https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/99c89b4dac0c73e6dccccee4935cc593.pdf 48ec6d65dc2e655e1b7130e5a77d5a9b PDF Text Text Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Marvin McDaniel, Chair • Carrie Besnette Hauser, Vice-Chair Marie Haskett, Secretary • Taishya Adams • Betsy Blecha • Charles Garcia • Dallas May • Duke Phillips, IV • Luke B. Schafer • James Jay Tutchton • Eden Vardy �Grizzly Bear-Cattle Interactions on Two Grazing Allotments in Northwest Wyoming Author(s): Charles R. Anderson, Jr., Mark A. Ternent and David S. Moody Source: Ursus , 2002, Vol. 13 (2002), pp. 247-256 Published by: International Association for Bear Research and Management Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3873205 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms International Association for Bear Research and Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ursus This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �GRIZZLY BEAR-CATTLE INTERACTIONS ON TWO GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN NORTHWEST WYOMING CHARLES R. ANDERSON, JR.,1 Trophy Game Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520, USA, email: cander@uwyo.edu MARK A. TERNENT,2 Trophy Game Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520, USA email: mternent@state.pa.us DAVID S. MOODY, Trophy Game Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520, USA, em dmoody@state.wy.us Abstract: We determined cause of death for 182 cattle found dead on 2 adjacent public land grazing allotments in northwest Wyoming during 96. Grizzly bears (Urtsus arctos) killed fifty-one calves and 6 adults, representing 1.1% (mean) of the annual calf herd and 0.1% of the annual herd. An additional 0.9-1.8% of remaining calves were missing each year. Black bears (U. americanus), although present, were not implicated cattle depredation. We believe that missing calves experienced depredation similar to discovered calves because the proportion killed by bea similar for those equipped with mortality-sensing transmitters and unmarked calves (P = 0.73). Thus, estimated depredation equaled 78 calv 1.3-2.2% of the annual calf herd. All observed depredation occurred at night (n = 9). Kills were separated by a mean of 3 days (n = 50) and occ between 16 June and 13 September (median = 9 August). Radiotagged grizzly bears (n = 17) spent a greater proportion of time in the study while depredations were occurring, and 10 were located near cattle more frequently than expected (P < 0.05), but most did not kill cattle. Alt individuals from all sex and age (subadult, adult) groups except subadult males killed cattle, 3 adult males were responsible for 90% of conf losses. We employed management actions including euthanasia, translocation, and aversive conditioning to remove chronic depredator depredations were discovered following absence of the 3 depredating males in 1996, unlike the previous 2 years when losses continued additional 4 to 6 weeks. This suggests that removal of chronic depredators can reduce losses. Other bears did not become more depred although many were known to utilize cattle carcasses. Removal of cattle carcasses during 1996 appeared to reduce bear densities but did not depredatory bear behavior. Identification and removal of depredatory individuals appears key in addressing conflicts with grizzly bears on lands. Ursus 13:247-256 (2002) Key words: Bridger-Teton National Forest, depredation, domestic cattle, Grand Teton National Park, grizzly bear, nuisance bear management, arctos Conflicts between grizzly bears and cattle havesive. increased For example, Knight and Judd (1983) reported in the Yellowstone Ecosystem during the last decade bears rarely killed cattle when they coexisted aroun (Gunther et al. 1999). Bear numbers appear toYellowstone have inNational Park, and Claar et al. (1986) pr creased during this time (Eberhardt et al. 1994, Boyce posed that most grizzlies were not cattle depredato 1995, Eberhardt and Knight 1996). Burgeoning bear probConversely, cases of frequent depredations were do lems increase workloads and financial anxiety for wildmented in European bear populations with much lo life managers and livestock owners, although bearmost densities than Yellowstone National Park (Cleven importantly they reduce tolerance by the localetpublic of and in areas with much higher bear dens al. 1994) bears and their range expansion. Public supportsuch for grizas Kodiak Island (Eide 1965). Thus, uncertai zly bear expansion may diminish if livestock about conflicts cattle-bear interactions remains and has preven continue to increase, which is likely in northwest Wyowildlife managers from determining the best respon ming because most areas suitable for bear expansion conmany cases. tain livestock (Wyoming Game and Fish Department Murie (1948), studying grizzly bears in the Blackrock and Spread Creek drainages of northwest Wyoming, 2001). A better understanding of bear-livestock interactions speculated that removing specific individuals caught killmay alleviate some concerns and reduce losses, ingincreascattle may successfully limit cattle losses while maining support for bears. Several studies confirmed taining that bears viable bear populations. He also suspected, kill domestic sheep (Mysterud 1980, Elgmork 1982, however, that most grizzlies preyed upon cattle, which could inhibit Johnson and Griffel 1982, Camarra 1986), arguing that success of selective removal. sheep and grizzly bears are incompatible on the same range Seasonal grazing by domestic cattle and horses has oc- in some situations (Knight and Judd 1983, Sagor et since al. 1912 in the Blackrock-Spread Creek Area curred 1997), but studies of cattle depredation are less conclu(BSA) studied by Murie (1948). Accurate records of annual cattle losses on BSA have been documented since I Present address: Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 1985 (Walton Research Unit, Box 3166, University Station, Laramie, WY 82071, USA, email: cander@uwyo.edu Ranch, Jackson, Wyoming, USA). During 1985-91, annual calf losses averaged 2.5% of calves 2 Present address: Pennsylvania Game Commission, 1139 Laurel grazed on Run Road, Beech Creek, PA 16822, USA, email: mterent@ state.pa.us BSA. None of the calves found dead during this period was reported as bear depredation. In 1992, 6 This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC12:34:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �248 Ursus 13:2002 Pseudotsuga menziesii), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), of 18 calves examined were confirmed as grizzly bear kills, but total losses remained similar to 1985-91 (2.7%). pine (Pinus contorta), aspen (Populus