https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/fc4526bdfabf5e8e8486d546ae3f9035.pdf 27429e5efa15d32b3c396028ed712908 PDF Text Text The research in this publication was partially or fully funded by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 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 �Evaluation of Translocation of Black Bears Involved in Human–Bear Conflicts in SouthCentral Colorado Author(s): Mat W. Alldredge, Daniel P. Walsh, Linda L. Sweanor, Robert B. Davies and Al Trujillo Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-) , Vol. 39, No. 2 (June 2015), pp. 334-340 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/wildsocibull2011.39.2.334 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/wildsocibull2011.39.2.334?seq=1&cid=pdfreference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. 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 Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-) This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �Wildlife Society Bulletin 39(2):334–340; 2015; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.526 Original Article Evaluation of Translocation of Black Bears Involved in Human–Bear Conflicts in South-Central Colorado MAT W. ALLDREDGE,1 Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 W Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA DANIEL P. WALSH,2 Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 W Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA LINDA L. SWEANOR, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 2300 South Townsend Avenue, Montrose, CO 81401, USA ROBERT B. DAVIES, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 W Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA AL TRUJILLO, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 600 Reservoir Road, Pueblo, CO 81005, USA ABSTRACT From 1995 to 1997, black bears (Ursus americanus) involved in conflicts with humans in southeastern Colorado, USA, were radiocollared, translocated, and monitored by the Colorado Division of Wildlife to evaluate translocation as a management tool for problem black bears. Specific objectives were to 1) determine postrelease movement patterns of relocated black bears, and 2) estimate cumulative incidence and survival functions. Subadults did not move as far after translocation as adults and less frequently oriented toward the capture site (29% of subad vs. 51% of ad). No subadults returned to the vicinity of capture, whereas 33% of adults did. We used a cause-specific hazards model with a constant age effect across the cause-specific hazards to estimate annual survival rate for translocated adult bears (0.50, 95% credible interval CI ¼ 0.36– 0.65) and for subadult bears (0.28, 95% CI ¼ 0.12–0.48). The annual probability of dying due to repeat conflict behavior was slightly lower (0.22 [95% CI ¼ 0.13–0.33] and 0.32 [95% CI ¼ 0.19–0.47]) for adults and subadults, respectively, compared with nonconflict mortalities (0.28 [95% CI ¼ 0.17–0.40] and 0.40 [95% CI ¼ 0.25–0.56]). Based on bears that were not involved in known repeat human–bear conflicts, translocation success was 0.64 (95% CI ¼ 0.49–0.78) and 0.58 (95% CI ¼ 0.42–0.73) for adults and subadults, respectively. Translocation of problem bears had mixed success relative to repeat nuisance activity in Colorado, but should remain a viable management option. Managers should make decisions on the appropriateness of translocation based on the characteristics of the bear, identification of an adequate release site, potential effect of the translocation on the release-site bear population, and other available options. Ó 2015 The Wildlife Society. KEY WORDS black bear, cause-specific mortality, Colorado, conflict, homing, survival, translocation, Ursus americanus. Human–bear conflicts have been increasing throughout North America as bear populations have expanded and human populations have expanded into black bear (Ursus americanus) habitat (Beckmann et al. 2008). With increasing conflicts there is a growing need for evaluating the effectiveness of the various tools used to manage these negative human–bear interactions. This is particularly true in Colorado, USA, where black bear damage claims and human–bear conflicts have significantly increased (Colorado Division of Wildlife [CDOW], unpublished data). To deal with these issues in 1994, CDOW outlined procedures for managing black bear conflicts to capture, mark with ear tags and lip tattoos, and translocate a bear the first time it was involved in a human–bear conflict. However, if the bear Received: 2 October 2013; Accepted: 9 November 2014 Published: 3 March 2015 1 E-mail: mat.alldredge@state.co.us Present address: United States Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison, WI 53711, USA 2 posed an immediate threat to human safety, the bear was to be euthanized. This policy also directed that any marked bear captured after a second