Parsnip Grizzly Bear Population and Habitat Project - Forests, Lands ...

Parsnip Grizzly Bear Population and Habitat Project Summary Data Sets, 1998 to 2002, including habitat use and availability

Mountains

Plateau

Prepared by: Lana M. Ciarniello, Dale Seip, and Doug Heard Contract Number: FR03RPG-028 September 2003

Dear reader, Thank you for your interest in the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project summary data set report. As of August 2003, the majority of the data collection portion of the Project was completed. Currently, the information contained within this report is being analyzed using multivariate modeling and other advanced statistical techniques at varying spatial scales. We anticipate 5 refereed papers based on this work as part of Lana M. Ciarniello’s Ph.D. thesis. Additional papers are also in preparation by the BC Ministry of Forests and BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (Doug Heard and Dale Seip). We are also in the process of completing two joint papers with other grizzly bear projects in the NWT and Alberta, and one paper with Dr. S. Lindgren at UNBC. The work presented here forms the bases for these papers and may appear whole, or in part, in future journal publications. As journal papers become available, they will also be placed on our web site. As a cautionary note, the information presented here may be subject to change as monitoring continues throughout 2003. Sincerely, The Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

I

2002 Data Summary

In memory of Ian Ross, a valued member of the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project trapping crew, who died on June 29th 2003, in a aircraft accident in Kenya, Africa, while tracking lions for the Laikipia Predator Project.

Spring 2002


II

2002 Data Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... V LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 The Plateau............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 The Mountains ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 BEAR CAPTURE..................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Bear Capture, 2002 ................................................................................................................ 6 3.3 Bear Capture, 1997 to 2002 ................................................................................................... 7 4.0 POPULATION DATA ........................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Bear Status, 1997 to 2002 .................................................................................................... 14 4.2.1 Dropped Collars ........................................................................................................... 17 4.2.2 Failed Collars ............................................................................................................... 17 4.2.3 Ear Tag Transmitters.................................................................................................... 17 4.2.4 Translocations .............................................................................................................. 18 4.3 Reproduction........................................................................................................................ 18 4.3.1 Cubs of the Year .......................................................................................................... 22 4.3.2 Yearlings ...................................................................................................................... 22 4.3.3 Two Year Olds............................................................................................................. 22 4.3.4 Three Year Olds to Independence................................................................................ 23 4.4 Mortality ............................................................................................................................ 24 4.5 DNA Based Population Census ........................................................................................... 25 4.5.1 DNA Based Population Census ................................................................................... 25 4.5.2 Family Relationships ................................................................................................... 25 5.0 TELEMETRY......................................................................................................................... 26 5.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 26 5.1.1 VHF Telemetry ............................................................................................................ 26 5.1.2 Seasons......................................................................................................................... 27 5.1.3 GPS Collars.................................................................................................................. 27 5.2 VHF Telemetry .................................................................................................................... 28 5.2.1 VHF Data Summary, 1997 to 2002 ............................................................................. 28 5.2.2 Home Range Sizes VHF, 1998 to 2002 ....................................................................... 35 5.3 GPS Collar Locations .......................................................................................................... 43 5.3.1 General Observations, Fix Rates and Problems........................................................... 43 5.3.1 Fix Rates ...................................................................................................................... 44 5.3.2 GPS Home Range Sizes............................................................................................... 46


III

2002 Data Summary

6.0 HABITAT USE ...................................................................................................................... 49 6.1 Telemetry ............................................................................................................................ 49 6.1.1 VHF – Habitats recorded by the biologist ................................................................... 49 6.2 Microsite Habitat Investigations .......................................................................................... 51 6.2.1 Bear Foods Recorded................................................................................................... 59 6.2.2 Meat Items ................................................................................................................... 62 6.2.3 Non-natural Attractants................................................................................................ 63 6.2.4 Bedding Sites ............................................................................................................... 63 6.2.5 Other Bear Activities Recorded ................................................................................... 63 6.3 Use Versus Availability Analysis for Habitat Attributes..................................................... 64 6.3.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 64 6.3.2 Results of General Habitat Selection ........................................................................... 64 6.3.3 Den Sites ...................................................................................................................... 74 7.0 SUMMARY OF INTERESTING FINDINGS ....................................................................... 78 8.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 82 Project Web Site ........................................................................................................................ 83 9.0 APPENDICIES ....................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix I. Immobilization Data .............................................................................................. 84 Appendix II. Physiological Parameters...................................................................................... 84 Appendix III. Morphological Data ............................................................................................ 85 Appendix IV. Intercanine Distance and Pad Measurements ..................................................... 85 Appendix V. Tooth wear, Colour and Body Condition ............................................................. 86 Appendix VI. Ages of Grizzly Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 .................................................. 87 Appendix VII. Jonkel’s Chest Girth – Weight Relationship with known bear weights, 1997 to 2002.................................................................................................................... 89


IV

2002 Data Summary

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Grizzly Bears Captured and Recaptured, 2002....................................................................7 Table 2. Grizzly Bears Captured and Recaptured, 1997 to 2002.......................................................7 Table 3. Methods of Grizzly Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 .............................................................10 Table 4. Methods of Grizzly Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 .............................................................10 Table 5. Body Condition of Grizzly Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002.................................................10 Table 6. Body Condition of Grizzly Bears Captured by Season, Sex, and Cohort ..........................11 Table 7. Weights of Grizzly Bears Captured by Sex and Season, 1997 to 2002..............................13 Table 8. Bears who lived in landscape different from the capture location .....................................13 Table 9. Status of Grizzly Bears Captured in the Parsnip River Study Area, 1997 – 2002...............14 Table 10. Fate of Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 ..............................................................................16 Table 11. Female Reproductive Status, 1997 to 2002 .......................................................................19 Table 12. Family Groups, 1997 to 2002 ............................................................................................21 Table 13. Independence Information, 1997 to 2002 ..........................................................................24 Table 14. Mortality for Radio-Collared Grizzly Bears, 1998 to 2002...............................................25 Table 15. Number of VHF Locations By Bear, 1997 to 2002...........................................................28 Table 16. Number of VHF, Home Range, and Habitat Locations, 1997 to 2002..............................31 Table 17. Total VHF, Home Range, and Habitat Locations by Bear, 1997 to 2002 .........................31 Table 18. Home Range Sizes (100% MCP) for Female Bears (VHF locations), 1998 - 2002.........35 Table 19. Home Range Sizes (100% MCP) for Male Bears (VHF locations), 1998 - 2002 ............37 Table 20. Summary Statistics for Male Bears Home Range Sizes (100% MCP), 1998-2002 ..........38 Table 21. Summary Statistics for Female Bears Home Range Sizes (100% MCP), 1998-2002.......39 Table 22. GPS Collar Performance, 1998 to 2002.............................................................................43 Table 23. Fix Rates of GPS Collars, 1998 to 2002............................................................................45 Table 24. Home Range Sizes (100% MCP) based on GPS locations, 1998 – 2002.........................46 Table 25. Summary Statistics for GPS Bears (100% MCP), 1998-2002...........................................47 Table 26. Primary Land Cover Types Recorded During Aerial Telemetry Flights for RadioCollared Grizzly Bears, 2002 ............................................................................................50 Table 27. Primary Land Cover Types for Incidental Observations of Grizzly Bears, 2002..............51 Table 28. Microsite Habitat Investigations by Bear by Season, 2002 ...............................................52 Table 29. Number of Microsite Habitat Investigations, by Bear and by Season, 1998 to 2002........53 Table 30. Food Species Recorded at Microsite Habitat Plots, 1998 to 2002....................................60


V

2002 Data Summary

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area Boundaries, 1998 to 2002................................................................................2 Figure 2. Biogeoclimatic Zones and Variants for the Study Area.....................................................4 Figure 3. 100% MCP Home Ranges for Male and Female Grizzly Bears, 2002 ..............................40 Figure 4. 100% MCP Home Ranges for Male and Female Grizzly Bears, 1998 ..............................41 Figure 5. 100% MCP Home Ranges for Male and Female Grizzly Bears, 1999 ..............................41 Figure 6. 100% MCP Home Ranges for Male and Female Grizzly Bears, 2000 ..............................42 Figure 7. 100% MCP Home Ranges for Male and Female Grizzly Bears, 2001 ..............................42 Figure 8. Bear Activity By Season, 2002 ..........................................................................................55 Figure 9. Bear Activity By Season, 1998 to 2002 .............................................................................56 Figure 10. Comparison of Bear Activities Recorded at Microsite Habitat Plots, 1998 to 2002........57 Figure 11. Comparison of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Activities Recorded at Microsite Habitat Plots, 2002 .........................................................................................................58 Figure 12. Mean Percent Forest Canopy Closure at Microsite Habitat Plots, 1998 to 2002 .............59 Figure 13. Predominant Forest Cover Type at Radio-telemetry Locations of Mountain and Plateau Grizzly Bears, 2002 ..............................................................................................65 Figure 14. Predominant Forest Cover Type at Radio- telemetry Locations of Mountain and Plateau Grizzly Bears, 1998 to 2002................................................................................66 Figure 15. Reclassification of Predominant Forest Cover Type at Radio- telemetry Locations of Mountain and Plateau Grizzly Bears, 1998 to 2002 ........................................................67 Figure 16. Grizzly Bear Locations and Biogeoclimatic Zones in the Mountainous and Plateau Landscapes, 1998 to 2002................................................................................................68 Figure 17. Histogram of Grizzly Bear Locations and Biogeoclimatic Zones in the Mountainous and Plateau Landscapes, 1998 to 2002 ............................................................................69 Figure 18. Forest Stand Age Classes Used by Mountain and Plateau Bears, 1998 to 2002..............70 Figure 19. Elevation Ranges Used by Mountain Bears by Season, 2002..........................................71 Figure 20. Elevation Ranges Used by Plateau Bears by Season, 2002..............................................71 Figure 21. Elevation Ranges Used and Available in the Study Area, 1998 to 2002 .........................72 Figure 22. Grizzly Bear Locations vs. Distance to the Nearest Road for Mtns, 1998 to 2002..........73 Figure 23. Grizzly Bear Locations vs. Distance to the Nearest Road for Plateau, 1998 to 2002 ......74 Figure 24. Location of Grizzly Bear Den Sites, 1997 to 2002 ..........................................................75 Figure 25. Predominant Forest Cover Type at Den Site Locations of Mountain and Plateau Grizzly Bears, 1998 to 2002..............................................................................................76 Figure 26. Grizzly Bear Locations and Biogeoclimatic Zones in the Mountainous and Plateau Landscapes, 1998 to 2002................................................................................................76 Figure 27. Forest Stand Age Related Classes at Den Sites Used by Mountain and Plateau Bears, 1998 to 2002 ....................................................................................................................77 Figure 28. Elevation Ranges Used and Available at Den Sites, 1998 to 2002 .................................77