lodgepole tremuloides), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)-grassIn 1993, the proportion of calves lost increased to 12.4% and bear-killed carcasses became common (25 confirmed). forb meadows, and willow (Salix spp.) riparian. Habitat composition was 36% sagebrush grasslands, 28% We investigated grizzly bear-cattle interactionstype from lodgepole 1994-96 to identify the reason for this intensifying prob-pine, 25% spruce-fir-whitebark pine, 8% clear cut, 2% aspen, and 1% willow riparian (Holm 1998). Irlem and to examine potential solutions. Our objectives rigated pastures covered much of the ERA. Elevation were to investigate (1) the extent of cattle losses attributvaried from able to bears, (2) the number and proportion of bears us- 2,050 m to 3,145 m, west to east, and annual precipitation during June-September averaged 12.4 cm. ing the area and killing cattle, (3) the effect of lethal and Approximately 900 domestic cow-calf pairs grazed non-lethal management actions on reducing problems, and annually on ERA from early July to late October. These (4) the implications for recovery of the threatened cattle dispersed little and were managed on a rest-rota- Yellowstone grizzly bear population. tion grazing system in pastures occupying the west end of the study area (Fig. 1). On BSA, approximately 750 cowcalf pairs, 40 bulls, and <30 yearlings grazed annually between Our 448 km2 study area consisted of mountainous to- early June and mid-October. These cattle moved pography in northwest Wyoming and encompassedgradually 2 ad- through the allotment from west to east, arriv- STUDY AREA ing on the eastern end of the allotment in late July and jacent public land grazing allotments (Fig. 1), including returning west in early September (Fig. 1). Blackrock-Spread Creek (BSA; Bridger-Teton National Forest) and Elk Ranch East (ERA; Grand Teton National Park). Both were managed by their respective agencies as multiple-use areas and contained numerous forest METHODS roads We captured grizzly bears with Aldrich foot snares and and trails. Dominant vegetation types included spruce- fir forests (Picea engelmannii, Abies lasiocarpa, culvert traps baited with ungulate or cattle carcasses (Jonkel 1993). Traps were distributed throughout the stud area beginning at lower elevations in June and progress ing upslope with seasonal snow melt. To minimize tim captured animals were in traps, no more than 12 trap-site were maintained daily. We immobilized captured bear with tiletamine hydrochloride and zolazepam hydrochlo ride (Telazol®, Aveco Company Incorporated, Cherry Hil New Jersey, USA). Each bear was ear-tagged, and indi viduals >1 year-old were fitted with radiocollars or back pack transmitters (Telonics Incorporated, Mesa, Arizon USA). Black bears were also radiotagged and monitored for a concurrent study (Holm et al. 1999). We located radio-equipped bears every night (00000600 hrs) and occasionally during daylight hours whil cattle occupied the study area. Locations in universal trans verse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were determined from telemetry bearings using XYLOG plotting softwar (Dodge and Steiner 1986). We collected telemetry bear ings using hand-held 2-element antennas, stationary null- peak towers with 8-element Yagi antennas, an truck-mounted masts with null-peak 3-element antenna (Holm 1998). We reported residency rates (percent use for individual bears as the number of locations on the stud area (1/day) divided by total number of days each bea Fig. 1. Study area map of the Elk Ranch East cattle allotment (hatched area) in Grand Teton National Park (dashed line) and the Blackrock-Spread Creek cattle allotment in BridgerTeton National Forest (area outside Grand Teton National Park), northwest Wyoming. was monitored. Radiotagged bears that left the study are were monitored every 4-7 days from fixed-wing aircraft but location data were not included in analyses. I This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �GRIZZLY BEAR-CATTLE INTERACTIONS * Anderson et al. 249 We mapped the distribution of cattle each morning by Calves were separated from the cows, allowed to mix in driving and searching for cattle in 35 survey blocks en- large corrals, and the first 233 calves were radiotagged as compassing the study area. Block size varied (6.3-23.8 they exited. We scanned for mortality signals daily and investigated all mortalities to determine cause of death. km2) depending on access and our ability to detect cattle. Blocks without cattle were recorded as unoccupied, and block occupancy was assigned regardless of cattle density. Bear presence in blocks was determined by overlaying telemetry locations. We tested for spatial association We tested the hypothesis that the proportion killed by bears (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) between individual bears and cattle using X2 contingency analyses (Zar 1984) ex- calves if differences between marked and unmarked calves cluding days when the tested bear was absent from the was unrelated to whether the calf was marked using Fisher's exact test. We assumed bear depredation rates among necropsied calves represented those in missing were not significant (P > 0.05). We monitored bear-killed cattle carcasses for 1-2 nights study area; we constructed 2 x 2 tables representing num- after necropsy with night vision equipment, radio-telem- ber of blocks where only cattle occurred, number of blocks etry, or both. Individual bears were considered responsible for kills if located at the site during the estimated where only the bear occurred, number of blocks where both occurred, and number of blocks where neither the bear or cattle occurred. We considered all statistical tests significant at P < 0.05 using a Pearson X2 statistic unless fitted values fell below 5, in which case Fisher's exact test was used (SYSTAT statistical package, version 9.01, SPSS Incorporated, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Associa- time of attack or within 24 hours from nightly telemetry or carcass monitoring. Traps were set at the carcass if unmarked bears were suspected of being depredators. Bears captured at carcasses were radiotagged and released. We identified bears scavenging at carcasses by plotting bear locations and periodically inspecting carcasses for tion probabilities and residency rates were calculated while foraging activity or by monitoring carcasses at night with depredations were occurring (depredation period) and radiotelemetry. absent (non-depredation period). Depredation periods were defined as the interval between first and last docu- After bear activity patterns were well established, we implemented various management