Article - Alberta grizzlies barely surviving, census shows

Fall Guy

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
There are so few grizzly bears living in the Foothills that researchers fear their future is in jeopardy
GEOFF NIXON
From Monday's Globe and Mail
June 11, 2007 at 4:14 AM EDT

A unique census of grizzly bears in the Foothills and lower slopes of the Rocky Mountains in southwestern Alberta has found that the population is now so small that some experts question whether they will still be there in 100 years.

The new report estimates the number of grizzly bears living west and south of Calgary and south of Banff National Park, inside an approximately 7,600-square-kilometre stretch of land, at fewer than 100.

The estimate - backed by research techniques involving inventive DNA sleuthing that employs razor wire and a mix of rancid cow blood and liquefied fish - is the latest chapter in the continuing debate over the stewardship of grizzly bears within the province. It is trying to decide how to account for the grizzlies, how to accommodate industries that disrupt their habitat and lives, and how to keep them alive well into the future.

Brian Horejsi, a Calgary-based researcher and bear expertwho has been researching Alberta grizzlies since the early 1970s, said the latest population count suggests the southwestern population is potentially on the road to extinction.

"We're talking about a very, very limited number of bears that are keeping this bear population alive this year," Mr. Horejsi told The Globe yesterday.

"When you have those minute numbers - and they are minute - a mortality here, a bear hit by a train, a bear shot illegally or accidentally by an elk hunter - you are dealing with an envelope that is very, very narrow."

Starting in 2003, the province began looking at ways of maintaining its grizzly population, which also meant learning just how many there were throughout the province, in part because there were conflicting estimates of their numbers. Alberta also declared a three-year moratorium on grizzly hunting in March, 2006, in an effort to stave off any interference while it checked out the numbers.

The final numbers and their related report were released to the public last week.

"We halted the grizzly bear hunt and we are doing this analysis basically, to establish, accurately, as accurate as we possibly can, how many grizzly bears are actually in Alberta," said Darcy Whiteside, a spokesman for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development.

In order to get the numbers they needed, the researchers used a smelly treat - a two-to-one mixture of cow blood and fish - to lure the grizzlies.

The bait was surrounded by a thin layer of barbed wire mounted about a half-metre off the ground. When interested bears went to check out the enticing scent, the wire would scrape a few hairs off the backs of their fur coats. And since the bears' individual hairs contain valuable DNA, the researchers could then collect the hairs and very accurately count the number of unique bears that had visited the site.

Mr. Horejsi believes the numbers are accurate and has concluded that the southwestern population could potentially be gone in as soon as 50 to 100 years. He said that in typical bear populations, only about 15 per cent are capable of breeding in any particular year leaving very few bears available for reproducing in such a small population.

He also pointed out that while DNA testing can determine the number of bears, it cannot be used to find their age, meaning it is impossible to tell how big or small the local population of breeding-age grizzly bears may be.

Citing human interference and industrialization as the two big factors in holding back the grizzly population, Mr. Horejsi says he thinks protecting their wild habitat, perhaps reclaiming some human developments and maintaining the ban on hunting would be their best bet for survival.

"All of these things essentially are making what is fundamentally or innately good habitat, virtually insecure and unusable for bears and that is the crux of the matter," said Mr. Horejsi.

"It's a massive failure of management and worse yet, it's got the bears hanging on the edge of the rope."

Others agree that simply cutting back on hunting will not sufficiently improve the grizzly bears' survival prospects.

Bob Richards, a big-game outfitter who leads tours through parts of northwestern Alberta, said he thinks that despite the immediate effects of a moratorium on hunting, it is not a long-term solution for protecting the local population.

"The No. 1 impact to grizzly bear populations is [vehicle] access," said Mr. Richards, who lives in Airdrie, just north of Calgary.

"I don't mind, from an outfitting perspective, if the government were to shut down all vehicle access, all motorized access and that would probably be the No. 1 benefit to the grizzly bear population."

"I don't think it's a good long-term management plan," said Mr. Richards, of the hunting ban that comes without any efforts to roll back human access to the bears.

"I think it's more like a real quick Band-Aid, and everyone will feel comfortable with that, but, in the long-term, the grizzly bear population is still going to suffer."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070611.wgrizzly11/BNStory/National/home
 
I agree with Bob Richards . Albertas central foothills, the Swan Hills has always been famous for it's huge grizzlies. When the area was first opened up for oil exploration there were a lot of grizzlies, and some enormous bears. The grizzlies were attracted to oilfield camps and many were shot off dumps etc...
There are still grizzlies here, and they still have the genetics to grow to enormous size; at one time a bear from the Swan Hills was the world record grizzly and the 1981 Boone & Crockett Record Book (that's the Bella Twin grizzly shot with a .22), lists half a dozen bears from this area.