VI

2002 Data Summary

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There were many companies, organizations, and individuals whose support of this Project made it such a success. We extend our most sincere thank-you to the following organizations and/or individuals, without whom this project would not have been possible: Project funding for the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project was provided by: Forest Renewal British Columbia (1998 to 2001) Forest Investment Accounts (2002) Canadian Forest Products Ltd. The Pas Lumber Additional Project support was provided by: BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (formerly Environment, Lands and Parks) BC Ministry of Forests Slocan Forest Products Ltd Carrier Lumber Habitat Conservation Trust Fund The Spruce City Wildlife Association The Peace-Williston Compensation Program Academic and scholarship support was provided by: Dr. Mark Boyce of the University of Alberta Dr. Roger Wheate of the University of Northern British Columbia Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada scholarship to L. Ciarniello Province of Alberta Graduate Fellowship to L. Ciarniello Walter H. Johns Graduate Fellowship to L. Ciarniello Science Council of British Columbia scholarship to J. Paczkowski The University of Alberta The University of Northern British Columbia Helicopter Pilots: Greg Altof provided superb flying skills for all of the aerial capture flying Pierre Bock of Canadian Helicopters accessed microsites in 1998 and 1999 Ken Knight, Mike Savignac, Randy Diston and others at Pacific Western Helicopters accessed microsites for 2000-2002 and flew the DNA study crews Fixed Wing Pilots: Larry Frey and Leif Scott of Northern Thunderbird Air kept us safe on telemetry flights (1998 – 2002) Eric Stier of Vanderhoof Flying Services (1998 – 2000) DNA Study Crew and DNA Analysis: Garth Mowat, Kim Poole, and Darcy Fear of Timberline Consultants Ltd. John Paczkowski, Elena Jones, and Mike Wolowicz of the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project Dr. Dave Paetkau of Wildife Genetics International for DNA fingerprints Dr. Greg Wilson for paternity analysis


VII

2002 Data Summary

GIS Amalgamation of Layers and Queries – outstanding skills provided by: Hawthorne Beyer and Greg Chernoff of the University of Alberta We thank the following people for their Project support: Doug Wilson and Chris Ritchie of the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Sean Barry of the Ministry of Sustainable Resources Andrew DeVries, Joe Kavanagh, Kerry Deschamps, and Frank Ogiamien of Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Peter Forsythe of the Pas Lumber Scott McNay of Slocan Forest Products Ltd. Carla Wainwright, Rhonda Reynolds, and Karen Geertsema of the British Columbia Conservation Foundation Dr. Staffan Lindgren, University of Northern BC, ant identification Mari Wood and Pam Hengeveld of the Peace-Williston Compensation Program A Number of residents allowed us onto their land for trapping or microsite habitat investigations, we extend thanks to: Mark and Laura Grafton of Bar-K-Ranch France family of Marsolais Ranch Residents of Prince George’s Chief Lake Road, the Salmon Valley, and Bear Lake Guide-outfitter Roy Pattison for allowing us to re-fuel at his airstrip during telemetry flights. Seppo Hirvi of the Regional District of Fraser Fort George who allowed us access to the old landfill site at Bear Lake for trapping Personnel of BC Rail moved fuel for us into the mountains and reported bear sightings Volunteer Assistance Throughout the Years Included: Dan Tomlinson, Vicki Perkins, Tracy O’Brien, Whitney Smithers, Nevis Antoniazzi, Blake Blok, Cliff Nietvelt, Jesse Whittington, Gerald “Pete” Peterson, Shannon Stotyn, Mark May, Maria and Ed James, and Carla Wainwright. Throughout the years, the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project Team Has Consisted of: Dale Seip – BC Ministry of Forests Doug Heard – BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Lana M. Ciarniello – PhD research project through University of Alberta John Paczkowski – Master’s research project through University of Northern British Columbia Glen Watts – BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Ian Ross – Arc Wildlife Research Charles Mamo – bear capture support Elena Jones – field technician for 2000 and 2001 and data management Mike Wolowicz – volunteer and field technician Robert Serrouya – biologist for 1998 Erin Rafuse – field technician for 1998 Lisa Cuthbertson – help with final data management And…most importantly, 52 study bears!


VIII

2002 Data Summary

1.0 INTRODUCTION The management of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and their habitat is a high profile conservation issue in British Columbia. Intense public concern regarding B.C.’s grizzly management practices occurs at the international, national, provincial and local level. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada nationally lists grizzly bears as a species of special concern. In B.C., grizzly bears are a blue-listed species (vulnerable). The B.C. Forest Practices Code requires that the needs of red and blue listed species be addressed during forest management activities. Many important land use decisions in B.C. have been strongly influenced by concerns regarding grizzly bear conservation, and all of the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP’s) within the Prince George Forest Region have identified grizzly bear conservation as a major land management concern. Forest companies that have, or are trying to obtain 3rd party environmental certification for their products, must implement acceptable practices to protect threatened and endangered species within their operating area. Consequently, there is a great need for reliable information on the habitat requirements of grizzly bears to facilitate improved forest and land management practices in B.C. There have been several grizzly bear research projects in B.C. but these studies have focused on coastal forests or the southeastern portion of the province. Little research has been done on habitat use by grizzly bears in the central and northern portions of the province. Also, the recent development of a variety of new research and inventory tools, including DNA population census grids, Global Positioning Systems radio-collars, and Geographic Information Systems are now being used for advanced analysis techniques such as resource selection functions (RSFs) (Manly et al. 1993). These new research and analysis techniques provide an opportunity to greatly enhance our understanding of grizzly bear habitat use. The location of the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project (PGBP) provided a number of unique opportunities to better understand grizzly bear habitat requirements: i)

the study area ranged from wilderness mountain habitat to plateau habitat that had extensive road access and forest harvesting activities. Prior to this study, little was known about the habitat use of grizzlies on the sub-boreal plateau.

ii)

the area was in the Arctic watershed so the bears did not have access to salmon.

iii)

the area occurred in a bottleneck of the Rocky Mountains (Hart Ranges) and may be important in providing connectivity between the southern and northern Rocky Mountains.

The purpose of this project was to improve our understanding of grizzly bear habitat use and examine the impact of forest harvesting in an area where little previous information was available. In particular we were interested in grizzly habitat use in the Sub-boreal Spruce (SBS) biogeoclimatic zone on the interior plateau. This information will help land managers in government and forest industry develop land use practices that are compatible with the conservation of grizzly bears and their habitat. This report summarizes the research results for 2002, which is the fifth year (1998-2002), and provides data set summaries for all years. For a copy of Project reports please visit our web site at http://web.unbc.ca/parsnip-grizzly/.


1

2002 Data Summary

1.1 Study Objectives The objectives of the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project were as follows: 1. To determine the abundance and population status of grizzly bears within the study area. This included obtaining estimates of population density, reproductive rates, and mortality rates; 2. To identify micro and macro seasonal habitat-use patterns, seasonal movements, home range sizes, and diet; and 3. To evaluate and contribute to improvements of the current BC grizzly bear inventory methods. 2.0 STUDY AREA The Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project study area was based on movements of radio-collared grizzly bears from Prince George, B.C., extending north and northeast. We used minimum convex polygons (MCP) of all collared bear locations (excluding extreme outliers) to define the study area and a composite MCP for the final study area boundary (Figure 1). Figure 1. Study Area Boundaries, 1998 to 2002

Study Area

Note: the boundary that separates the Plateau (Fraser Basin ecoregion west) and Mountains (Central Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregion - east) follows the Ecosection line.


2

2002 Data Summary

In 1998, the study area was 7,400 km2. In 1999, the study area expanded to 8,900 km2 to include the core home ranges of recently radio-collared plateau bears. The study area increased again in the spring of 2000 to 9,600 km2, when a family group was captured and outfitted with radiocollars in the Firth Lake area. In 2001, the study area expanded to approximately 17,200km2 primarily due to the addition of an adult male (GM51) who ranged to the west, and three subadult males – one who dispersed north by northwest (GM36), one who ranged south (GM47), and one who expanded his range to the east (GM29) (Figure 1). In 2002, the study area was 13,200 km2. The 2002 boundary was largely contained within the 2001 study area boundary with the exception of forays to the southeast by GM29. For 1998 to 2002, the composite study area boundary was 18,100 km2. Extreme outliers in the western portion (e.g., bears who went to Vanderhoof district or Fort St. James) were omitted from the study area. We limited our western boundary because there was not a representative sample of bears using this region. For all years, the core study area remained within the Prince George Forest District in centraleastern British Columbia. It encompassed the Parsnip River and its tributaries including the Missinka, Hominka, Table, Anzac and Chuchinka river drainages, but also extended past the Crooked River drainage to the west, and the Wolverine River drainage to the east. These rivers were in the Arctic watershed and consequently study bears did not have ready access to spawning salmon. However, in 2001 four bears were collared in the Salmon River watershed, which is part of the Fraser drainage and was known to support some small salmon runs. Regardless, none of the study bears were found to consume salmon, and therefore these bears lacked this high-quality, concentrated, and predictable food supply that is important to bears along Pacific watersheds (Hilderbrand et al. 1999). Two distinct topographical areas were represented within the study area: the plateau which contained rolling hills and flat valleys, and the Hart Ranges of the Rocky Mountains with steep sided bowls, avalanche chutes and upper elevation valleys. The ecosection line was used to delineate the mountains from the plateau. Bears that resided primarily (i.e., >50% of their locations) on the east side of the Parsnip River were referred to as ‘mountain’ bears, while bears that resided primarily on the west side of the River were referred to as ‘plateau’ bears. 2.1 The Plateau The plateau was within the Nechako Lowland and the McGregor Plateau Ecosections of the Fraser Basin Ecoregion. Typically the old growth forests of the plateau were comprised of white spruce (Picea glauca), hybrid white spruce (P. glauca x P. engelmannii), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), with a component of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) on warm aspects with coarse soils or lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) on upland sites with poor drainage. Bogs and wetland areas were primarily black spruce (P. mariana), while river edges were often lined with black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). Pine dominated forests occurred on drier sites. Forestry was the predominant resource extraction industry in the study area and most forestry activities occurred on the plateau. A substantial proportion of the plateau forests had been harvested over the past 45 years and supported new and regenerating cutblocks. The plateau also contained a major highway (Highway 97) and a network of forestry roads. In addition, there was the community of Bear Lake with two sawmills, the community of McLeod Lake, the town of Mackenzie, and two major logging camps (Anzac and Arctic). The southern portion of the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

3

2002 Data Summary

plateau (i.e., the Salmon Valley) contained a number of agricultural activities, including hay, oats and livestock production. In 2001, we also had one grizzly bear (GM47) that made regular use of the forests surrounding the city of Prince George. Three biogeoclimatic zones occurred within the study area: Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS), Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir (ESSF), and Alpine Tundra (AT). The plateau consisted primarily of the Sub-Boreal-Spruce (SBS) biogeoclimatic zone. The SBS zone has ten recognized subzones (Meidinger and Pojar 1991) of which five occurred within the study area (SBSmk1, wk1, dw3, wk2, mk2; Figure 2).