actions to evaluate their mented bear depredation each year; data from all 3 years utility in alleviating cattle losses. Habitual cattle depre- were pooled for each bear. dators identified during the first 2 years of the study were We necropsied all dead cattle we discovered to determine cause of death (bear or other). Three people, 2 on BSA and 1 on ERA, were employed full-time by cattle owners to care for livestock and report mortalities. They typically traversed cattle-occupied areas daily from horseback or vehicle. Study personnel also searched for mor- talities daily and investigated any potential signs (e.g., congregation of scavengers, bawling mother cow). All necropsies were performed at the site of discovery, and bear depredation was assumed if tooth punctures or claw marks with subcutaneous hemorrhaging were present near the head or dorsal region (Roy and Dorrance 1976, Griffel and Basile 1981). We also measured deep muscle temperature when possible. If deep muscle temperature was above ambient temperature, we assumed death occurred the previous night (Smith et al. 1987a,b). When deep muscle temperature could not be obtained (e.g., carcass mostly consumed) or when body and ambient temperatures were not different, date of attack was estimated based on fly larva development and degree of decay. Cattle owners gathered all remaining cattle following each grazing season and reported the number missing. We assumed missing cattle died on the study area. We estimated depredation of missing cattle by fitting mortality- sensing transmitters (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Incorporated, Isanti, Minnesota, USA) to 233 calves (32% of the calf population) before they arrived on BSA in 1995. targeted for subsequent management actions including (1) hazing the bear from the study area (i.e., aversive condi- tioning), (2) translocation >100 km, or (3) permanent removal (i.e., capture and euthanasia). Hazing consisted of displacing the target bear using loud noises (i.e., yelling, discharging firearms, vehicle horns) when it was actively pursuing cattle. In addition to management actions targeting specific individuals, cattle carcasses on BSA were removed or obliterated with explosives after necropsy during 1996 to reduce the carrion source. We examined potential decline in mean annual grizzly bear residency rates (P < 0.05) following carcass removal using a one- tailed t-test. RESULTS We captured 18 grizzly bears (12 male, 6 female; Table 1) during 3,465 trap nights, and documented the presence of 2 others (both females with dependent cubs). All captured bears except 1 yearling female were fitted with VHF (very high frequency) radiotransmitters. Shedding of transmitters and staggered capture dates limited monitor- ing to 6 (1994), 11 (1995), and 14 (1996) bears annually (Table 1). However, most were monitored for >2 field seasons (n = 11) or captured as dispersing subadults (3 year-olds) during 1996 (n = 4; Table 1). Seventeen black bears also were radiotagged and monitored during the This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �250 Ursus 13:2002 Table 1. Cohort, identification, age, and proportion of study days (Holm et monitored each grazing season for grizzly bears radiotagged Cattle were loca in the Blackrock-Spread Creek and Elk Ranch East grazing blocks, and an e allotments, northwest Wyoming, 1994-96. center of the stu % days monitoredb bined Agea (in Cohort ID 1994) 1994 1995 1996 Subadult male 253 3 225 41.8 1 grazing moved across se the 6.9 survey block ized densities of 75.0 100.0 274 1 100.0 277 1 88.7 Subadult female 248 1 71.3 100.0 279 1 70.2 G52c 1 Adult male 34 22 58.9 174 8 100.0 100.0 203 14 78.3 100.0 100.0 209 7 93.8 100.0 41.1 224 6 10.0 65.3 Bear Marked ber 6 50.8 100.0 252 5 44.3 100.0 lar 25 6 247 a Age Game b 77.0 5 bears the each July, m varied Only within 2 l (be study year. range A = bears spent <50% being monitored est mean residen Adult female 166 10 94.6 100.0 179 after mer. 229 11 62.8 100.0 100.0 251 Activity 100.0 71.3 (29.2%), adult f using cementum ann (17.4%). Laboratory, Laramie, determined and Fish Proportion of days Fifteen of were 17bears bears monitored spent a greater propor-equip radiotelemetry each grazing season. Mo tion ofand time in the study area while depredations1996 were 1994, 17 Jun 1995, 15 Jun an c Bear was not occurring, and 10 of these were radiomarked. located near cattle more frequently than expected (P < 0.05, Table 2). Notably, 5 Table 2. Percent of transmitter-days8 grizzly bears were located in the study area, significance of spatial association tests (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) between bears and cattle for non depredation and depredation periods, and number of confirmed cattle depredations for grizzly bears radiomonitored on the Blackrock-Spread Creek and Elk Ranch East grazing allotments, northwest Wyoming, 1994-96. Non-depredation periodb % days in Cattle association study area P-value Bear ID % days in study area 34 78.9 58.3 >0.999 166 41.4 174 5.3 32.4 0.747 1.7 0.196 179 12.4 203 16.7 209 224 225 5.3 0.036d Depredation periodc No. of association confirmed ca % days in study Cattle area P-value 82.8 <0.001d 48.5 48.5 <0.001d 14.9 0.001d 28.4 0.068 depredations 5 1 0 0 <1.0 >0.999 43.2e <0.001d 16 35.7 13.4 56.6 <0.001 15 22.3 14.9 >0.999 32.2 30.1 19.2 0.538 86.7 0.001 0.024 0 >0.999 0 229 19.9 6.5 0.075 45.5 <0.001d 247 10.3 8.1 >0.999 12.0 0.028 0.054 248 74.9 73.6 0.652 77.6 251 36.6 35.7 0.014d 252 18.0 253 17.1 15.0 0.079 11.4 0.780 39.1 <0.001 28.9 0.308 274 17.7 20.6 0.241 277 4.5 279 12.6 5.4 0.542 7.7 >0.999 40.0 <0.001d 0.0 0.0- 55.6 >0.999 a Transmitter days = total grazing period x % days monitored. b Non-depredation period: 10-15 Jun and 11 Sep-16 Oct 1994; 17 Jun-25 Jul and 14 Sep-16 Oct 1995; 15 Jun-13 Jul and 31 Jul-16 Oct 1996. c Depredation period: 16 Jun-10 Sep 1994; 26 Jul-13 Sep 1995; 14-30 Jul, 1996. d Significant results (P < 0.05) indicate positive spatial associations with cattle. e Bear left the study area following aversive conditioning on 29 July 1996. This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 �GRIZZLY BEAR-CATTLE INTERACTIONS * Anderson et al. 251 of 7 bears not spatially associated with cattle were sub- fer between mark status (30% vs. 36%; Z2 = 0.12, 1 df, P adults, 2 of which were completely absent from the study = 0.73), suggesting bear depredation rates among necrop- area while depredations were ongoing. Nine adults and 1 sied calves (51 of 132, 38.6%) may be representative of subadult had significant spatial associations with cattle those in missing calves (n = 60) and calves dying of unknown causes (n = 11). Thus, we estimated an additional