human–bear conflict should be euthanized. In South-central Colorado alone, 196 black bears were translocated by CDOW during 1985–1993 because of human–bear conflicts. The fates of 37% of the 196 translocated black bears were known (including 11% that were destroyed for repeat conflicts; CDOW, unpublished data). Because fates for the majority of translocated bears were not known, CDOW could not ascertain the effectiveness of translocation as a conflict management tool. Therefore the purpose of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of translocations as a tool for reducing human– bear conflicts, and to obtain insight into the impacts of translocation on human–bear conflicts and bear mortality to inform conflict policy. Specifically, we radiocollared and monitored translocated bears involved in human– bear conflicts in South-central Colorado. Our objectives were to estimate 1) postrelease movement patterns of relocated black bears, and 2) estimate cumulative incidence 334 Wildlife Society Bulletin This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms � 39(2) �and survival functions for adult and subadult bears to determine the probability of a bear dying as a result of a human–bear conflict after translocation. We define translocation success as a translocated bear either surviving to the end of the study period without further conflict or dying due to any cause not associated with a human– bear conflict. STUDY AREA Source and release areas for translocated bears included the central and southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado east of the Sangre de Cristo and Culebra mountain ranges. Most bears were caught in the vicinity of Colorado Springs and south to the Colorado–New Mexico state line, and west from Interstate 25 to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. However, 1 bear was captured as far north as the town of Boulder. Most release sites were south of U.S. Highway 50, east of the Sangre de Cristo–Culebra ranges, and west of Interstate Highway 25. The CDOW attempted to translocate bears as far as possible from capture sites while remaining within the boundaries of the management area, and to release bears in areas where bears had a low likelihood of causing similar conflict (e.g., a bear feeding on fruit trees would be translocated to an area with no known orchards). Policy dictated that bears were released within the management area in which they were captured. Release sites were rotated so that all bears were not released in 1 particular area. Areas deemed appropriate for translocation generally included forested areas on public land. METHODS Capture, Handling, and Translocation We defined 3 human–bear conflict categories for bears targeted for translocation: 1) Nuisance: a bear that posed an immediate threat to or damaged property, but did not threaten public safety; 2) Depredating: a bear that had killed hoofed livestock; 3) Dangerous location: a bear that posed a potential threat to human safety because of location, but not behavior. All conflict bears that were caught a second time, and any bears that threatened human safety were euthanized by CDOW. We captured conflict bears during May and October each year during 1995–1997. The greatest capture effort occurred in 1995, when 51 of 66 (77%) conflict bears were captured and translocated. Most (85%) bears were captured in baited culvert traps; the rest were chemically immobilized via dart gun while resting in trees. Bears were immobilized with a 2:1 mixture of ketamine hydrochloride (KHCl) and xylazine hydrochloride dosed at approximately 4.4 mg KHCl per kg body weight or with Telazol1 (Fort Dodge Animal Health, Fort Dodge, IA) dosed at 5–7 mg/kg. Bears were aged as subadults or adults based on tooth characteristics (LeCount 1986). Alldredge et al. � We marked bears with color-coded Allflex1 (Allflex USA Inc., DFW Airport, TX) and/or Ritchey (Brighton, CO) ear tags and tattooed bears on 1 or both sides of the inside upper lip. We fitted adults with very high frequency radiocollars having 8-hr mortality sensors (Model 9; Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN). We fitted subadults with expandable collars with 4-hr mortality sensors (Model WL300-MORC; Ursus Technologies, Williamsburg, VA). Bears were translocated by truck in culvert traps to release sites <48 hr after capture. Bears were provided with water during transport and were released without supplemental food. Monitoring We monitored radiocollared bears on a weekly basis from fixed-winged aircraft (Cessna 185; Cessna Aircraft Company, Wichita, KS) and opportunistically from the ground during May–October each year, 1995–1997. We selected this monitoring period because most bears in West-central Colorado were in winter dens from mid-November through mid-April, with females hibernating for a longer period than males (Beck 1991). We investigated all mortalities and, if possible, determined cause of death. Although active monitoring of radiocollared bears concluded in October 1997, human-related mortalities of bears that occurred after this date were included in the cause-specific mortality analysis as these were reported. Data Analysis Directional orientation and distance traveled.