Figure 2. Biogeoclimatic Zones and Variants for the Study Area

The most westerly plateau portion was in the SBSmk1 (Mossvale Moist Cool Sub-Boreal Spruce) biogeoclmatic variant. This zone represented the most area on the plateau. Elevations ranged from 750 to 1,070m. The eastern portion of the plateau consisted mainly of the SBSwk1 (Willow Wet Cool Sub-boreal Spruce) biogeoclimatic variant. This zone has more moisture than the mk1 variant and this is reflected in the types of plant species found in this variant. Elevations ranged from 660 to 1,140m. The SBSmk1 and SBSwk1 zones comprised the majority of the landscape within the plateau. In the SBSmk1 zone subalpine fir was more rare than the SBSwk1, where the forests were a mix of spruce and subalpine fir. The SBSwk1 zone also had more devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus) and oak fern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris) on mesic sites than the SBSmk1 (MoF 1993). In addition, the SBSwk1 tended to be colder with increased precipitation. Disturbances in the SBSmk1 zone typically regenerate in forests dominated by lodgepole pine and trembling aspen


4

2002 Data Summary

(MoF 1993), whereas in the SBSwk1 zone, paper birch (Betula paperifera) may dominate after disturbance (MoF 1996). The southern portion of the plateau occurred in the SBSdw3 (Dry Warm Sub-Boreal Spruce) biogeoclimatic variant. The city of Prince George is located in this variant and this is the driest of the SBS zones on the plateau (MoF 1990). Elevations ranged from 750 to 1,100m. Small amounts of the SBSwk2 occurred on its western boundary of the Finlay-Peace Wet Cool SubBoreal Spruce zone and extended to the south end of the Williston Reservoir. Only a very small portion of the SBSmk2 (Williston Moist Cool) existed on the plateau on the east and west shores of Williston Lake. Above the SBS zone, ranging from 950m to 1,300m, was the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone. Two variants, ESSFmv3 (Omenica variant) and the ESSFwk2 (Misinchinka Wet Cool) existed in small quantities on the plateau. Elevations ranged from 950 to 1,500m. Two very small pockets of Alpine Tundra (AT) also existed in the northwestern portion of the plateau above the ESSFmv3 zone. Overall, elevations on the plateau ranged from 586m to 1,662m (mean 836m). 2.2 The Mountains The mountainous habitat was primarily within the Hart Ranges and the Hart Foothills Ecosections of the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregion. The lands to the east of the Parsnip River, where the elevation relief began, were referred to as the mountains. In the mountains, lower elevation forests were dominated by spruce-subalpine fir stands, but the proportion of subalpine fir became progressively greater with increasing elevation and predominated upper elevation stands. Natural attributes of the Ranges included moderate to steep sided bowls of upper elevation grasslands, extremely wide avalanche chutes, and largely open upper elevation valleys. These subalpine areas and avalanche chutes supported lush shrubforb meadows, whereas higher elevation alpine areas were composed of alpine tundra communities, barren rock, or ice/snow. The mountainous area had experienced much less industrial development, although all major watersheds had logging roads along the valley bottom and varying proportions of previous harvesting at lower elevations. However, upper elevations and the back ends of most watersheds were undeveloped wilderness. Throughout the years, forest-harvesting activities moved west into the mountains from outside the study area on the far eastern boundary (Sukunka drainage) as well as extending east from the plateau up the drainages of the mountains. The Table River valley contained the BCR railway line, which passed through a tunnel to the Sukunka River valley on the eastern side of the Rockies. The mountains were largely influenced by weather, which had an effect on the types of zones that occurred on the west and east slopes. On the western side of the mountains, the SBSvk (Very Wet Cool Sub-boreal Spruce) predominated in the valley bottoms from 615 to 1,320m and was colder and wetter than the other SBS zones. Typically, lodgepole pine was less abundant, while Indian hellebore (Veratrum viride) and spiny wood (Dryopteris expansa) fern were more abundant (DeLong et al. 1993). The SBSwk1 (Willow Wet Cool) biogeoclimatic variant existed only in Reynolds creek at elevations below 1,140m. The ESSFwk2 (Misinchinka Wet Cool Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir) occurred at mid-elevations of 950 to 1,300m and the


5

2002 Data Summary

ESSFwc3 (Cariboo Wet Cold) occurred at upper elevations from 1,300 to 1,550m to treeline (DeLong et al. 1994). On the eastern side of the mountains, SBSvk was absent, while SBSwk2 (Finlay-Peace Wet Cool) biogeoclimatic variant occurred in the valley bottoms of the Misinchinka River as well as a number of the valleys in the northeast corner of the study area below 1,100m. The ESSFmv2 (Bullmoose Moist Very Cold) ranged from 950m to 1,550m (tree-line) (Delong et al. 1994). Occurring only on the east side of the Mountains, from 900 to 1,300m, the BWBSwk1 (Wet Cool Boreal White and Black Spruce) zone had less subalpine fir and more black spruce and lodgepole pine than the ESSF zone (MoF 1990). In both the east and west mountains, the AT & AT- P (Alpine Tundra and AT-Parkland) zone occurred above treeline and typically consisted of small shrubs or krummholz form trees, heath communities, barren rock, or alpine snow and ice above 1,550m. Subalpine areas and avalanche chutes supported lush shrub-forb-sedge meadows, whereas higher elevation alpine areas were primarily composed of alpine tundra communities or barren rock. Overall, elevations ranged from 724m in the valley bottoms to the highest mountain peak, at 2,560m, with a mean of 1,301m. Less than 1% of the mountainous area was contained within glacial rock and ice (i.e., essentially non-useable grizzly bear habitat). Based on the climatic characteristics for the plateau biogeoclimatic units, the study area has a mean annual temperature of 2.6° C, and a mean annual precipitation increasing from 49 cm in the west to 73 cm in the east (DeLong et al. 1993). Snow usually covers the ground from lateNovember through mid-April. Mean annual snowfall increases from 200cm in the plateau (west) to 300 cm in the mountains (east). Typically winter conditions begin and persist for a month longer in the mountains than on the plateau (SBS dominated zone).

3.0 BEAR CAPTURE 3.1 Methods Bears were captured using aerial darting, leg-snares, or culvert traps. All handling procedures followed those detailed by Ross et al. (2000). 3.2 Bear Capture, 2002 Two new grizzly bears (GM55 and Hannah) were captured during the 2002 field season and fitted with a GPS collar (Televilt Ltd.). A previously unknown adult female (Hannah) was incidentally captured and tagged for the Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project by the Peace-Williston Compensation Program (PWCP) (Table 1). Didgy and her two yearlings, T-Rex and Maggie, were re-captured by PWCP and outfitted with a GPS collar and/or ear tag transmitters. Four bears were also recaptured in 2002. GF17 was captured in the spring to remove her GPS collar, which was in emergency mode. The remaining recaptures were performed in the fall to replace their GPS collars with VHF collars. GM29’s collar was not replaced due to rubbing on his neck. Drug dosage and immobilization sequences (Appendix I) were recorded as well as physiological (Appendix II) and morphological measurements (Appendix III to V) for Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

6

2002 Data Summary

immobilized bears. Similar to 2001, six black bears were incidentally captured, immobilized, and released after attaching red numbered ear tags. No other incidental wildlife were captured and no serious injuries occurred during trapping. Table 1. Grizzly Bears Captured and Recaptured, 2002 ID No. *GF-Didgy *GF-Maggie *GM-T-Rex *GF-Hannah GM55 Recaptures

Age Class1 ADU JUV JUV ADU ADU

Weight (kg) Est. Actual 108.0 31.0 35.5 114.0 150 177

Date 17-May-02 14-May-02 16-May-02 27-May-02 11-Jun-02

Capture Location East McLeod Lake East McLeod Lake East McLeod Lake Weedon Lake Firth Lake Pipeline

Capture Collar Type Landscape Method Plateau culvert trap GPS Plateau culvert trap Ear tags Plateau culvert trap Ear tag Plateau culvert trap GPS Plateau snare GPS

Table River GF11 ADU 127 1-Oct-02 Headwaters Mountain aerial dart VHF GF17 ADU 68 3-Jun-02 North Anzac East Mountain aerial dart VHF GF26 ADU 145 5-Oct-02 Tacheeda Lakes Plateau aerial dart VHF GM29 ADU 227 1-Oct-02 South of Hook Lake Mountain aerial dart None 1 ADU adult; SUB subadult (independent); JUV juvenile (dependent) *Bears captured by Peace-Williston Compensation Program that are also monitored by this project

3.3 Bear Capture, 1997 to 2002 Fifty-two bears were captured from 1998 to 2002, excluding all PWCP study bears except Hannah. Twenty-nine of these bears were captured in the mountains, while 23 were captured on the plateau (Table 2). PWCP provided locations on 6 additional animals that ranged on the plateau (Molly, Bam Bam, Didgy/T-Rex/Maggie, Thor, Belle, and Spunky) in various years. Table 2. Grizzly Bears Captured and Recaptured, 1997 to 2002 ID No.