during the depredation period; the single subadult (253) was the oldest subadult monitored. During the period when no depredations occurred, 3 bears were consistently located near cattle and 12 others spent <20% of their time 27 (71 x 0.386) calf losses to bear depredation above those confirmed during necropsies (51 calves, 5 cows, and 1 bull; Table 3). in the study area (Table 2). We identified the responsible bear in 40 of 47 confirmed attacks that were immediately fatal. All sex and age (su- Cattle Losses and Depredation badult or adult) groups except subadult males killed cattle. Of the 262 cattle that died during the study, we located Adult males, however, were the most frequent. Four bears, 193 and determined cause of death for 182 (Table 3). including 2 adult males (229 and 251), an adult female Success of finding dead cattle was similar among years and allotments, excluding ERA in 1994 when all missing whereas 3 adult males (203, 209, and 34) killed the re- cattle were discovered (x = 71%; x2 = 2.88, 4 df, P = maining 36 (16, 15, and 5, respectively, Table 2). A deci- 0.58). Bear depredation was evident in 39% (51 of 132) of calf and 12% (6 of 49) of adult mortalities we con- sion between multiple suspects could not be made in 4 additional cases, but 3 were between 2 adult males and firmed. Calves were the most common victims of bear- the fourth between 2 adult males and an adult female. In (166), and a subadult female (279) killed 1 calf each, (90%) and non bear-caused deaths (65%), although pro- 3 of the 4 cases, the decision involved 1 or more of the portions differed (X2 = 11.54, 1 df, P < 0.01). Of the 57 adult males already identified as repeat offenders. Uncases documented, bear depredation consistently occurred at night based on 9 times that we monitored bears during a depredation event (2230-0330 hrs) and 24 cases freshly killed carcasses discovered in the morning. Kills were separated by an average of 3 days (for those of known date, n = 50) and all were documented between 16 June10 September 1994, 26 July-13 September 1995, and 14- 30 July 1996 (median = 9 Aug; Fig. 2). We observed I - O) periods without bear depredation (x = 37 days, range = 6-78, n = 6) before and after each depredation period. Sixty-nine missing cattle were never located and were assumed dead. Bears likely killed some of these because the composition of missing cattle (87% calves) more I I I .- . June July August September October Month closely resembled cattle killed by bears (90%; X2 = 0.19, 1 df, P = 0.66) than those dying from other causes (65%; Fig. 2. Grizzly bear depredation periods (solid ba X2 = 10.54, 1 df, P < 0.01; Table 3). Moreover, we exam- each grazing season (solid lines) on the Elk Ran ined 10 marked and 22 unmarked dead calves on BSA Blackrock-Spread Creek cattle allotments in n Wyoming, 1994-96. during 1995. The proportion killed by bears did not dif- Table 3. Number of cattle mortalities by cohort and cause (bear depredation, other, or unk due to bear depredation on the Blackrock-Spread Creek and Elk Ranch East grazing allotme 96. Cause of death Bear Other Unknown Missing Total estimated bear depredationa Cohort n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n Calf 51 (89.5) 81 (64.8) 11 (100.0) 60 (87.0) 78 Yearling 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.4) 0 Cow 5 (8.8) 35 (28.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (8.7) 5 Bull 1 (1.8) 8 (6.4) 0 (0.0) 2 (2.9) 1 Total 57 (100.0) 125 (100.0)b 11 (100.0) 69 (100.0) 84 a Estimated bear depredation includes confirmed bear depredation from all cohor those dying from unknown causes, which was based on the observed depredation r b Includes 1 animal of unknown cohort. This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �252 Ursus 13:2002 DISCUSSION marked grizzly bears (1 or 2) were suspected in the remaining 3 cases. Black bears were not implicated in cattle Depredation depredation. In addition to the 47 immediately fatalCattle bear attacks detected, 15 others included 10 cases where cattle Our findings suggest that grizzly bears from most sex- escaped the initial attack but later succumbed to fatal ageincohorts will opportunistically prey on cattle. Olderjuries and 5 where cattle survived the attack. We aged weremales were the most common depredator, but even unable to identify the responsible bears in these 15within cases this cohort individual propensities varied. Among because time and location of the incident were unclear. the 8 adult males we monitored, 5 killed <1 cattle each, During 1985-91 mean annual calf loss rate was 2.5% while the remaining 3 were implicated in 90% of all iden- on BSA. In contrast, it was 6.2% during our study.tifiable Calf losses. Subadult males were the only group not associated with depredations, which may have been parmortality rate during our study was 5.1% after excluding necropsied calves killed by bears and 4. 1% when a tially simi- due to exclusion by adult males (Holm et al. 1999). Given the relatively high number of adult males we enlar proportion of missing and unknown calf mortalities were omitted. Thus, calf losses not attributed to countered bears (8 of 17), adult male exclusion may also con- to infrequent depredation by other grizzly bear averaged 1.6% higher during our study than whentribute bear classes. Our observations are similar to findings depredation was unconfirmed (1985-91). Althoughsex-age not in other studies. Horstman and Gunson (1982) statistically significant (t = -1.92, 8 df, P = 0.09), thisreported diffound that most cattle depredation by black bears in ference is arguably economically significant. Management Actions Alberta was by mature males. Knight and Judd (1983) found that relatively few adult grizzlies of both sexes killed cattle during their study. Claar et al. (1986) reported that We targeted individuals identified as habitual depreda18 grizzlies they monitored did not kill cattle, but the 2 tors late in 1995 and during 1996. One of the 3 adult did were both male (1 adult, 1 subadult). However, males identified as a habitual depredator (34) was that killed neither grizzly study (Knight and Judd 1983, Claar et al. north of the study area in September 1994 after acting 1986) reported individual depredation rates, thus it is unaggressively toward a hunter. We translocated another bear (209) twice, once prior to the study in mid-Julyknown 1993 whether those bears were habitual or infrequent depredators of cattle. (103 km) and again in early September 1995 (114 km). Black bears did not appear to depredate cattle during In both cases he returned to the study area the following our study, which was surprising given the relatively high spring and resumed cattle