—We defined initial movement as a bear’s first movement or known location away from its release site followed by continued directional movement (Fritts et al. 1984, Ruth et al. 1998). We defined an endpoint as the bear’s last location due to death, collar drop-off, loss of radiotelemetry contact, or its last location at the end of study. We calculated all distances and azimuths from Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates of bear locations (White and Garrott 1990). We analyzed directional data using procedures for circular statistics (Batschelet 1981, Zar 1984). We used a Watson 1-sample U 2-test to test azimuth distributions for uniformity. Because bears were captured and released at various locations within South-central Colorado, we standardized the home direction of each bear at 08 for all examinations of directional movement and homing behavior. We tested differences in movements among subadult and adult bears using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Conover and Iman 1981, Zar 1984). Because few female bears were translocated, differences between male and female movements were not analyzed. We assumed bears exhibited directional orientation to capture site if the 95% confidence interval for endpoint azimuths included the hypothesized homing direction of 08 (Zar 1984:445, White and Garrott 1990). We also assumed individual bears whose endpoints were within 22.58 of the home direction were exhibiting homing behavior (Rogers 1986). Bears that returned to within 7 km (F) or 15 km (M) of their original capture site at some time after release were considered to have returned home. Distances were based on the average home-range diameters of adult male and Translocation of Black Bears This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 335 �female bears in West-central Colorado (Beck 1991), assuming circular home ranges. Mortality causes and survival.—We used Bayesian statistical inference to estimate the cumulative incidence or causespecific mortality function for subadult and adult radiocollared bears (Heisey and Patterson 2006, Heisey 2009). We estimated the hazard rate for each age class of bears in 2 mortality classes (DWMLAND and HRPU). The DWMLAND class represented bears that were killed by District Wildlife Managers or by landowners because of second strike behaviors, indicating continued conflict with humans and therefore an unsuccessful translocation. The HRPU class represented bear mortalities associated with hunting, road kill, poaching, or unknown causes, which were indicative of successful translocation because the mortality was not associated with undesirable behaviors by the bear. We treated time of death (T) as a continuous random variable, which was only observed to an interval (i.e., interval-censored) and therefore was not known exactly. Our analyses also accounted for right-censoring (e.g., collar failure). We used the techniques described by Heisey and Patterson (2006) to estimate the hazard rates, survival function, S(u), and the cumulative incidence function for both of our mortality sources; however, our analysis as previously mentioned was conducted within a Bayesian framework. The data likelihood in our analysis was as follows: ) ri X � � Lðg je ; r ; s Þ / exp � exp g^ k þ bk � agei j¼ei ( k¼1 i¼1 " #)! si X � � � 1 � exp � exp g^ k þ bk � agei Q Y n Y ( ð1Þ j¼r i where ei is the day the ith of n bears was radiocollared, ri is the day the ith bear was last known alive, si is the first day ith Zt � � ^ hk ðuÞd u, bear was known dead, g^ k ¼ log L k with Lk ¼ t�1 which approximates the unit cumulative kth hazard of Q different hazards using a step function, and bk ¼ the additive effect of age for the kth hazard, where agei is an indicator variable for adult bears. In our analysis, a unit represents a day. It is important to note that in the likelihood contribution for the kth mortality source, if an animal dies from a cause other than the kth mortality source, it is treated as a censoring event (Heisey 2009). We evaluated 3 different models: 1) a model with hazardspecific age effects, 2) a model with a constant age effect across the cause-specific hazards (i.e., bk ¼ b), and 3) a model with no age effect included. We used Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) to select the model best supported by the evidence in the data (Burnham and Anderson 2002, Spiegelhalter et al. 2002). To examine the impact of the prior distribution choice and because of a lack of prior knowledge we used 2 diffuse priors for each of the gk parameters: 1) Uniform (�25, 25) and 2) Normal (0, 10,000); however, we did not