Age Age at Class1 Capture2

Weight (kg) Jonkel’s Estimated Actual Equation

Date

Landscape Capture Collar Captured Method Type

1997 Captures GF1 GF2 GM3 1998 Captures GF4 GF5 GM6 GF7 GM8 GF9 GF10 GF11

AD AD JUV

12 19 1

AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD

9 15 6 8 5 9 9 13


127.7 127.0 26-Sep-97 Mountain snare 115 115.9 5-Oct-97 Mountain snare 70.5 59.2 5-Oct-97 Mountain free-range 90 90 180 90 170 80 70 80

90.8 5-May-98 Mountain aerial dart N/R 6-May-98 Mountain aerial dart 102.6 6-May-98 Mountain aerial dart 80.4 8-May-98 Mountain aerial dart 123.2 8-May-98 Mountain4 aerial dart 75.6 9-May-98 Mountain aerial dart N/R 11-May-98Mountain aerial dart 85.4 12-May-98Mountain aerial dart

7

2002 Data Summary

VHF VHF ET VHF VHF VHF/ETs VHF VHF/ETs VHF VHF VHF

Table 2. Grizzly Bears Captured and Recaptured, 1997 to 2002, Continued Age Age at Weight (kg) Landscape Capture Collar ID No. Class1 Capture2 Est. Actual Jonkel’s Date Captured Method Type GF12 AD 22 90 90.8 12-May-98Mountain aerial dart VHF GF13 AD 13 80 85.4 10-May-98Mountain aerial dart VHF GM14 AD 16 300 N/R 13-May-98Mountain aerial dart VHF/ET GF15 AD 16 75 N/R 13-May-98Mountain aerial dart GPS/ET GF16 AD 10 70 102.6 14-May-98Mountain aerial dart GPS/ET GF17 AD 9 est 70 80.4 14-May-98Mountain aerial dart VHF GF18 AD 15 110 85.4 14-May-98Mountain aerial dart VHF GM19 JUV 2 60 59.2 17-May-98Mtn/Plt4 snare ETs 4 GM20 JUV 2 60 64.9 17-May-98Mtn/Plt snare ETs GM21 AD 4 150 157.2 18-May-98Plateau aerial dart GPS/ET 4 GM22 AD 8 275 226.7 18-May-98Mountain aerial dart VHF/ET GM23 AD 5 190 201 N/R 2-Sep-98 Plateau culvert VHF/ETs GF25 AD 4 150 200.6 24-Sep-98 Plateau snare VHF GF26 AD 18 150 147.9 23-Sep-98 Plateau snare VHF 1999 Captures GF24 AD unk 100 80.3 80.4 12-May-99Plateau snare GPS/ET GF27 AD 7 77 80.4 14-May-99Mountain aerial dart GPS GM28 SUB 5 77 96.5 14-May-99Mountain aerial dart VHF/ET GM29 SUB 3 68 64.9 17-May-99Mountain aerial dart VHF/ETs GF30 AD 12 86 80.4 18-May-99Mountain aerial dart VHF GM31 JUV 2 32 52.4 18-May-99Mountain aerial dart ET GF32 AD 8 100 102.6 18-May-99Mountain aerial dart VHF GF33 AD 15 136 154 177.6 25-Sep-99 Plateau snare VHF GF34 AD 5 172 169.5 200.6 4-Oct-99 Plateau snare VHF 1999 Recaptures GF18 AD 16 110 N/R 4-May-99 Mountain aerial dart VHF GF16 AD 11 90 66.9 6-May-99 Mountain aerial dart GPS/ET GF15 AD 17 100 102.6 10-May-99Mountain aerial dart GPS/ET GF24 AD unk 136 127 143.5 9-Sep-99 Plateau snare VHF/ET 2000 Captures GF35 AD 10 150 157.2 25-May-00Plateau aerial dart VHF GM36 JUV/SUB 43 90 115.9 25-May-00Plateau snare VHF *GF37 JUV/SUB 43 112.5 96.5 31-Aug-00Plateau snare ET GF38 SUB 100 93 17-Sep-00 snare 2 96.5 Plateau GPS/ETs GM39 SUB 120 115.7 18-Sep-00 snare 2 130.9 Plateau GPS/ET GF40 JUV/SUB 100 134 139.2 3-Oct-00 Plateau snare 1 N/A GF41 AD 148 189 28-Sep-00 snare 11 200.6 Plateau VHF GF42 SUB 113 3-Oct-00 snare 3 167.1 Plateau VHF/ET


8

2002 Data Summary

Table 2. Grizzly Bears Captured and Recaptured, 1997 to 2002, Continued Age Age at Weight (kg) Landscape Capture Collar ID No. Class1 Capture2 Est. Actual Jonkel’s Date Captured Method Type 2000 Recaptures GF15 AD 18 90 N/R 8-May-00 Mountain aerial dart VHF GF16 AD 12 23-May-01 aerial dart 85 75.6 Mountain VHF 2001 Captures GF43 AD 13 109 90.8 08-May-01Mountain aerial dart GPS GF44 SUB 4 70 66.9 10-May-01Plateau aerial dart GPS GM45 AD 7 80 80.4 11-May-01Mountain aerial dart GPS GM47 SUB 2 70 79 85.4 15-May-01Plateau culvert ETs GM48 AD 10 250-275 188.8 16-May-01Plateau4 aerial dart GPS GF49 AD 7 120 109 90.8 20-May-01Plateau snare GPS GM50 JUV 1.3 40 48 49.3 20-May-01Plateau snare ET GM51 AD 12 300-350 347.4 26-May-01Plateau aerial dart GPS 2001 Recaptures GM39 SUB 3 100 116 102.6 1-May-01 Plateau snare GPS GF34 AD 7 145 158 127.0 7-May-01 Plateau snare GPS GF4 AD 12 90 85.4 8-May-01 Mountain aerial dart GPS GF7 AD 11 90 96.5 8-May-01 Mountain aerial dart GPS GF11 AD 12 90 73.4 10-May-01Mountain aerial dart GPS GM47 SUB 2 79 79 85.4 17-May-01Plateau snare VHF/ETs GF35 AD 11 180 147.9 25-May-01Plateau aerial dart GPS GM29 AD 5 80 64.9 25-May-01Mountain aerial dart GPS GM45 AD 7 85 80.4 27-May-01Mountain aerial dart GPS GF9 AD 12 85 75.6 27-May-01Mountain aerial dart GPS GF17 AD 11 est 85 80.4 27-May-01Mountain aerial dart GPS GF26 AD 21 150 136 123.2 2-Oct-01 Plateau snare GPS/ET 2002 Captures *GF-Didgy AD 6 108.0 102.6 17-May-02Plateau culvert GPS/ET *GF-Maggie JUV 1 31.0 38.7 14-May-02Plateau culvert ETs *GM-T-Rex JUV 1 35.5 46.4 16-May-02Plateau culvert ET *GF-Hannah AD submit 114.0 90.8 27-May-02Plateau culvert GPS GM55 AD 8-10 est 150 177 157.2 11-Jun-02 Plateau snare GPS/ET Recaptures GF11 AD 13 127 115.9 1-Oct-02 Mountain aerial dart VHF GF17 AD unk 100 123.2 3-Jun-02 Mountain aerial dart VHF GF26 AD 22 145 139.2 5-Oct-02 Plateau aerial dart VHF/ET GM29 AD 6 227 139.2 1-Oct-02 Mountain aerial dart None *Bears captured by Peace-Williston Compensation Program that were also monitored by this project, courtesy of PWCP 1 AD adult; SUB subadult (independent); JUV juvenile (dependent) 2 Age is the age of the bear at capture obtained through cementum aging or an age estimate by the biologist 3 Age of the bear needs to be re-confirmed with Mattson’s Lab 4 Bears whose live in a landscape other than their capture location (see Table 8) NR = chest girth was not recorded so this calculation was not possible.


9

2002 Data Summary

In the mountains, the majority of the bears were captured using aerial darting, while bears were primarily captured using snares on the plateau (Table 3). We employed a number of different trapping methods in both landscapes in an attempt to obtain an unbiased sample of study animals. For example, in 1998 and 1999, we attempted to snare more bears in the mountains but efforts were largely unsuccessful. Furthermore, every year major helicopter companies were asked to report grizzly bears on the plateau, however, sighting in the boreal forest were limited. Table 3. Methods of Grizzly Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 Capture method Aerial dart Culvert trap Free-range Snare Total

Total % Total Mountains % Mtns 29 56 24 83 3 6 0 0 1 2 1 3 19 37 4 14 52 100 29 100

Plateau 5 3 0 15 23

% Plt 22 13 0 65 100

The majority of the bears captured in both landscapes were adults (Table 4). Subadult bears were those that were captured alone, or in the company of their sibling(s), but had not yet reached breeding age. Juvenile bears were those that were captured in the company of their mother. Most juvenile bears received only ear tags in order to monitor independence from their mother. On the plateau, 13% of the bears captured were with their mother but became independent during monitoring (i.e., Juv/Subadult classification). Table 4. Methods of Grizzly Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 Age Classes1 Adult Juvenile JUV/SUB Subadult Total

Total Mountains % Mtns 37 23 79 5 4 14 3 0 0 7 2 7 52 29 100

Plateau 14 1 3 5 23

% Plt 61 4 13 22 100

1

AD adult; SUB subadult (independent); JUV juvenile (dependent)

The biologist classified the condition of the bear at the time of capture (Table 5). Overall, plateau bears were in better condition than mountain bears. Forty-four percent of plateau bears were in good to excellent condition, as opposed to 17% of mountain bears. The majority of mountain bears were classified as ‘poor’ or ‘very thin’ condition (cumulative total 69%), meaning that their ribs and spinal cord were easily felt. Table 5. Body Condition of Grizzly Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 Body Condition Excellent Good to Excellent Good Fair to Good Fair Fair to Poor Poor (thin) Very thin No comment Total


Total Percent Mountains % Mtns 4 8 2 7 3 6 0 0 8 15 3 10 2 4 2 7 5 10 2 7 3 6 0 0 20 38 15 52 5 10 5 17 2 4 0 0 52 100 29 100

10

Plateau 2 3 5 0 3 3 5 0 2 23

% Plt 9 13 22 0 13 13 22 0 9 100

2002 Data Summary

Bear weight and overall condition can fluctuate substantially between spring and fall, male or female, and subadult or adult. Therefore, we also provide the condition of the bear at the time of capture by cohort, season, and landscape (Table 6). Although the sample sizes vary, overall female and male plateau bears were in better condition than their mountain bear counterparts (Table 6). For example, 25% of spring adult females on the plateau were in the good to excellent category (combination of the first three categories), 50% in the fair to good (combination of the 3 fair categories), and 25% in the very thin to poor categories. For adult female mountain bears, 6.25% were in the good to excellent category, 12.5 % were in the fair to good category, while 81.25% were in the very thin to thin category. One of the male bears classified as “excellent” condition in the mountains (GM22) traveled between the two landscapes, while the other excellent condition male (GM14) dropped his collar shortly after capture and before we could determine his landscape use patterns.