depredation. We euthanized of black bears we incidentally captured and were this bear in the study area on 4 August 1996 after he number killed then monitored by Holm et al. (1999; 24 captured, 17 11 cattle in 17 days. The third bear (203) left the study monitored). Although not frequently reported, several area within 2 weeks of arrival on 29 July 1996 following 2 nights of aversive conditioning. No depredationsstudies were have documented black bear depredation on cattle (Davenport 1953, Roy and Dorrance 1976, Horstman and detected after 30 July 1996 once all 3 habitual depreda- Gunson 1982, Bjorge 1983). Grizzly bears we monitored tors were absent, unlike the previous 2 years when depredations continued into early September (Fig. 2). appeared to use different habitats than black bears, with most pronounced for areas occupied by adult We documented scavenging by 13 marked grizzly differences bears male grizzlies (Holm et al. 1999). Thus, grizzlies may at 59 carcasses where cattle died from something other exclude black bears from cattle-occupied areas where these than bear depredation. Included in this group were all species marked bears known to kill cattle except 1 subadult fe- occur sympatrically, thereby reducing the oppormale (279). She was unmarked until 1996, however, tunity when for black bears to prey on cattle. carcasses were being removed to prevent scavenging. Bear Activity Relative to Cattle on the Scavenging did not appear to lead to depredation because Study Area 7 of 14 scavengers were never documented killing cattle, Our findings suggest a bear's presence near cattle does and the 2 most active scavengers (166 was at 10 carcasses indicate depredatory behavior, contrary to what has and 229 was at 14) were only known to kill 1 calfnot each. suggested historically (e.g., Murie 1948). Most bears In 1996, all but 4 carcasses found with nearby bear been activwe monitored exhibited a significant spatial association ity (n = 13) were removed from BSA. Grizzly bear resi- cattle while depredations were occurring, but few dency rates were lower than the previous 2-years with when preyed on cattle. Some bears were depredators, some were carcasses were not removed (t = 2.11, 25 df, P = 0.02). scavengers, and yet others coincidentally shared cattle However, depredations continued despite use by fewer bears until adult males known to kill cattle were absent. range (e.g., during the non-depredation period). This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �GRIZZLY BEAR-CATTLE INTERACTIONS * Anderson et al. 253 Our anecdotal observations suggested that depredatory Redistribution of livestock carrion has reduced hu- behavior by bears produced noticeable changes in cattle man-grizzly bear conflicts (Madel 1996) and could be behavior, while non-depredatory bears traveling near cattle useful in reducing cattle losses. Success of redistribut- did not. Cattle became clumped when depredation was ing or removing cattle carcasses appears limited, how- occurring, leading to localized depletion of forage, and ever, because depredatory bears continued to prey on cattle despite the reduction of carrion during our study. Similar to Claar et al. (1986) and Madel (1996), we found range managers were frequently forced to drive cattle back onto desirable grazing areas. Conversely, cattle were more scattered and sedentary when depredation was absent. On no evidence that bears scavenging cattle carcasses be- several occasions we observed bears traveling near cattle that were alert but otherwise calm. In all of these cases, came cattle killers during our 3-year study. BSA loss the bear was not displaying depredatory behavior, and 1 of these observations included a known cattle killer. Range managers on BSA contended that depredatory records since 1985 suggest low calf mortality until 1993 (x = 2.5% or 13 calves annually), and at least 1 depredating bear we identified (34) appeared to use the study area during that period based on historic capture records (Tro- bears caused increased stress to livestock, which exasper- phy Game Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, ated illness symptoms thereby reducing survival rates. Lander, Wyoming, USA). Thus, while carcass removal Mortality from larkspur (Delphinium spp.) poisoning and may reduce the concentration of bears in an area, it may pneumonia may increase among excited cattle, but the outcome of fatal illnesses, such as brisket disease, would not prevent bears from developing depredatory tenden- not be affected (Fraser 1991). We did not determine causes of non bear-caused cattle mortalities, but both larkspur poisoning and brisket disease were commonly suspected. If the estimated number of calf losses resulting from bear cies or repel depredating bears from grazing areas. Management Actions Targeting Depredatory Grizzly Bears We successfully hazed 1 depredating bear from cattle depredation is excluded, an increase of 1.6% in the mean during the 1996 grazing season that, together with removal annual loss rate was observed during the study compared of another depredating bear, terminated bear depredation to losses observed prior to documented bear depredation (before 1992). Whether this increase is due to underesti- during the remainder of the grazing season. However, weak transmitter strength and low search intensity out- mating calf losses, stress from predatory bears chasing cattle, or other biological and environmental factors be- hazed bear moved to another cattle allotment. We at- sides grizzly bear activity is unknown. We are unaware tempted hazing the same bear from BSA again during the side the study area prevented us from determining if the of factors that may have led to underestimating bear- 1997 grazing season (following this study) without suc- caused calf losses because our use of mortality transmit- cess. Thus, hazing bears from cattle may only provide tem- ters appeared to provide an unbiased sample in 1995. Furthermore, we maximized discovery of dead calves by porary and local relief, analogous to translocating bears. This approach, however, may be useful in sensitive situa- investigating all possible indicators such as a bawling tions where the target individual is considered important in mother cow or sightings of scavengers. maintaining population viability (e.g., adult females). Removal of Cattle Carcasses turn to their original home range, but relocations of sub- Adult grizzly bears that are translocated typically re- Bears were noticeably less concentrated in the study adults can sometimes be permanent (Blanchard and Knight area during the 1996 grazing season. A number of inter- 1995). In our study, the time required for adult male bear related