see an impact of prior choice on resulting posterior estimates, and so we only report posterior estimates generated using the Uniform (�25, 25) distribution. We used a Normal (0, 1,000) prior for the b parameter. We used 3 chains with overdispersed starting values in the Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations, and monitored trace and autocorrelation plots as well as the Brooks, Gelman, and Rubin diagnostics to assess convergence (Brooks and Gelman 1998, Gelman et al. 2004). After a burn-in period of 50,000, we made inference using 50,000 samples from the posterior density, and examined posterior means and compared their distributions between the 2 mortality source classes described previously. Lastly, we generated graphical plots of the cumulative incidence and cause-specific mortality functions and associated measures of precision. All analyses were conducted using WinBUGS (Lunn et al. 2000, Heisey 2009), and results were summarized in Program R (R Core Team 2013) using the Coda package (Plummer et al. 2006). RESULTS During 1995–1997, 66 conflict bears (34 ad M, 9 ad F, 18 subad M, and 5 subad F) were translocated in South-central Colorado. Most bears (59%) were captured and translocated in July and August (Fig. 1). These bears were categorized as nuisance (n ¼ 44), depredation (n ¼ 5), and dangerous location (n ¼ 16). Relocations postrelease ranged from 2 to 68 locations/bear. Thirteen bears dropped their collars prior to the study’s conclusion and final fates could not be determined; 3 collars dropped the same year the bear was collared, whereas 10 collars dropped during the second or third year of monitoring. Radio contact with another 8 bears was lost during the same year the bear was released (n ¼ 5) or during the subsequent 2 years (n ¼ 3). Fates of 6 bears were determined poststudy (Table 1): 4 died in 1998, 1 died in 2000, and 1 died in 2001. Three of these 6 bears dropped radiocollars during the study and were subsequently identified from ear tags or tattoos. Directional Orientation and Distance Traveled Initial movements of translocated bears from their release sites were detected 1–39 days after release along azimuths of 3–3568 with respect to the capture site. Initial movement directions for subadults (n ¼ 19) were not significantly different from the uniform distribution (U 2 ¼ 0.138, P ¼ 0.14), while initial movement directions for adults (n ¼ 40) were significantly different from the uniform distribution (U 2 ¼ 0.231, P ¼ 0.02) and directed toward capture site (�x ¼ 10.58 � 458). Azimuths from the release site to the endpoint were in all directions with respect to the capture site ranging from 18 to 3518 for subadults (n ¼ 17) and 08 to 3568 for adults (n ¼ 35). Endpoint directions for subadults were not significantly different from the uniform distribution (U 2 ¼ 0.091, P ¼ 0.36), whereas endpoint directions for adults were significantly different (U 2 ¼ 0.792, P < 0.001), with a mean angle toward the capture site (88 � 228). The endpoints of 5 subadults (29%) and 18 adults (51%) were within 22.58 of the home direction, indicating homing behavior in those bears. 336 Wildlife Society Bulletin This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms � 39(2) �Figure 1. Month of capture for 66 conflict black bears in South-central Colorado, USA, 1995–1997. Endpoints could be determined for 52 bears (17 subad, 35 ad). Subadults were translocated 78–181 km (�x ¼ 119 � 14 km), and adults were translocated 25–213 km (�x ¼ 116 � 10 km) from capture to release sites. Subadults did not move as far after translocation (34 � 12 km) as did adults (�x ¼ 77 � 16 km; t ¼ 1.95, P ¼ 0.028). Average distance from capture site to endpoint was 101 � 19 km for subadults and 66.9 � 22 km for adults. Out of 18 adult bears that oriented toward capture site, 14 (13 M, 1 F) returned home. This comprised 33% of 43 translocated adults or 40% of 35 adult bears for which an endpoint was determined. Although 5 subadults oriented toward capture site, no subadults returned to the capture site. Nine bears returned home within 34 � 4.2 days in the same summer season, and 5 bears (including the 1 F) hibernated prior to returning home. Mortality Causes and Survival Rates Of the 66 translocated bears, 29 survived �1 summer season and were not killed for a second human–bear conflict during the study, and 4 bears were legally killed by hunters during the same year the bears were translocated (Table 1). Twelve Table 1. Causes of mortality for 44 translocated black bears involved in conflicts with humans in South-central Colorado, USA, during (1995– 1997) the study and after (1998–2001) the study’s conclusion.a During study Poststudy Mortality cause Ad Subad Ad Subad Total Second strike Harvest Illegal kill Vehicle Unknown cause Died at capture Total 10 (2) 5 (1) 5 2 1 0 23 6 3 3 0 2 1 15 3 (1) 2 1 (1) 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10 9 2 3 1 