But today the biggest problem for the bears here is road access and resource development. The oil companies keep punching roads into remote areas allowing vehicles to penetrate. Guys here see grizzlies on a regular basis and one of the fellas from work came close to shooting a grizzly during black bear season; both were bears that he saw from the road. So that's the road access thing.

Besides the oilfield exploration the forestry companies are doing their damndest to turn Swan Hills into farming country! Ever since this goddamn Mountain Pine beetle outbreak, they have been going overtime to cut as much bush as possible. The size of the cutblocks is measured in square miles now. Huge chucks of bush are falling and the cutting is not slowing down. You look at it and wonder where a moose or bear is supposed to live... just open rolling hills of stumps. :confused:

To their credit, the forestry companies bulldoze the landscape and logging trails to prevent vehicle access, but frankly, once they are done there's no reason to consider going into any of these cutblocks... :confused:

But banning hunting of a particular animal this has not been proven as a viable method to protect that species. Only regulated sport hunting, which applies an economic benefit/value to the animals has been proven as a successful way to manage a species.
 
the researchers could then collect the hairs and very accurately count the number of unique bears that had visited the site.

Mr. Horejsi believes the numbers are accurate

Horejsi is one of the bunch that tried to halt the BC grizly hunt citing that the DNA collection method was not an acceptable way to count bears. Now he's on side with it, why? Probably because it vindicates his ideas.

Sorry, rant hijack.

RC
 
Ok you want some Grizzlys? Just take em from around here.... There are too damned many of em and they are not really affrade of people.... I had one this weekend just stop and lie in the middle of the road infront of my ATV it didnt move for about 15 min.... I yelled and screamed at that bear, finaly i got the bright idea (had my 300 loaded and ready just incase!) and threw a rock at it and almost smoked it in the face. After that he moseyed on into the bush.
ttyal
Riley
 
Last edited:
Weird... last fall hunting I saw 12 different bears (grizz). The local CO has had to deal with 12 other different grizzlies this spring. Thats 24 bears in a 50 mile stretch. According to my calculations there are only 5,250 bears left in Alberta (oops i'm not a tree hugger I meant to say there's only 300 left).
 
Man is the problem. 200 years ago grizzlys were plentiful in the west from Alaska to California. Man has slowly pushed them from the habitat they thrived in and into a habitat that they are often struggling with. I think their days are numbered in the wild.
 
I assure you, they are still plentiful. Do they expect yogi to walk into the census booth and say "Here"? In one little cornor of the province, I spotted three grizzly in one weekend. To me, if these people want to protect them so much, and want to learn about them and their numbers, I suggest perhaps going into the forest and saying hi, as opposed to watching computer screens and figuring mathematical equations.
 
The new report estimates the number of grizzly bears living west and south of Calgary and south of Banff National Park, inside an approximately 7,600-square-kilometre stretch of land, at fewer than 100.

That number is complete bullsh!t.
 
Is it just me, or do I see MORE grizzly bears than ever in the south part of the province (Kananaskis, Livingston River, Castle River)? While I'm sure that the researcher's credentials are better than mine, a lot of "bear experts" seem to have an agenda to keep the grizz hunt closed.
 
But banning hunting of a particular animal this has not been proven as a viable method to protect that species. Only regulated sport hunting, which applies an economic benefit/value to the animals has been proven as a successful way to manage a species.[/QUOTE]

Thats right.
I find it really hard to believe those numbers.
 
numbers seem low....

The new report estimates the number of grizzly bears living west and south of Calgary and south of Banff National Park, inside an approximately 7,600-square-kilometre stretch of land, at fewer than 100.

Is there a way of verifying these numbers??? Is the actual report available to the public so that we may see how the came to these numbers.
 
Curiously with all this new information about our bear numbers coming out and the new methods to determine numbers I find myself wondering how many bear used to be here when they were not "endangered"? And how exactly did they arrive at those numbers since the "science" of collecting data apparantly changes faster than our weather. If animals that live on the Eastern Rockies Slopes face any threat, it ain't those of us who leaglly hunt!
 
rlg said:

Is there a way of verifying these numbers??? Is the actual report available to the public so that we may see how the came to these numbers.