factors could have been responsible including: (1) 209 to return extended into the next grazing season after a reduction of carrion from fewer cattle losses following 2 separate translocations. Thus, distant translocations removal of depredating bears, (2) carcass removals, which could provide relief for the immediate grazing season or occurred only in 1996, (3) bears stopping (e.g., 174, 179, longer in some circumstances. Additionally, this practice 252) or reducing (203, 225, 253) use of the study area combined with radiomarking allows discrimination beduring 1996, although others appeared unaffected (229, tween habitual and opportunistic depredators, which ap- 248, 251; Table 2), and (4) bears seeking other areas with pears to be a key component of grizzly bear management on rangelands. During our study, cattle depredation was high in 1996 throughout the Yellowstone Ecosystem limited to a discrete period rather than occurring continu(Knight and Blanchard 1997), and use of moth aggrega- ally throughout the grazing season. If problem bears had tion sites increased following several years of low use been captured and moved at the onset of depredations, good food conditions. Whitebark pine production was (Terent and Haroldson 1999). Yet, relatively good food losses likely would have been reduced. In cases involvconditions were also observed during 1995 when bears ing habitual depredators, however, the reappearance of were extremely concentrated near cattle. problem individuals is expected and translocation efforts This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �254 Ursus 13:2002 are not a long-term solution. were much more common on BSA in the 1940s than dur- Bears may also become increasingly difficult or virtuing our study, but bear depredation of calves was com- monly observed in both studies. Second, Murie's results ally impossible to capture after repeated translocations (this study), increasing time and effort recapturing implied them. that adult male bears might have been the priDifficulties associated with recapturing problem bears mary tendculprits, similar to our observations. While Murie to foster non-selective removal methods (i.e., remove wasany unable to identify individual bears (largely due to tech- nological limitations), he reported track sizes (n = 4) that bear captured after 5 depredation events; U.S. Fish and were similar to adult males we monitored (15-17 cm Wildlife Service 1999). New techniques that remotely mark animals (e.g., auto-attach telemetry collars; Shivik wide) and in 2 cases he captured males (possibly adults) at depredated carcasses. Third, both studies failed to detect and Martin 2000), thereby avoiding large time commitblack ments of capturing trap-shy animals, should enhance thebears as cattle depredators despite their presence. success of future grizzly bear management. Some differences between the 2 studies also were ap- parent. Although time of depredation could not be deterUnfortunately, we were unable to identify management mined in most cases, Murie (1948) suggested daytime techniques that were as effective as permanent removal in 4 incidents where fresh carcasses were disin alleviating cattle losses. Based on conversationsdepredation with covered. Our findings suggest grizzlies killed cattle at local ranchers, nondiscriminatory removal resulted in the night. One possible explanation is that bears experienced substantial reduction of grizzly bears from Wyoming rangelands shortly after Murie's (1948) study. Ourmore find-disturbances from human activity during our study than 5 decades ago. Vehicle access and recreational use ings suggest that relatively few removals are necessary if have noticeably increased in BSA since then. Another highly selective techniques are applied. Habitual depredifference was that Murie noted bear depredation during dators in our study tended to be older-aged males. Removal of these individuals should have minimal impact July and early August, whereas we documented depredation into early September. He also reported that losses on the long-term survival of the population, because dewere minimal on ERA (then referred to as the Moran Almographic characteristics of this cohort are less influenbut we observed significant losses on both ERA tial than adult females (Knight and Eberhardt 1985). lotment), Thus, and BSA. Grazing practices were similar during both studif repeated depredations are limited to a few individuals but differences in distribution and length of cattle depand other management techniques ultimately failies, (e.g., may have been due to differences in the number translocation, hazing), removal may be a reasonableredations man- agement option for resolving cattle-bear conflicts. of depredators present. The 3 depredatory bears we identified selected cattle from different segments of the study We did not identify the factors leading to the developareaincorresponding to each of their home ranges (Anderment of depredatory behavior, which merits further son et vestigation. Scavenging did not appear to encourage al. 1997). Although Murie suspected most resident depredatory behavior, and depredatory tendencies grizzlies varied were cattle killers, the limited timing and location of cattle losses suggests that actually few depredaamong and within cohorts. One drawback to permanent tors removal is that immigrants might move into the area andmay have been involved. Murie suspected multiple bears because intensive control (7-9 grizzly bears were become chronic depredators, thereby creating a populakilled tion sink (Knight et al. 1988). Similarly, if habitual de-in or near the study area during 1945) failed to reduce problems. Control methods described by Murie, predators are females and their future reproductive however, were nonselective. Thus, it is possible the ofpotential is considered crucial to the population, managefending individual(s) was not removed, leading to the ment actions may be limited to non-lethal techniques. perception of widespread depredatory behavior. Nevertheless, in areas of high human activity, removal of chronic nuisance bears should benefit the bear population by increasing public tolerance for grizzly bears and their MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS expansion. Given the delicate nature of the Yellowstone grizzly Comparisons between Grizzly Bear- bear population, both politically and biologically, future management Cattle Interactions on BSA from 1945-46 and 1994-96 actions should be applied cautiously. Although the success of translocating bears has been scru- tinized because many return to their capture site In reviewing Murie's (1948) study on BSA 49 years (Blanchard and Knight 1995) or