44 a The causes of death for 5 bears that returned home are indicated in parenthesis. Alldredge et al. � adults returned to capture site and survived �1 summer or to the end of the study (unless legally killed by a hunter) without committing a second strike offense during the study period. Repeat conflict behavior was documented in 16 translocated bears during the study (Table 1). Of these bears, the 6 subadults lived 74 � 100 days postrelease, whereas 10 adults lived 72 � 58 days postrelease. Ten of the 16 bears (63%) were killed during July and August. We could classify both the first and second strike offenses for 12 of these 16 bears: 6 committed repeat nuisance activity, 1 male repeated killing domestic animals, and 5 exhibited a different conflict behavior during second strikes. Of the 5 bears exhibiting different behaviors, 3 were captured because of nuisance activity and were subsequently killed for depredating on livestock or other domestic animals. The other 2 were originally captured because of dangerous location or depredating behavior (on livestock or other animals) and later killed for nuisance or dangerous behavior. Three other translocated bears were killed for repeat conflict behavior poststudy: 2 bears committed repeat nuisance activity, and 1 bear was captured for nuisance activity and then killed for depredating. Using the above mortality information in our cause-specific analysis, we found evidence that translocated adult bears had lower cause-specific hazard rates than subadults, and this age effect was constant across the cause-specific hazards (DIC ¼ 560). The estimated reduction in the hazard rate for adult compared with subadult bears was �0.64 (95% credible interval CI ¼ �1.31–0.051); however, this age effect is only moderately supported by the data as demonstrated by the posterior distribution (Fig. 2), which yielded a 3.4% probability that the age effect �0. Additionally, the model lacking an age effect had a DDIC value of 1.5 when compared with the top model containing a constant age effect, which also indicated only moderate support for the age effect. The model with hazard-specific age effects had the largest DIC ¼ 562, and was considered noncompetitive. Translocation of Black Bears This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 337 �Figure 2. Posterior distribution of the effect of being an adult on the hazard rate for translocated black bears involved in conflicts with humans in Southcentral Colorado, USA, 1995–1997. Because our 2 competing models only differed by the age effect, we used the estimated hazard rates from the constant age-effect model, which had the lowest DIC, to estimate the cumulative survival and incidence functions. Reported estimates were posterior mean estimates drawn from Markov chains that appeared to have converged and were well-mixed based on standard diagnostic tests. Posttranslocation cumulative survival rates decreased most rapidly during the first year following translocation for both adults and subadults (Fig. 3). Estimated annual survival was 0.50 (95% CI ¼ 0.36–0.65) and 0.28 (95% CI ¼ 0.12–0.48) for adult and subadult bears, respectively. We did not include estimates of survival past the cessation of monitoring of marked bears because such estimates would be biased because they only reflect known mortalities due to hunting or Figure 3. Cumulative survival curve (solid lines) and associated 95% credible intervals (dashed lines) for adult (black lines) and subadult (gray lines) black bears involved in conflicts with humans in South-central Colorado, USA, that were relocated during 1995–1997. nuisance behavior and do not account for unknown mortalities. The cumulative incidence functions associated with both DWMLAND and HRPU followed similar patterns, with initial mortality rates being high and declining for both subadult and adult conflict bears (Fig. 4). Although not statistically significant, the estimated mortality rate for the DWMLAND category was consistently lower than the HRPU category for both age classes (Fig. 4). On an annual basis, the probability of a translocated bear being killed after another conflict incident was 0.22 (95% CI ¼ 0.13–0.33) and 0.32 (95% CI ¼ 0.19–0.47) for adults and subadults, respectively. Annual probability of dying from a cause unrelated to a conflict situation was 0.28 (95% CI ¼ 0.17– 0.40) and 0.40 (95% CI ¼ 0.25–0.56) for adult and subadult bears, respectively. Using the cumulative incidence and survival functions, we estimated the probability of successful translocation across 3 seasons (the length of our study; i.e., surviving or dying from HRPU) as 0.64 (95% CI ¼ 0.49– 0.78) and 0.58 (95% CI ¼ 0.42–0.73) for adults and subadults, respectively. DISCUSSION Black bears are probably the most frequently translocated carnivores (Linnell et al. 1997), generally because of nuisance or depredation behavior. Objectives of conflict bear translocation may be