Table 6. Body Condition of Grizzly Bears Captured by Season, Sex, and Cohort Adult Females, Juveniles & Subadult Females – Spring Captures Only Body Condition Mtn. Sample Size % Mtns Plt Sample Size Females Adult Juv & Sub Adult Juv & Sub Adult Juv & Sub Excellent 0 0 0 0 0 0 Good to Excellent 0 0 0 0 0 0 Good 1 0 6.25 0 1 0 Fair to Good 1 0 6.25 0 0 1 Fair 1 0 6.25 0 1 0 Fair to Poor 0 0 0 0 1 0 Poor (thin) 10 0 62.5 0 1 0 Very thin 3 0 18.75 0 0 0 Not provided 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 16 0 100 0 4 1

% Plt Adult Juv & Sub 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 100 25 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Adult Males, Juveniles & Subadults Males - Spring Captures Only Body Condition Mtn. Sample Size % Mtns Males Adult Juv & Sub Adult Juv & Sub Excellent 2 0 40 0 Good to Excellent 0 0 0 0 Good 0 0 0 0 Fair to Good 1 0 20 0 Fair 1 0 20 0 Fair to Poor 0 0 0 0 Poor (thin) 1 3 20 60 Very thin 0 2 0 40 Not provided 0 0 0 0 Total 5 5 100 100


11

Plt Sample Size Adult Juv & Sub 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 3

% Plt Adult Juv & Sub 50 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 100

2002 Data Summary

Table 6. Body Condition of Grizzly Bears Captured by Season, Sex and Cohort, Continued Adult Males, Juveniles & Subadults Males – Fall Captures Only Body Condition Mtn. Sample Size % Mtns Males Adult Juv & Sub Adult Juv & Sub Excellent 0 0 0 0 Good to Excellent 0 0 0 0 Good 0 1 0 100 Fair to Good 0 0 0 0 Fair 0 0 0 0 Fair to Poor 0 0 0 0 Poor (thin) 0 0 0 0 Very thin 0 0 0 0 Not provided 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 100 0


% Plt Adult Juv & Sub 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Adult Females, Juveniles & Subadult Females - Fall Captures Only Body Condition Mtn. Sample Size % Mtns Females Adult Juv & Sub Adult Juv & Sub Excellent 0 0 0 0 Good to Excellent 0 0 0 0 Good 1 0 50 0 Fair to Good 0 0 0 0 Fair 0 0 0 0 Fair to Poor 0 0 0 0 Poor (thin) 1 0 50 0 Very thin 0 0 0 0 Not provided 0 0 0 0 Total 2 0 100 0


Adult 0 20 40 0 0 20 0 0 20 100

% Plt Juv & Sub 0 50 0 0 0 25 0 0 25 100

Weights of the bears were not taken for all captures. To estimate bear weight, the chest girth/weight relationship outlined in Jonkel (1993) was used, which seemed to provide a good fit to our data (Appendix VII). On average, adult plateau bears were heavier than adult mountain bears (mean plateau 164 kg, n=14; mean mtn 100 kg, n=19). Adult plateau bears were also heavier by season and cohort (spring captures: mean 115 kg vs 85 kg females, 218 kg vs. 166.5 males; fall captures: mean 168 kg vs. 121.4 females) (Table 7). On average, juvenile and subadult plateau bears were also heavier than their mountain bear counterparts (mean plateau 94 kg, n=11; mean mtn 66 kg, n=11). However, there was no difference in spring season weights between mountain and plateau juveniles/subadults. However, bears become subadults later in the mountains meaning that most of these bears were a year older than their plateau counterparts.


12

2002 Data Summary

Table 7. Weights of Grizzly Bears Captured by Sex and Season, 1997 to 2002 Sex Females Females Males Males Males Males Females Females Females Females Males Males Males Males

Season Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall

Cohort Landscape Sample Size Mean Weight (kg) Min Wt. Adults Mtns 16 85 70 Adults Plateau 4 115 80 Adults Mtns 5 166.5 80 Adults Plateau 4 218 157 Juv/Sub Mtns 5 68 52 Juv/Sub Plateau 2 63.5 48 Juv/Sub Mtns 0 ------Juv/Sub Plateau 1 67 n/a Adults Mtns 2 121 115 Adults Plateau 4 168 148 Adults Mtns 0 ------Adults Plateau 1 201 n/a Juv/Sub Mtns 1 70.5 n/a Juv/Sub Plateau 1 116 n/a

Females Females

Fall Fall

Juv/Sub Mtns Juv/Sub Plateau

0 6

---135

---93

Max Wt. 102.5 157 300 347 96.5 79 ---n/a 128 201 ---n/a n/a n/a ---189

Three of the bears captured in the mountains were found to spend the majority of their time (>50%) in the plateau (Table 8). Two of these bears, GM19 and his sibling GM20, were caught in a cutblock just east of the ecosection line in the Hominka valley (accompanied by their mother who was not caught). GM48 was caught at the Parsnip/Hominka, just west of the boundary. Although the majority of his locations were in the mountains, his GPS collar was largely unreliable and it is possible he ranged between the two landscapes. GM8’s only location in the mountains was his capture suggesting he may have dispersed from the mountains to the plateau. One large adult male (GM22) regularly moved between both landscapes, but remained to be classified as a mountain male. GM21 also moved between the landscapes and it is possible he was going to exhibit movement patterns similar to GM22, however, he died on the plateau in the spring of 1998 from suspicious causes. Only one female (GF35 and her two offspring, GM36 and GF37) moved between the mountains and the plateau. This family group spent the majority of their time in the plateau but moved to the mountains only for denning. They returned to the plateau immediately after den emergence. No other females traveled between the mountains and the plateau. Therefore, based on their locations, 25 bears ranged in the plateau, while 27 ranged in the mountains. Table 8. Bears who lived in landscape different from their capture location Bear Captured Lived Age Capture method Body Condition GM8 Mountain Plateau 5 Aerial dart Fair to good GM19 Mountain Plateau 2 Snare Thin GM20 Mountain Plateau 2 Snare Thin GM22 Mountain Both/Mtns 8 Aerial dart Excellent GM48 Plateau Mtn 10 Aerial dart Excellent Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

13

2002 Data Summary

4.0 POPULATION DATA 4.1 Methods Population data were obtained through bear capture, visual sightings of bears during aerial telemetry, and visual sightings during microsite habitat investigation flights. If a bear had not been sighted for an extended period of time, and we were in their home range for microsite habitat analysis, the helicopter was used to obtain a visual location of the bear for the specific purpose of obtaining population data. Furthermore, from 1999 to 2001 we ensured that all study bears had a minimum of one good visual observation within each season (spring, summer, and fall). However, visual rates during telemetry flights in these years were so high we did not have to actively fulfill this procedure. Due to a limited helicopter budget in 2002, this objective could not be fulfilled and visual locations on Hannah were infrequent. Therefore, we were not able to provide a specific month when her cubs dispersed. 4.2 Bear Status, 1997 to 2002 The 2002 field season began (April 2002) with 16 bears being actively monitored and ended with 6 bears with active transmitters (GF11, GF16, GF17, GF26, Didgy/T-Rex/Maggie, Hannah). Three of these bears lived in the mountains (GF11, GF16, GF17), while three lived on the plateau (GF26, Didgy/T-Rex/Maggie, and Hannah). One additional plateau male, GM55, was last heard on 3-October and may return to the study area next spring, may have died from suspicious causes, or may have a failed GPS transmitter. Because 2002 was scheduled to be the last year of the Project, attempts were not made to re-capture bears after they lost their transmitters. Table 9 provides a summary of the status of all bears captured to date, while Table 10 provides a summary of the fates of Project bears as of February 2003. Table 9. Status of Grizzly Bears Captured in the Parsnip River Study Area, 1997 - 2002 Bear ID GF1 GF2 GM3 GF4 GF5 GM6 GF7 GM8

Capture Date 26-Sep-97 5-Oct-97 5-Oct-97 5-May-98 6-May-98 6-May-98 8-May-98 8-May-98

Capture Age (yrs.) 12 19 1 9 15 6 8 5

GF9 GF10 GF11 GF12 GF13 GM14

9-May-98 11-May-98 12-May-98 12-May-98 10-May-98 13-May-98

9 9 13 22 13 16


Current Status Dropped collar in den 1997/98 Mortality - June 1999. Appeared natural causes ET failure likely. Not located 99 to 02 GPS Collar Failure. Last heard October 1-Oct-01 Dropped collar - Oct 1999 Mortality - LEH June 2000 Dropped GPS collar - 31-July-02 Dropped collar in den - 1999/2000 Ear tag not heard 2000 to 2002 Dropped collar GPS 25-Sept-02 Dropped collar - August 1999 Currently monitored -VHF Dropped collar - May 1999 Dropped collar - September 2000 Dropped collar - May 1998. Ear tag not heard 2000 to 2002

14

2002 Data Summary

Table 9. Status of Grizzly Bears Captured in the Parsnip River Study Area, 1997 – 2002 Cont. Bear ID GF15 GF16 GF17 GF18 GM19

Capture Date 13-May-98 14-May-98 14-May-98 14-May-98 17-May-98

Capture Age (yrs.) 16 10 adult 15 2

GM20 GM21 GM22 GM23 GF24

17-May-98 18-May-98 18-May-98 2-Sep-98 12-May-99

2 4 8 5 adult

GF25 GF26 GF27 GM28

24-Sep-98 23-Sep-98 14-May-99 14-May-99

4 18 7 5

GM29 GF30 GM31 GF32 GF33 GF34 GF35 GM36 *GF37 GF38

17-May-99 18-May-99 18-May-99 18-May-99 25-Sep-99 4-Oct-99 23-May-00 23-May-00 17-Sep-00