become conditioned to earlier, we noted a few similarities. First, depredatory avoid bears selected juvenile over adult cattle. Seventy-five- recapture (our observations), it does allow discrimibetween habitual and opportunistic depredators percent of depredated cattle included calves and thenation re- and provides temporary relief. New techniques allowmaining 25% were yearlings (Murie 1948). Yearling cattle This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �GRIZZLY BEAR-CATTLE INTERACTIONS * Anderson et al. 255 ing more efficient identification of habitual depredators Oakleaf, J. Ertel, and S. Reagan provided field assistance. should continue to be investigated (e.g., remotely attached F. Reed and M. Hare of Western Air Research (Driggs, telemetry collars; Shivik and Martin 2000). In addition, Idaho) and C. Tyrrel and J. Hyatt of Sky Aviation (Worland, there may be some merit to applying aversive condition- Wyoming) conducted aerial telemetry. We appreciate ing techniques (e.g., hazing) on rangelands. However, editorial comments by D. Shideler and an anonymous referee that improved the manuscript and additional manuscript review by B. O'Gara. hazing results are dependent on a bear's sensitivity to disturbance, and though a bear may leave a problem area, the action should not be considered successful if the bear continues depredatory behavior elsewhere. In chronic depredation situations, permanent removal of depredat- LITERATURE CITED ing bears or cattle may be the only long-term solution. ANDERSON, C.R., M.A. TERNENT, D.S. MOODY, M.T. BRUSCINO, Cattle owners should not be expected to endure excessive losses or abandon all areas inhabited by grizzly bears. This only heightens animosity toward bears and erodes support for population recovery. Our findings suggest that a relatively small segment of the grizzly bear population is associated with the majority of cattle losses. As a result, several management alternatives including removal, translocation, and aversive conditioning are available depending on the severity and circumstances of the situation. The Yellowstone grizzly bear population appears to be expanding into currently unoccupied areas (Gunther et al. 1999). If range expansion is to continue to enhance the long-term survival of the population, management programs should be designed to increase tolerance of grizzly bears by balancing the conservation of individuals with attempts to alleviate human-bear conflicts. Over 50 years ago Murie (1948) concluded: "Because the grizzly range in the United States is now so greatly restricted it is believed by many that the grizzly should be given special consideration in this region. A satisfactory solution will require land-use plan- ning on a high plane, with all social needs carefully considered." It seems little has changed. Grizzlies were apparently extirpated or greatly reduced from Wyoming rangelands shortly following Murie's study, but have recently returned. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND D..E MILLER. 1997. Final report: grizzly bear-cattle interactions on two cattle allotments in northwest Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming, USA. BJORGE, R.R. 1983. Mortality of cattle on two types of grazing areas in northwestern Alberta. Journal of Range Management 36:20-21. BLANCHARD, B.M., AND R.R. KNIGHT. 1995. Biological consequences of relocating grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:560-565. BOYCE, M.S. 1995. Population viability for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis): a critical review. Report to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Missoula, Montana, USA. CAMARRA, J.J. 1986. Changes in brown bear depredation on livestock in the western French Pyrenees from 1968 to 1979. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:183-186. CLAAR, J.J., R.W. KLAVER, AND C.W. SERVHEEN. 1986. Grizzly bear management on the Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:203-208. CLEVENGER, A.P., M.A. CAMPOS, AND A. HARTASANCHEZ. 1994. Brown bear Ursus arctos depredation on livestock in the Cantabrian Mountains, Spain. Acta Theriologica 39:267- 278. DAVENPORT, L.B. 1953. Agricultural depredation by the black bear in Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 17:331340. DODGE, W.E., AND A.J. STEINER. 1986. XYLOG: a computer program for field processing locations of radio-tagged wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report No. 4. EBERHARDT, L.L., B.M. BLANCHARD, AND R.R. KNIGHT. 1994. Project funding and support was provided by the WyoPopulation trend of the Yellowstone grizzly bear as estimated ming Game and Fish Department, U.S. Forest Service- from reproductive and survival rates. Canadian Journal of Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming Cooperative Zoology 72:360-363. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Teton County Natural , AND R.R. KNIGHT. 1996. How many grizzlies in Resource District, Yellowstone Grizzly Foundation, Grand Yellowstone? Journal of Wildlife Management 60:416-421. Teton National Park, and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeEIDE, Ser-S. 1965. The nature of brown bear depredation on cattle, vice. This study would not have been possible without Kodiak Island, Alaska. Proceedings of the Conference of Western Association of Game and Fish Commissioners help from the Walton Ranch in Jackson, Wyoming, in45:113-118. cluding T. Schram, R. Disney, W. Cawley, and P. Walton, ELGMORK, K. 1982. Catching behavior of brown bear. Journal or D. Gomez of the Blackrock Ranger District, U.S. Forof Mammalogy 63:607-612. est Service. We also thank Elk Ranch Allotment manager FRASER, C.M., EDITOR. 1991. The Merck veterinary manual. R. Martin. G. Holm, M. Bruscino, C. Queen, D. Miller, Seventh edition. Merck & Company, Rahway, New Jersey, D. Whittaker, M. Alldredge, J. Koloski, E. Tweed, USA. J. This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �256 Ursus 13:2002 GRIFFEL, D.E., AND J.V. BASILE. 1981. Identifying sheep killed byA. 1948. Cattle on grizzly bear range. Journal of Wildlife MURIE, bears. U.S. Forest Service Research Note INT-313. Management 12:57-72. GUNTHER, K.A., M.T. BRUSCINO, S. CAIN, J. COPELAND, K. FREY, MYSTERUD, I. 1980. Bear management and sheep husbandry in M.A. HAROLDSON, AND C.C. SCHWARTZ. 1999. Grizzly bear- Norway, with a discussion of predatory behavior significant for evaluation of livestock losses. International Conference human conflicts, confrontations, and management actions in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1998. Interagency Grizzly on Bear Research and Management 4:233-241. ROY, L.D., AND M.J. DORRANCE. 