
'010.:
'0 0
co!•
~e
o¥
)io
.aci-"..!..
QGI
:Ito
~.
o II
••r-
C
..
....0
•c...~.
0-Q;
O.
0-..---:
·=...
e •.:IE---
co
Q
)io-o.G.
~
C
:I.,
'0
C•
)io•:IE
E Q
C0
0 r-eo :I
to '0Q;j
II •~Q;j r-E ~E •Q;j E u ~
.0E)+c•0r-
oO
"•r-•--0
-(0
"t
0-'0•......•..c-0
Q.
....
to--
Q
<:)..
._~---..--
j/
€)1/
~I,!E)
e
~;;
';l
~..;
'{"J
f
I
.:~
-/.1
~-J ",
\.~
';l<
II
"--...:..
--_..---~
"-"
.....
l"'"
!
I"""
I
~----------
163
1 ]I -1 1 .....•-]J J J 1 J
\.
/
--female
-male
1 em =6800 m
.\/,
I,J
I)
••••••••••••e
•••••e
e·
e,'e
e I,
•!•..n,';'\••
\I(•
(,""-"._.",
!''',.'-..•.".,c,_""~•.,-~""~:...",.~.
~...~f'>.,<;.~~:;c,::~)1••!•••
.F'
I.'
•••••••••
• • • • • • • • • • • • • e ••• • • • ••••••••
/,.
"
~.
I",.f',,,1~J...:',"::-~'~~/-~:;j .'~,
,.
•••••••
,J
..,,[
.....
0'>
.po
Figur.7.1883 home range.of 13 female (227 points)and 6 male (81 points)radio-collared brown beara.
Inelualye polygon =8.688 sq.km.(Materna'females not Included.)
-
._-.;'i
'--.i--:-,1.
~€>•
-----'"..t~+.
'---1
>-'"
•
Co
~
.
til
It..
'"CD
aI...
Ioao
(I..
.1-
"+
+~
@S~*''.
*
r:r~
;-
.1-..."";',
..~(};''';';.'_'~
I;
/1J-)
..~/.(
~:::
~/~
.r~-..-'2.~.
\.'>
.....'..,iL~'~-....
+t
E)*:~-~E).-.-~
€>.+-~€>~~
~
€>-
-I
""",
-o
c
o..•Uo...
+
165
-\.,
C'n
II:
C'n «
II:w«CI:l Ew
Qa:l 0'w 0Q.....CIlC?"'t II:COCOCOCOCO«10W......................III:O ....CIlC?..I II«CO CO COCO .0 E..I C)C)C)C)
..I ................(,)00+)I(~Z€)
(,):J
ri
--_..._--------
.=1 ...:..]~.---!-1 1 -1 J .,1 J J
"\..
l,......-1.
lC_
'\.-
r
1 em =4800 m
~jJ'1
I ~I)/--,j
!1ffi~--.--ti._,iO.5"~r--.'.i7..';'\'1'~
(
\
(•.,r--_..~
\.....---'--..:.._--.
'--------~--\
~'~~325
J
Figure 8.Annual home range.In 1880 of adult female black b ••r •.
-:;'1
:;"....
,.-
E
oo
CD•II
Eu
,
I
I
/
I,
".--/
\rJ)
/
.•..•II
r-oD
oKiu•:0
.!•E•-....--C\I ';!C?'0•-0...
II)
G)...
c
••CI
C•..
•E
0
~
•.....:II
C
C
~
0...
•..
:II
CI
~...
10
~
1 --1 I 1 1 J
\.
\
?
'--\/~--..---,---._-~-.....-......
'"'---
-\
'\'-'-1
7l
1 em:::4eoo m
-----_._--....._-...._-~----
318
to'
C1\
C)
Flgur.11.Annual hom.rang••In 1"2 of adult female black b.an.
-I J J J J ---1 1 1 ---1 J 'I 1 ,J
r
....f'~(\S...
(
1.em =4800 m
I~l '-\------
...............-......
~._-_.\
"---~
'--~'L
"?cr..r
~-J
~
0\
""
Figur.12.Annual hom.rang••In 1883 of adult f.mal.black b.ara.
I .1 "1 ]J 'J J 01 1 J -J j
......
"-.Io 290~
.0J'
/
''l
'-.--.-r----....._
---'-,
\"~t
",,-.~
r
1 em =4800 m
Figure 13.Sprlna home ranae.In 1881 of adult female black bea,..Den location.exciuded.
1--]}1 J ~-----]1 j
(
"-\",
\--~L
(~,
1 em =4800 m
\~~,c,__'-_~
354
.~.
.............
Flgur.14.Spring hom.rang ••In 1982 of .dult f.ma••black b ••r ••,Den locatlone .xclud.d.
~1 J 1 -1 ]J J -)J 1
['
--\..
\--~-l)
C_.
cm =4800 m
''--''~\
(',
\.
\.
t..\.__/-.,...'"
...--......._._.
~~'"
:J
~
"-J
N
Figure 15.Spring home range.In 1883 of adult female black beara..Den locatlona.excluded.
1 1-'-1 J -j J 'I J J J
\,
\\,,'"
./__.J'
,!l.
r·---~~,
'.".'\\
'"'.'~,,"',~{"-
l''.dL!>..A>e,,'{~),:--~'0 >-f---
~-_.---\
'-.~-
~
~
.~'-.....\.\.------~~'-
e.
-~~
jI),!){;,,~1 ·c,/"'-(
,'.~""-
~~--t,;>'~~_~_~
\...•
'"'£',-...................----,..,---
1"1980-81
•1981-82
,f,.1982-83
~1983-84unmarked bear
em =3700 m
r
.....
--.J
f.J.J
Figur.1•.'BI.ck .....r d.n .Ite•.up.tr••m study are•.
~·l -~.]J 1 ~~·l -1 J 1 ._.-.J 1 -1 --I 1
~
f---··-J -/
Ji(
,I
I
)
...-;Y I
..............
Devil con.~:l;
...•,
......./
<!.~•
•1981-82
A 1982-03o1983-84
(!)unmarked bear
1 om::2350 m
<!.
Indian 81"0'
6
~
~
<!.
<.?>
/
.~./
:J
/
I-'
-..J
.po
Figura 17.Black bear don o'teo,downatrallm otudy araa.