to curtail the undesirable behavior without killing the animal and result in the animal’s subsequent survival and reproduction. From the agency perspective, successful translocation is maintaining the conflict bear in the population without having to invest future manpower or money in the individual. Candidates for Translocation Successful establishment of home ranges by conflict bears at the translocation site appears to be influenced by the age of the bear at the time of translocation and perhaps its gender. In South-central Colorado, compared with adults, subadults were less likely to orient toward the original capture site, moved shorter distances from release sites, and did not return to capture sites. Other studies (Rogers 1986, Landriault 1998) also found subadults, most notably males, had a lower rate of return to capture sites. Most male bears disperse as subadults (between 2–4 year of age) prior to establishing home ranges. Consequently, translocated subadult males may not exhibit homing tendencies because their home ranges have not been established (Rogers 1986, Landriault 1998). Adult bears appear to be strongly motivated to home, probably because of the fitness benefits of the home range (Beeman and Pelton 1976). Translocated Bear Survival Annual survival of translocated bears was lower in this study compared with those of a population in West-central Colorado that exceeded 0.70 (Beck 1991); however, our study population had greater potential sources of mortality, including agency and landowner mortality associated with repeated conflict. Survival for translocated bears was influenced by high levels of human-induced mortality, 338 Wildlife Society Bulletin This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms � 39(2) �Figure 4. Cumulative incidence and cause-specific mortality functions (solid lines) and associated 95% credible intervals (dashed lines) for adult (darker shading) and subadult (lighter shading) conflict black bears in South-central Colorado, USA, that were relocated during 1995–1997. Agency- and landownerassociated mortality (DWMLAND) relates to bears in repeated conflict behavior with humans (A), whereas other mortality (HRPU) relates to bears that were not involved in repeated conflict behavior (B). because natural mortality was �5% of known deaths. Translocated bears which were killed because of repeat human–bear conflicts, were killed away from point of capture, suggesting that translocations can simply move human–bear conflicts to other locations. However, the posterior distributions of the cumulative incidence functions clearly indicated that the probability of dying from repeat human–bear conflicts was not the primary source of mortality for translocated bears. Other causes of mortality included legal harvest by hunters, suggesting translocation can also be useful for increasing recreational opportunity while reducing nuisance activity (Fies et al. 1987). Similarly, other studies have indicated that translocation does not greatly increase natural mortality among bears �2 years old, and that humaninduced mortality, particularly hunting, is the major source of mortality of adult black bears (Rogers 1986). Factors Affecting Translocation Success Using our definition of success, nearly two-thirds and over half of adult and subadult bears, respectively, were successfully translocated during our study. Success of translocation in black bears is often <50% (McArthur 1981, Rogers 1986), although this is somewhat determined by how success is defined. Massopust and Anderson (1984) found bears translocated for depredation or nuisance behavior often resumed those behaviors. However, Fies et al. (1987) and McLaughlin et al. (1981) found recurring nuisance behavior in only 3–15% of translocated bears. The rate at which secondary conflicts occur is probably determined by conflict potential at the release site and the area through which individual bears travel after release. Fies et al. (1987) found that only 10.1% of bears translocated in Virginia, USA, were recaptured for repeat nuisance behavior. Capture and handling of bears prior to translocation may also provide a level of aversive conditioning, especially if a bear is captured the first time it is involved in nuisance activity (Clark et al. 2002). Alldredge et al. � The actual characteristics of the release site may be the most important determinant of translocation success (Beeman and Pelton 1976). Unfortunately, little evaluation of release sites typically occurs (Linnell et al. 1997). The availability of natural food at the release site may be an important factor, but it has not been adequately examined in translocation studies (McArthur 1981). Additionally, there has been little examination of the effect of translocation on the bear population within the release area. Rogers (1986) concluded that because translocated bears typically leave release sites within a few days and move widely, food competition between translocated and resident bears should be no greater than between residents and dispersers or migrants. Although the spread of disease may be of concern (Griffith and Scott 1993), it has not been examined in translocated bears. Disruption of local genetic adaptations is also a concern in many animal translocations (Griffith and Scott 1993); however, because subadult bears can disperse long distances (>90 km; Rogers 1986), most within-state translocations probably have limited effects on local genetic adaptations. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Translocation of problem bears is a viable management tool, and should be considered with regard to management goals, agency resources, and bear population objectives. There exists a reasonable chance that translocation of bears will produce desired results in that more than half the nuisance behavior can be eliminated without killing the bear. Moreover, public perception of translocation is likely to be more favorable than immediately euthanizing conflict bears. Dealing with nuisance bears can require significant agency resources, which may result in utilizing close and convenient release sites. However, careful consideration and planning of appropriate release sites will likely lead to increased translocation success. Factors to consider are quality of Translocation of Black Bears This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 339 �bear habitat, proximity to human development, and historical bear harvest rates. Placing bears in high-quality habitat, far from humans and in areas with reduced populations resulting from hunting pressure may increase translocation success and justify agency resources. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded by Colorado Division of Wildlife Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-153-R and Colorado Division of Wildlife game cash funds. We thank T. D. I. Beck, J. Carsella, D. Clippinger, K. Kempf, C. Smith, and R. Velarde, of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, for field support and pilots J. Olterman and D. Younkin of the Colorado Division of Wildlife for obtaining aerial locations of radiocollared black bears. T. D. I. Beck and D. Freddy provided helpful insights and comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We thank the AE and 2 reviewers who provided helpful comments and suggestions on this manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Batschelet, E. 1981. Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, London, England, United Kingdom. Beck, T. D. I. 1991. Black bears of west-central Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Technical Publication 39. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, USA. Beckmann, J. P., L. Karasin, C. Costello, S. Matthews, and Z. Smith. 2008. Coexisting with black bears: perspectives from four case studies across North America. Working paper no. 33. Wildlife Conservation Society North American Program, Bozeman, Montana, USA. Beeman, L. E., and M. R. Pelton. 1976. Homing of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. International Conference of Bear Research and Management 3:87–95. Brooks, S. P., and A. Gelman. 1998. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 7:434–455. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. Clark, J. E., F. T. van Manen, and M. R. Pelton. 2002. Correlates of success for on-site releases of nuisance black bears in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:104–111. Conover, W. J., and R. L. Iman. 1981. Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician 35:124–129. Fies, M. L., D. D. Martin, and G. T. Blank Jr. 1987. Movements and rates of return of translocated black bears in Virginia. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:369–372. Fritts, S. H., W. J. Paul, and L. D. Mech. 1984. Movements of translocated wolves in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:709–721. Gelman, A., J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Rubin. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. Second edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, New York, USA. Griffith, B., and J. M. Scott. 1993. Animal translocation and potential disease transmission. Journal of Zoo Wildlife Medicine 24:2231–2236. Heisey, D. M. 2009. Wildlife survival analysis applications using WinBUGS. http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/staff/dennis_heisey.jsp. Accessed 18 Nov 2011. Heisey, D. M., and B. R. Patterson. 2006. A review of methods to estimate cause-specific mortality in presence of competing risks. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1544–1555. Landriault, L. J. 1998. Nuisance black bear (Ursus americanus) behaviour in central Ontario. Thesis, Luarentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. LeCount, A. L. 1986. Black bear field guide: a manager’s manual. Arizona Game and Fish Department Special Report 16. Arizona Game and Fish Commission, Phoenix, USA. Linnell, J. D. C., R. Aanes, and J. E. Swenson. 