1976. Methods of investigating Bear Committee, Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park depredation of domestic livestock. Alberta Agriculture Plant Industry Laboratory, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA. SAGOR, J.T., J.E. SWENSON, AND E. ROSKAFT. 1997. Compatibility HOLM, G.W. 1998. Interactions of sympatric black and grizzly bears in northwest Wyoming. Thesis, University of of brown bear Ursus arctos and free-ranging sheep in Norway. Biological Conservation 81:91-95. Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA. , F.G. LINDZEY, AND D.S. MOODY. 1999. Interactions ofSHIVIK, J.A., AND D.J. MARTIN. 2000. Aversive and disruptive sympatric black and grizzly bears in northwest Wyoming. stimulus applications for managing predation. Proceedings of the Ninth Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Ursus 11:99-108 HORSTMAN, L.P., AND J.R. GUNSON. 1982. Black bear depredation Conference 9:111-119. on livestock in Alberta. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:34-SMITH, F.C., R. FIELD, AND W.G. HEPWORTH. 1987a. The deer 39. JOHNSON, S.J., AND D.E. GRIFFEL. 1982. Sheep losses on grizzly carcass. University of Wyoming Department of Agriculture Extension Bulletin No. 589R. , AND . 1987b. The elk carcass. bear range. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:786-790. JONKEL, J.J. 1993. A manual for handling bears for managers and researchers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, University of Wyoming Department of Agriculture Exte Bulletin No. 594. TERNENT, M.A., AND M.A. HAROLDSON. 1999. Grizzly bear use Montana, USA. KNIGHT, R.R., AND B.M. BLANCHARD. 1997. Yellowstone grizzly of insect aggregation sites documented from aerial telemetry bear investigations 1996: report of the interagency study and observations. Pages 40-44 in C.C. Schwartz and M.A. team. U.S. Department of the Interior, Interagency Grizzly Haroldson, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Bear Study Team, Bozeman, Montana, USA. annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, , AND L.L. EBERHARDT. 1988. Mortality patterns and population sinks for Yellowstone grizzly bears, 19731985. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:121-125. , AND L.L. EBERHARDT. 1985. Population dynamics of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Ecology 66:323-334. , AND S.L. JUDD. 1983. Grizzly bears that kill livestock. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:186-190. 1998. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1999. Management guidelines to address nuisance grizzly bears on sheep and cattle allotments outside the Yellowstone recovery zone in Wyoming. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT. 2001. Draft grizzly bear management plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA ZAR, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Second edition. LUDWIG, J.A., AND J.F. REYNOLDS. 1988. Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. John Wiley & Sons, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA. New York, New York, USA. Received: 18 May 2001. MADEL, M.J. 1996. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear Accepted: 25 February 2002. management program-four-year progress report. Montana Associate Editor: Shideler. Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana, USA. This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:39:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Journal Articles Description An account of the resource CPW peer-reviewed journal publications Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grizzly bear-cattle interactions on two grazing allotments in Northwest Wyoming Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2002 Subject The topic of the resource Bridger-Teton National Forest Depredation Domestic cattle Grand Teton National Park Grizzly bear Nuisance bear management <em>Ursus arctos</em> Description An account of the resource <span>We determined cause of death for 182 cattle found dead on 2 adjacent public land grazing allotments in northwest Wyoming during 1994-96. Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) killed fifty-one calves and 6 adults, representing 1.1% (mean) of the annual calf herd and 0.1% of the annual adult herd. An additional 0.9-1.8% of remaining calves were missing each year. Black bears (U. americanus), although present, were not implicated in cattle depredation. We believe that missing calves experienced depredation similar to discovered calves because the proportion killed by bears was similar for those equipped with mortality-sensing transmitters and unmarked calves (P = 0.73). Thus, estimated depredation equaled 78 calves or 1.3-2.2% of the annual calf herd. All observed depredation occurred at night (n = 9). Kills were separated by a mean of 3 days (n = 50) and occurred between 16 June and 13 September (median = 9 August). Radiotagged grizzly bears (n = 17) spent a greater proportion of time in the study area while depredations were occurring, and 10 were located near cattle more frequently than expected (P &lt; 0.05), but most did not kill cattle. Although individuals from all sex and age (subadult, adult) groups except subadult males killed cattle, 3 adult males were responsible for 90% of confirmed losses. We employed management actions including euthanasia, translocation, and aversive conditioning to remove chronic depredators. No depredations were discovered following absence of the 3 depredating males in 1996, unlike the previous 2 years when losses continued for an additional 4 to 6 weeks. This suggests that removal of chronic depredators can reduce losses. Other bears did not become more depredatory, although many were known to utilize cattle carcasses. Removal of cattle carcasses during 1996 appeared to reduce bear densities but did not deter depredatory bear behavior. Identification and removal of depredatory individuals appears key in addressing conflicts with grizzly bears on rangelands.</span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anderson Jr, Charles R. Ternent, Mark A. Moody, David S. Language A language of the resource English Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Ursus Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Extent The size or duration of the resource. 10 pages Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Anderson, C. R. Jr, M. A. Ternent, and D. S. Moody. 2002. Grizzly bear-cattle interactions on two cattle allotments in northwest Wyoming. Ursus 13:247-256. <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3873205" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.jstor.org/stable/3873205</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Article