3 12 2 8 15 5 10 4 4 2

GM39 GF40 GF41 GF42 GF43

18-Sep-00 3-Oct-00 28-Sep-00 3-Oct-00 8-May-01

2 1 11 3 13

GF44

10-May-01

4

GM45 ID46

11-May-01

7


Current Status Dropped collar - 31-May-02 Currently monitored VHF Currently monitored VHF Dropped collar - August 2000 Ear tag last heard 29-Oct-99 Ear tag not heard 2000 to 2002 Mortality - LEH May 1999 Mortality - September 1998. Believed non-natural Dropped collar 4-Aug-98. Dropped ear tag spring 2000 Mortality - LEH October 1998 Dropped collar - August 2000 Dropped ear tag - Spring 2000 Dropped collar - August 1999 Recaptured 2001. Currently monitored VHF Mortality - September 1999. Unknown; believed natural Dropped collar - July 2000 Ear tag not heard after August 2000 Removed collar 01-Oct-02 Failed VHF 24-April-02 Ear tag on delay and not heard 2000 to 2002 Dropped collar 13-Oct-01 Dropped collar - September 2000 Dropped collar 16-May-02 GPS Collar Failure. Last heard 27-Aug-01 Dropped collar - September 2001. Ear Tag failed - Spring 2001 Ear Tag faliure, last heard 27-Nov-01 Dropped collar - July 2001 Ear tag was set on delay but not heard 2001&02 Mortality. Mistaken ID in 2001 spring black bear hunt. Mortality – Trapping 2001. Dropped collar 24-May-02 Mortality. Shot by sheep rancher Sept 2001 GPS Collar Failure. Last heard 17-Sep-01 Saw bear with 2 COYs & failed GPS spring 2002 Mortality Oct 2001 Undetermined cause, believed poached GPS Collar Failure. Last heard 31-Jul-01 Bear ID used on Robson Valley Study

15

2002 Data Summary

Table 9. Status of Grizzly Bears Captured in the Parsnip River Study Area, 1997 – 2002 Cont. Bear ID GM47

Capture Date 15-May-01

Capture Age (yrs.) 2

GM48 16-May-01 GF49 20-May-01 GM50 (ylng) 20-May-01

10 7 1.3

GM51 26-May-01 ID #s 52 to 54 GM55 Hannah *Molly 20-Apr-00 *Bam Bam 9-May-00

12

*Didgy

17-May-02

6

T-Rex (ylng) 16-May-02

1

Maggie (ylng) 14-May-02 *Thor 2000 *Belle 2000 * Spunky 2000

1 17 5 1 yr 2000

8 2

Current Status Dropped collar - August 2001 Translocated spring 2002 & not heard again GPS Collar Failure. Last heard 4-Sept-01 Mortality. Unknown cause, believed natural Failed ear tag second year, last heard 19-Nov-01 Tracks in area in 2002, den site 01 investigated Dropped collar 10-Sep-01 Bear ID used on Robson Valley Study Last heard 3-Oct-02. Status unknown believed GPS collar failure. Currently Monitored Dropped collar 4-June-02. Mortality 2001. Shot by grouse hunter in defense Didgy dropped GPS collar 25-Sept-02. Unknown as offspring found poached. Poached fall of 2002 by hunter killed moose carcass. DNA of ear confirmed T-Rex in early 2003. ET #1 failed 25-Sept-02, ET#2 failed 14-Nov-02 Poached fall of 2002 by hunter killed moose carcass – DNA of skull confirmed Maggie in early 2003. Died. See PWCP report for details. 2 COYs at capture. Dropped collar July 02 Orphaned yearling. Mortality -- believed non-natural.

* Bears captured by the Peace-Williston Study that were also monitored by this project, courtesy of PWCP.

2003 update to the status of bears: in the fall of 2002 it was believed that Didgy, T-Rex and Maggie denned on a slope up from a hunter-killed moose. We visited the site but fresh snow limited our search efforts and only the dead moose and her calf were recorded. In addition, the site appeared to be a typical grizzly carcasses site with the calf being buried. However, in the spring of 2003 we were concerned that T-Rex’s ear tag was still at the den site. We re-assessed the site and found that T-Rex and Maggie were both poached by the hunter-killed fall moose carcass (DNA confirmed). The fate of their mother, Didgy, remains unknown. Table 10. Fate of Bears Captured, 1997 to 2002 Landscape >50% locations

Bears lost from study Failed Transmitters Bears Dropped Dropped Removed TransActive Captured Mtns Plateau Mortality Collars ET collar GPS VHF ET1 located Transmitters 52 27 25 11 21 2 1 5 1 11 1 6 32 Females 18 14 6 14 1 0 3 1 2 0 5 20 Males 9 11 5 7 1 1 2 0 9 1 12 *Summaries do not include any PWCP study animals, except Hannah (e.g., exclude Didgy, T-Rex, and Maggie, etc.) 1 Four of these bears were outfitted with 2 transmitters 2 Note that GM55 has been counted as active transmitter, however, we have not been able to locate him since early October 2003


16

2002 Data Summary

4.2.1 Dropped Collars During 2002, five bears had the spacers on their collars rot-off (GF7, GF9, GF15, GF34, GF41) as well as two PWCP bears that we also monitored (Molly, Belle). In addition, GF32’s spacer broke on her collar just prior to den-up last fall and was retrieved in 2002. From 1998 to 2002, 21 collars have had their spacers’ rot-off. On a number of collars we doubled the fire-hose spacers and/or dipped them in wax in an attempt to lengthen the time to rot-off. 4.2.2 Failed Collars One VHF collar (GF30) was believed to have failed during 2002. Transmission from this collar was noted to be getting weaker but the collar failed prior to capture attempts. Missing bears outfitted with Televilt Ltd. GPS collars were scanned for during each telemetry flight (GF4 GF35, GM45, GM48, GF43). In addition, in the spring of 2002 we flew the home range for GF43, and saw a female with 2 COYs who was wearing a non-functioning GPS collar. However, due to the presence of COYs, and steep terrain, we did not attempt to capture this bear. All collars were fitted with fire-hose spacers and should rot-off. During the fall of 2002, GF26’s Televilt Ltd. GPS collar also stopped transmitting. However, due to the problems with failures of the GPS collars experienced in 2001 all new GPS bears were outfitted with ear tag transmitters. We tracked GF26’s ear tag for the purpose of trapping and removed the failed GPS collar. 4.2.3 Ear Tag Transmitters Seven male and two female bears had ear tag transmitters that had the potential to be functioning during 2002 (GM3, GM8, GM14, GM19, GM28, GM31, GF37, GF38, GM50). These bears either dropped their collar or were not outfitted with collars (GM3, GF37). Despite extensive searches of their home ranges, I did not locate any of these bears. It is likely that the transmitters failed or the antennas broke off making the transmission distance extremely short – perhaps only a few hundred meters. In the spring of 2002, I flew the den sites locations for GF37 and GM50. Both of these bears were outfitted with ear tag transmitters that were scheduled to turn on in the spring. Fresh tracks were recorded at both den sites, however, the ear tags were not heard. GM55(GPS bear) was also outfitted with an ear tag transmitter; however, it stopped transmitting in September, just prior to his disappearance. GF26’s ear tag allowed her to be tracked and remove her failed GPS collar. If using ear tag transmitters it is prudent to weigh the cost and benefits. Thick vegetation may catch on the transmitters and rip them from the ear. In addition, when ear transmitters have been retrieved we have found that most were missing antennas. In our experience with ear tag transmitters we believe they are generally reliable for the first year that they are put on the bear. However, most ear tag transmitters either failed early into their second year or did not turn on in their second year. In addition, most do not turn on when activated on delay (i.e., set to turn on at some point in the future).


17

2002 Data Summary

4.2.4 Translocations From 1998 to 2002, one bear was translocated out of the study area (GM47). GM47 was a subadult male caught near Bear Lake town site and ranged south to Prince George. In early spring 2002, GM47 went to a resident’s back porch in the Salmon Valley, fed on suet, and went to sleep on the porch. The Conservation Officer Service translocated GM47 to the south end of the District. He was also outfitted with a new VHF collar with a single layer spacer. I flew GM47’s translocation area on two occasions but was unable to locate him. His frequency remained in the scanner for all telemetry flights but he was not located during 2002. The only translocated bear monitored by the Project was GF42. She was translocated from south of Prince George to Mackenzie by the COS. We independently caught GF42 in the Salmon Valley just west of Prince George. GF42 ranged widely from the Salmon Valley to Mackenzie to Vanderhoof. She was shot for suspected predation of sheep on a farm in Vanderhoof in 2001. 4.3 Reproduction The spring season allowed for confirmation of population parameters because of the ease of visual locations associated with snow cover as well as the ability to follow tracks. Table 11 provides an update of the summary of female reproductive status based on capture and visual aerial telemetry locations from 1997 to 2002. Note that some of the ages of offspring may differ from previous reports due to extra information obtained throughout the years. For example, although GF26 dropped her collar in 1999, we captured two new subadult bears in 2000 (GF38 and GM39) that were identified through DNA as the offspring of GF26. In addition, the age of GF38 and GM39 matched the age of the cubs estimated at GF26’s capture in 1998. Therefore, the prior reports classification of ‘unknown cub status’ was updated to ‘successful dispersal’. Some uncertainty remained regarding bears that were captured with offspring where an age estimate of the cubs was not reported on the datasheet (for example, cubs present or big cubs present). In these instances, the age of the cubs as estimated by the biologist when obtaining a visual during radio-telemetry flights was assigned. Some bears (GF7 and GF34) were not sighted with offspring despite multiple years of monitoring. However, one animal, GF11, exhibited her maximum reproductive cycles (i.e., dispersed cubs and had cubs of the year (COYs) the following season that also successfully became independent). It is likely that GF9 will also disperse her cubs and exhibit her maximum reproductive cycle. GF26 dispersed cubs and then had COYs the following year, however, she lost her yearling during 2002. For the purpose of this report, dispersal/independence is defined as no longer being accompanied by their mother and does not imply that the subadult has successfully reproduced themselves.


18

2002 Data Summary

Table 11. Female Reproductive Status, 1997 to 2002 BEAR *AGE / YEAR ID GF1 12 / 97

1997 1 ylng

1998 ------

YEAR 1999 ------

COMMENTS 2000 ------

2001 ------

2002 ------

GF2

19 / 97 1, 1? yr old 1, 2? yrs.

2 COY

------

------

------

GF4

9 / 98

Dispersed 1 yearling

2 COY

Lone

Lone

N/A

------

0 COY 0 yearling? GF5

15 / 98

------

Lone

------

------

------

Lone

2 COY 0 COY Lone

GF7

8 / 98

------

Lone

Lone

Lone

GF9

9 / 98

------

Lone

2 COY

2 ylngs

GF10 GF11

9 / 98 13 / 98

-----------

Lone 1, 2 or 3? yrs

2 COY 3 COY

-----3 ylngs

Dispersed GF12

GF13

22 / 98

13 / 98

------

------

2, 2 yr olds

------

------

------

Dispersed? 2, 2 or 3? yrs.