1997. Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1245–1257. Lunn, D. J., A. Thomas, N. Best, and D. Spiegelhalter. 2000. WinBUGS— a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 10:325–337. Massopust, J. L., and R. K. Anderson. 1984. Homing tendencies of translocated nuisance black bears in northern Wisconsin. Proceedings of the Eastern Black Bear Workshop 7:66–73. McArthur, K. L. 1981. Factors contributing to effectiveness of black bear transplants. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:102–110. McLaughlin, C. R., C. J. Baker, A. Sallade, and J. Tamblyn. 1981. Characteristics and movements of translocated nuisance black bears in northcentral Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Commission Report, Harrisburg, USA. Plummer, M., N. Best, K. Cowles, and K. Vines. 2006. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 6:7–11. R Core Team. 2013. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 18 Nov 2013. Rogers, L. L. 1986. Effects of translocation distance on frequency of return by adult black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:76–80. Ruth, T. K., K. A. Logan, L. L. Sweanor, M. G. Hornocker, and L. J. Temple. 1998. Evaluating cougar translocation in New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1264–1275. Spiegelhalter, D. J., N. G. Best, B. R. Carlin, and A. van der Linde. 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Society Series B 64:583–616. White, G. C., and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA. Associate Editor: Garshelis. 340 Wildlife Society Bulletin This content downloaded from 174.198.140.53 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:59:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms � 39(2) � 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 Evaluation of translocation of black bears involved in human–bear conflicts in South-central Colorado 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. 2015-03-03 Subject The topic of the resource Black bear Cause-specific mortality Colorado Conflict Homing Survival Translocation <em>Ursus americanus</em> Description An account of the resource <span>From 1995 to 1997, black bears (</span><i>Ursus americanus</i><span>) involved in conflicts with humans in southeastern Colorado, USA, were radiocollared, translocated, and monitored by the Colorado Division of Wildlife to evaluate translocation as a management tool for problem black bears. Specific objectives were to 1) determine postrelease movement patterns of relocated black bears, and 2) estimate cumulative incidence and survival functions. Subadults did not move as far after translocation as adults and less frequently oriented toward the capture site (29% of subad vs. 51% of ad). No subadults returned to the vicinity of capture, whereas 33% of adults did. We used a cause-specific hazards model with a constant age effect across the cause-specific hazards to estimate annual survival rate for translocated adult bears (0.50, 95% credible interval CI = 0.36–0.65) and for subadult bears (0.28, 95% CI = 0.12–0.48). The annual probability of dying due to repeat conflict behavior was slightly lower (0.22 [95% CI = 0.13–0.33] and 0.32 [95% CI = 0.19–0.47]) for adults and subadults, respectively, compared with nonconflict mortalities (0.28 [95% CI = 0.17–0.40] and 0.40 [95% CI = 0.25–0.56]). Based on bears that were not involved in known repeat human–bear conflicts, translocation success was 0.64 (95% CI = 0.49–0.78) and 0.58 (95% CI = 0.42–0.73) for adults and subadults, respectively. Translocation of problem bears had mixed success relative to repeat nuisance activity in Colorado, but should remain a viable management option. Managers should make decisions on the appropriateness of translocation based on the characteristics of the bear, identification of an adequate release site, potential effect of the translocation on the release-site bear population, and other available options.</span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Walsh, Daniel P. Sweanor, Linda L. Davies, Robert B. Trujillo, Al Alldredge, Mathew W. Language A language of the resource English Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Wildlife Society Bulletin Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Extent The size or duration of the resource. 7 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. Alldredge, M. W., D. P. Walsh, L. L. Sweanor, R. B. Davies, and A. Trujillo. 2015. Evaluation of translocation of black bears involved in human-bear conflicts in South-central Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:334–340. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.526" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.526</a> <div></div> <p></p> Type The nature or genre of the resource Article