2 COY

Lone

------

------

0 COY Lone

GF15

16 / 98

------

GF16

10 / 98

------

0 yearling Lone

GF17

AD / 98

------

Lone


Visual with big, unknown bear in breeding season 2002 2, 2 yr olds 2, 3 yr olds Still with 3 year olds at time of dropped collar in Sept 2002 ----------- Dropped collar 3, 2 yr olds 2, 3 yr olds Two cub visual at den site. Dispersed in 2, 2 yr olds Dispersed mid-September 2002

------

Dispersed? 1? ylng.

1 COY 0 COY Lone

19

Dropped collar in den GF2 deceased 1999 Note - the biologists estimated GM3 at 23 yrs at capture No mention of ylng after capture in '98 uncertain status. Failed GPS Collar in 2001. Unknown; dropped collar 1999

2 COY

2 ylngs

Lone

1 ylng Lone

Lone

Lone

Very few visuals in '98 telemetry. Possibly dispersed by end of year Dropped collar No visuals after midJune '98 when cubs still with mother.

Dropped collar 1, 2 yr old Last sighting 7/3/01 with 2 yearlings. Lost one yearling between 7/3/01 and 7/9/01 Lone Lost COY either in fall 1999 or in den Lone

2002 Data Summary

Table 11. Female Reproductive Status, 1997 to 2002 BEAR *AGE / YEAR ID GF18 15 / 98

YEAR 1999 1 COY

1997 ------

1998 1, 2 yr old

GF24

AD / 98

------

Dispersed? 0 COY -----2, 1 to 2yr 2, 2 or 3 yrs Dispersed olds

GF25

4 / 98

------

GF26

18 / 98

GF27 GF30

7 / 99 12 / 99

------

2 COYs ylngs? 3 COYs

2 ylngs or 2 yrs? 3 ylngs

-----------

Lone ------

Lone 1, 2yr old

COMMENTS 2000 Lone

2001 ------

2002 ------

------

------

Offspring successfully dispersed spring 2000

------

------

------

Dropped collar

3, 2 yrs. Dispersed -----Lone

1 COY

1 ylng 0 ylng -----------

Last seen with her yearling on 31-July-02 Bear deceased 1999 VHF failed while bear still in den 2002

-----Lone

Dispersed? GF32

8 / 99

------

------

Lone

Lone

2 COYS

------

GF33

15 / 99

------

------

3 ylngs

3, 2yr olds 2, 2yr olds

------

------

GF34 GF35

5 / 99 10 / 00

-----------

-----------

Lone ------

Lone 2, 3 yr olds

Lone 2, 4 yrs2

Lone ------

GF37

2

4 / 00

------

------

------

GF38 GF41

2 / 00 11 / 00

-----------

-----------

-----------

GF42 GF43 GF44 GF49

3 / 00 13 / 01 4 / 01 7 / 01

---------------------

---------------------

---------------------


20

Dispersed Mother is Mother is GF35 - sub GF35 – Sub/Juv Subadult Subadult Lone Lone

Subadult ----------------

Lone Lone Lone 2 ylngs 1 ylng

No mention of cub after capture in 1998? and all visuals lone bear Lost COY either in fall 1999 or in den

Last seen with mother in mid-July 1999 Dropped collar, fate unknown Last sighting 8-Sept01 with 2, 2 yr olds; Dropped collar Breeding with GM51 at time of 2001 capture

- failed GPS collar ------ Unknown - failed ET. Appeared lone by tracks at den site ------ Subadult bear 1 COY? No visual prior to dropping collar but from tracks at spring sites, possibly one COY Bear deceased 2001 2 COY Fate unknown ------ Deceased 2001 ------ Deceased 2001

2002 Data Summary

Table 11. Female Reproductive Status, 1997 to 2002 BEAR *AGE / YEAR ID Hannah AD / 02

1997 ------

YEAR 1999 ------

1998 ------

COMMENTS 2000 ------

2001 ------

2002 2, 2 or 3 yr 2 big cubs estimated olds at 2 to 3 years

1

Molly

8 / 00

------

------

------

Lone

3 COYS

1

Didgy

6 / 02

------

------

------

------

2 COYs

Dispersed 3 ylngs Dropped collar still with 3 yearlings. 2 ylngs

T-Rex and Maggie big cubs

1

Bears captured by the PWCP, and monitored courtesy of the PWCP Ages have been resent to lab, as PWCP received an age of 3 years while we received 4 years *Age is her age at capture year. ? Indicates uncertainty of age but is the biologists best guess Underline indicates reproductive status used in Table 12, Summary of Family Groups 2

Table 12 provides a summary of the information contained within Table 11. Four years was used as the cutoff between subadult and adult because one of the bears, GF24, was captured with offspring (believed COYs) at the age of 4 years, meaning that the remainder of the bears had the potential to breed by age four. Unknown status was largely attributed to bears whose transmitters failed or fell off. At last sighting, these adult bears were seen with their offspring. Table 12. Family Groups, 1997 to 2002 Year Number of Adult Females COY Believed deceased Unknown

0 0 0

1998 (N=16) 5 0 0

1999 (N=20) 17 10 2

Yearlings Believed deceased Unknown

1 0 1

2 2 0

8 0 2

5 0 0

2 year olds Believed deceased Unknown

0 0 0

4 0 0?

3 0 0

3 year olds Believed deceased unknown

1 0 0

3 0 0

4 year olds

0

2

1

Dispersals

1997 (N=2)

2000 2001 (N=18)* (N=19)* 2 8 0 0 0 2

2002 (N=13)1 3 0 3

Total

4 2 0

6 1 2

22 5 5

6 1 2

5 1 0

3 0 1

21 2 3

0 0 0

2 0 0

0 0 0

4 0 2

10 0 2

0

0

0

2

0

2

7 (5)?

1

5

2

4

19

35 10 7

*

Does not include subadult bears. ? 5 of these 7 bears are believed to have dispersed but could not be confirmed. 1 Does not include GF4 due to failed transmitter 2 Dispersals represent individual bears, not family groups.


21

2002 Data Summary

4.3.1 Cubs of the Year Nine females had the potential to have COYs in 2002, while two females were sighted with (GF43), or believed (GF41) to have, COYs. GF4 also had the potential to have COYs but was not included due to her failed GPS transmitter. GF43’s GPS collar also failed and the status of her COYs remains unknown. I was unable to obtain a visual location on GF41 prior to her spacer breaking-away, however, tracks around the den site suggested that she may have been accompanied by one COY. From 1997 to 2002, we confirmed the birth of 35 COYs (Table 12). 1999 had the highest number of COYs sighted and all were born to mountain females. However, ten of these cubs were believed to have died during the season. Although we did not establish berry productivity plots, 1999 was determined to be a poor berry production year from the microsite data. It is possible that the death of these COYs was linked to limited berry production. The majority of these cubs went missing during berry season (e.g., GF5) or late fall (e.g., GF16 and GF18 who in previous reports were thought to have been denning with their COY). Only two females, GF9 and GF11, had COYs in 1999 that successfully survived to become yearlings. 4.3.2 Yearlings GF26 had 8 sightings in the company of her yearling. Her last sighting with her yearling was July 31, 2002. I was unable to obtain a visual location on GF26 during the four telemetry flights in August. However, GF26 was sighted again on September 5 without her yearling. She had 5 subsequent visual locations and one recapture and none were with her yearling. GF26 was believed to have lost her yearling during August, where she spent the majority of her time in old burned over habitat that had regenerated to a mixed-wood /shrub-land habitat. She was known to cross the 700-logging road during this time, although she spent the majority of her time >1km from a road. The remaining five yearlings were born to bears that were part of the PWCP project (Didgy and Molly). Molly dropped her collar at the beginning of June in the company of her three yearlings. Didgy’s yearlings, T-Rex and Maggie, were outfitted with ear tag transmitters and were believed to be denned with their mother. However, microsite investigations in the spring of 2003 revealed that these two yearlings had been poached in late fall 2002 over a hunter-killed moose carcass. From visual sightings we noted that these plateau yearlings were large bears, thought to be similar in size to GF9 and GF11’s three-year old, mountain offspring. 4.3.3 Two Year Olds GF15 had one two year old in 2002, however, she dropped her collar in early May in the company of her two year old. The other bear thought to have two, 2-year-olds (or 3 yrs?) was Hannah. Hannah’s last sighting with her cubs was on June 4, 2002, however, due to her habitat selection she was extremely difficult to obtain visual locations. Due to budget limitations in 2002 we could not locate her with the helicopter to obtain reproduction data. Her cubs had dispersed by August and likely in the spring 2002.


22

2002 Data Summary

Update from 2001: GF11 was believed to be denned with her three offspring during 2001. However, on May 8th (cubs would be 3 years) only two cubs were sighted a few hundred meters from their den site. GF11 had 15 visual locations in 2002 and none were with all three cubs. One of GF11’s offspring likely died in the fall of 2001 at 2 years of age. It is interesting to note that there were hundreds of porcupine quills within the den site of GF11, and some were soggy suggesting they had been there since last fall. Similar to this, GF2 was found to have porcupine quills under her claws at her death site in 1999. This is put forth as an interesting note and we have no way to determine if porcupines were linked to the death of these bears. GF9 had switched den sites during the winter of 2001 and it was unknown whether her two year olds remained with her during the switch. Indeed, all three bears were sighted together on May 24th, 2002, which was also her first non-den location for the 2002 field season. We visited GF9’s den sites and could not determine the reason for the mid-winter switch. Both den site were cave structures that appeared to have been in existence for many years and contained a lot of bear hair. 4.3.4 Three Year Olds to Independence GF11 had 3 COYs in 1999 but lost one as a two-year-old in the fall of 2001. However, her remaining 2 offspring were the only mountain cubs that we monitored from birth to independence. The interesting note was that she was last sighted with her cubs in a burn on September 11, 2002. Her next visual location, on September 20th, was in the alpine where she was alone. She had three visual locations after September 20th and one recapture where she was alone. GF11 remains monitored through VHF and we will attempt to determine if this bear meets up with her offspring next spring. GF9 was the only other mountain female to raise her 1999 COYs, to yearlings, two-year olds, and three-year olds. GF9 had 14 visual locations in 2002, all in the company of her three year olds. On September 25th she dropped her collar while traveling away from a burned over area. Her previous location (September 20th) was verified through visual observation and she was also in the company of her three year olds. Parsnip Project bears became independent from their mothers at 2 to 3 years of age (Table 13). Through examining those bears where the age of the offspring was known, it is possible that mountain bears become independent one year later than plateau bears (GF9 with cubs at 3 years, GF11 dispersed cubs at 3 years, versus plateau bears GF24 and GF26). However, an interesting plateau dispersal was GF37 and GM36 from their mother, GF35. GM36 first dispersed in midJuly of 2000, but he returned to his mother in mid-August 2000. For a week in September 2000 he also separated from his mother and sister, only to return and den with the family group. In 2001, GM36 dispersed from his mother in early May, while his sister remained with their mother for another few weeks. All three bears were outfitted with transmitters so we were able to monitor their dispersal. GF37 shared her mother’s home range and was even located within the same cutblock but on opposite corners after independence. GM36 dispersed from his mother’s home range and moved west to Philip’s Creek, Nations Arm and Carp Lake. He dropped his collar on September 8th, 2001.


23

2002 Data Summary

Mountain male, GM28, provided an interesting observation regarding grizzly bear family groups and dispersal in the mountains. He was captured at 5 years of age in 1999 but had many visual observations with two other bears. One of these bears was a similar size to GM28, while one was noticeably larger. We did not capture these incidental bears so DNA and age estimated are not available. However, we believed that GM28 occasionally met up with his family group. For example, in 2001 GM28 had 12 visual observations spread throughout the spring and summer (he dropped his transmitter mid-August) and 5 of these observations were with two other bears. Table 13. Independence Information, 1997 to 2002 Mother Mtn/Plt Year No. Offspring Age

Last Recorded Next Sighting w/ Mom Mother Alone

Comments

GF2 GF11 GF12

Mtn Mtn Mtn

1998 1998 1998

1 1 2

2 3 2

22-May-98 16-Jun-98 4-Jun-98

GF13

Mtn

1998

2

3

16-Jun-98

20-Jul-98 1Age best guess by biologist 28-Aug-98 Age best guess by biologist 13-Sep-98 Age best guess by biologist No visuals Age best guess by biologist

GF18 GF30

Mtn Mtn

1998 1999

1 1

2 2

14-May-98 13-Jul-99

No sightings of cubs after capture 17-May-98 Age best guess by biologist 2-Aug-99 Age best guess by biologist

GF24 GF26 GF35

Plt Plt Plt

2000 2000 2001

2 3 2

3 2 42

Male offspring GM36 GF11 Mtn 2002 2 Hannah Plt 2002 2

3 2

12-May-00 24-May-00 Unk dropped collar 14-May-01 15-May-01 28-Apr-01 3-May-01 11-Sep-02 20-Sep-02 4-Jun-02 22-Aug-02

Age best guess by biologist Known age From female offspring GF37 Resent tooth to confirm 3 or 4 years Known age Age best guess by biologist

1

Refers to those animals whose age was estimated at capture or through visual observation. It is possible that these animals are one year older than their estimate. 2 Tooth has been resent to reconfirm age

4.4 Mortality No PGBP study bears died during 2002, although due to dropped transmitters only 6 bears remained on the air by the fall season. Two PWCP bears were poached (yearlings T-Rex and Maggie) beside a hunter killed moose carcass in the fall of 2002 (refer to pg.16, 2003 update). The fall season was the time of highest mortality for study animals followed closely by the spring season. From 1998 to 2002, 11 of the 52 (21%) PGBP grizzly bears have died, as well as 5 of the 8 PWCP bears that were also monitored by this project (Table 14 or refer to Table 10 pg.16). It must be noted that the number of known deaths is likely lower than the true number because bears that have dropped their collars or have failed transmitters would only be recorded as deceased if the carcasses were found and reported. Otherwise, their status remains unknown. Therefore, from the 52 animals tagged we can only reliably confirm that 11 bears have died and 6 bears remain alive (n=17 out of 52). The most interesting point regarding the death of study animals was the landscape where they occurred; 7 of the 8 Parsnip Project non-natural mortalities occurred on the plateau. The only two natural mortalities recorded (GF2 and GF27) occurred in the mountains. Mountain male GM6 was shot while feeding in a mountain cutblock Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

24

2002 Data Summary

on the eastern boundary of the study area. For specific details on bear deaths refer to the progress report for the year the bear died or Woods and Hengeveld 2001 for PWCP bears. Table 14. Mortality for Radio-Collared Grizzly Bears, 1998 to 2002 Bear Sex GF2 F GM6 M GM20 M

Season Natural Spring X Spring Spring

NonNatural

Unk. Comments Porcupine quill infection or defense of COYs? X LEH June 2000 X LEH May 1999 Carcass reported Sept. 1998, claimed illegal but not GM21 M Sum/fall X found. Location of kill on the plateau. GM23 M Fall X LEH Oct 1998 GF27 F Summer X Likely killed by GM22 - unsure of prior condition of bear GM39 M Spring X Mistaken ID for black bear in spring hunt GF40 F Fall X Trapping accident GF42 F Fall X Shot by sheep rancher in Vanderhoof GF44 F Fall X Illegal kill by moose carcass. DNA confirmed GF49 F Summer X Defense of yearlings or struck by a vehicle on Hwy 97? Total = 11 of 52 2 8 1 2 female 3 female 1 female # Females = 6 Note: GF2, GM6 and GF27 were mountain bears while 0 male 5 males 0 male the remainder were classified as plateau bears. # Males = 5* Peace-Williston Compensation Program Bears Monitored by PGBP Thor M Spring X Spring 2001 Bam Bam M Fall X Shot by a grouse hunter in fall 2001 T-Rex M Fall X Illegal kill by moose hunter fall 2002 – Sibling Maggie Maggie F Fall X Illegal kill by moose hunter fall 2002 – Sibling T-Rex Spunky F Spring X Illegal kill beside a 4x4 road in a plateau cutblock, 2002 Total = 5 of 8 0 5 0 0 female 2female 0 female # Females = 2 Note: all PWCP animals were classified as plateau, 0 male 3 males 0 male although Thor traveled between both landscapes. # Males = 3

4.5 DNA Based Population Census 4.5.1 DNA Based Population Census In 2000, The Parsnip Grizzly Bear Study contracted Aurora Wildlife Research to conduct a mark-recapture population census of grizzly bears (Mowat et al. 2001). The analysis of these data forms the population and density estimates provided for the study area. The report indicates 49 bears per 1,000 km2 for the mountains as compared to 12 bears per 1,000 km2 in the plateau. For further information on the DNA methods used and results refer to Mowat et al. 2001. 4.5.2 Family Relationships Greg Wilson, Ph.D., in the Department of Medical Genetics, University of Alberta, performed paternity analysis using the Program CERVUS. CERVUS uses likelihood ratio tests to assign parentage to a specific individual. For more information on CERVUS and how it assigns parentage to individuals, refer to Slate et al. 2000. Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

25

2002 Data Summary

5.0 TELEMETRY 5.1 Methods 5.1.1 VHF Telemetry Bears were monitored using a fixed-wing aircraft once per week, dependent upon weather conditions and aircraft availability. All bears with potential transmitters (i.e., should be working ear tag transmitters and VHF collar transmitters) were entered into the scanning receiver on every flight. Effort was expended to locate missing bears. All aerial telemetry locations were collected during daylight hours. Although weather conditions varied, and some flights were flown in poor weather, efforts were made to fly in clear weather to maximize safety. In the future GPS data may be used to determine if bear habitat use was influenced by weather conditions. Two two-element antennas were fixed to the right and left struts of the plane facing outwards. The antennas were connected to a Lotek Ltd. receiver inside the plane. A manually operated switch box controlled both antennas as well as an omni-directional belly antenna located under the plane. The plane flew at a high elevation until a signal was received at which point the omnidirectional antenna was switched off and the strut antennas were used to fly a grid pattern, while descending in elevation, until a boxed area surrounding the bear was identified. The location of the bear was determined by the signal strength. Significant effort was directed at obtaining accurate aerial locations and/or visual observation of the bear. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (x, y grid system) were taken with a hand-held 12 Channel Garmin® GPS unit. If a position was taken in latitude/longitude it was converted to UTM (NAD 83) using the Geographic Calculator (Blue Marble Geographics). Some aerial locations were taken from a helicopter. The methods followed that of fixed wing flights with less emphasis on grid patterns due to the hovering capability of the aircraft. A biologist onboard the aircraft recorded the bear number, frequency, date, time, habitat type, land-base composition, canopy closure, and confidence code on a telemetry data form. The confidence code (i.e., accuracy of a location) was judged to be in 1 of 4 classes: (1) location with certainty either through visual observation or judgment of the researcher; (1-) location with certainty but could not exactly pinpoint bear; (2) location with uncertainty; and (2-) bear frequency was heard but could not be located due to weather, etc. A Did Not Locate (DNL) was given to bears that could not be found and a list of the areas searched was provided. A Did Not Fly (DNF) was given to bears that for reasons of weather or cost were not searched for on a flight date. If a visual observation of the bear was obtained the activity of the bear (e.g., resting, moving, hunting, feeding, etc.) and the number of animals present, along with an estimate of their age class (Cub of the Year, yearling, two year old, subadult, adult) were recorded on the data sheet. A Polaroid photo was taken of each bear location. A dot was placed on the photo in the location of the bear and a north arrow was provided. The photo was used to identify the spot for later microsite habitat investigation. If necessary, the photo also allowed for later viewing of habitat and environmental conditions (e.g., snow on ground). After the flight, the location of each bear was pinpointed on a biogeoclimatic zone map (BC Ministry of Forests) and the biogeoclimatic zone and subzone were recorded. The location was Parsnip Grizzly Bear Project

26

2002 Data Summary

then transferred to a 1:50,000 topographic map and elevation, aspect, and a location description, were obtained. For cross validation, these attributes were also queried from Forest Cover (FCM; Ministry of Forests), Digital Elevation (DEM) and Terrain Resources Inventory Maps using a Geographic Information System (Arc Info) at a scale of 1:20,000. Additional terrain (e.g., Ministry of Forests primary species composition, age projections, etc.) and human use (distance to nearest road, etc.) data were also obtained from these maps. Aerial locations were used to establish the home range of study animals. Home ranges were calculated using Animal Movement (Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997). 100% Minimum Convex Polygons were calculated for study animals with >10 locations. Statistical comparisons were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test with a significance level of