No. It's usually hard for them to convince the people that want to believe them . These reports contain a vague explanation about the means of conducting the count. Think about hunting. In many cases they ask hunters to provide them the harvest/seen numbers with the motivation that they are necessary for counting the population. However they never tell how they manipulate that data.
Let's say that we have 20 hunters in Kananaskis Country.... 10 of them got a big game licence for bear just in case they see one (opportunity hunters), five of them didn't get one at all (not interested or didn't get a chace for the time off this year) and only the remaining five are going to actively hunt for Grizz. It is obvious that the data collected will include all these hunters. You can imagine how many bears did the guys hunting exclusively for deer must have seen.:rolleyes:
And even if they have seen some, the guy with the pencil will go about thinking that is the same bear.
The first 10 guys reported to have seen 5 bears and shot one. [ translation... they saw the same bear five times and one of them shot it.... count bears remaining = 0 ]
Next 5 guys = 0
Last group.... 5 hunters... the only ones that actually hunt bears reported 12 bears each and shot 5. So.... they must have seen the bear that the first group shot, plus an overlaying coefficient of 30-50% (these guys could have hunted together and shey didn't see 60 bears, but 12...with the maximum of 30).

I hope the explanationis clear enough to prove that - like it has been said in the posts above - they would do anything not to have to move their asses in the woods and count the population. And that.... is not counting..... genetics or not. (the thing with the genetics is also BS, because they consider each saw to havo only one cub :rolleyes:)
 
eltorro said:
No. It's usually hard for them to convince the people that want to believe them . These reports contain a vague explanation about the means of conducting the count. Think about hunting. In many cases they ask hunters to provide them the harvest/seen numbers with the motivation that they are necessary for counting the population. However they never tell how they manipulate that data.
Let's say that we have 20 hunters in Kananaskis Country.... 10 of them got a big game licence for bear just in case they see one (opportunity hunters), five of them didn't get one at all (not interested or didn't get a chace for the time off this year) and only the remaining five are going to actively hunt for Grizz. It is obvious that the data collected will include all these hunters. You can imagine how many bears did the guys hunting exclusively for deer must have seen.:rolleyes:
And even if they have seen some, the guy with the pencil will go about thinking that is the same bear.
The first 10 guys reported to have seen 5 bears and shot one. [ translation... they saw the same bear five times and one of them shot it.... count bears remaining = 0 ]
Next 5 guys = 0
Last group.... 5 hunters... the only ones that actually hunt bears reported 12 bears each and shot 5. So.... they must have seen the bear that the first group shot, plus an overlaying coefficient of 30-50% (these guys could have hunted together and shey didn't see 60 bears, but 12...with the maximum of 30).

I hope the explanationis clear enough to prove that - like it has been said in the posts above - they would do anything not to have to move their asses in the woods and count the population. And that.... is not counting..... genetics or not. (the thing with the genetics is also BS, because they consider each saw to havo only one cub :rolleyes:)

You obviously haven't read the reports and clearly know nothing about grizzly hunting in Alberta. When the hunt was open, nobody got a grizz license "just in case they see a bear."

The reports so far explained in great detail how they went about gathering data.

As for the "guys with pencils" who are doing the actual counting -- they spend more time in the woods than 99.9% of the guys on here.

Feel free to dispute the numbers -- personally I'm more inclined to buy the biologist's methodology than random reports on the internet, but that's just me. But you wrote like six paragraphs without being right once.

Good job!
 
NE BC is having a definate increase in most animal populations, likely as the sesmic lines and other human activity allows for a more varied eco-system.
 
BBB said:
You obviously haven't read the reports and clearly know nothing about grizzly hunting in Alberta. When the hunt was open, nobody got a grizz license "just in case they see a bear."

The reports so far explained in great detail how they went about gathering data.

As for the "guys with pencils" who are doing the actual counting -- they spend more time in the woods than 99.9% of the guys on here.

Feel free to dispute the numbers -- personally I'm more inclined to buy the biologist's methodology than random reports on the internet, but that's just me. But you wrote like six paragraphs without being right once.

Good job!
You're partially right. I was extrapolating the methodology used to count bears in Ontario. Black bears that is. I did read some reports about grizzly bears and I doubted the data used in both gatering and the means to gather it... but hey, it's far easier to buy a biologist's report.... specially if the terms used are hard to understand.
The "guys with pencils" spend more time in the woods than most of us. So does a tree logger. It's the nature of the job. What does this have to do with the doubts I have about their reports?

A little bit off topic, but every time I call the ministry of S.D. on a matter, I get a different answer, everyone delegating the responsability to a different branch.... Not later than yesterday they told me that hunting rabbits on public land (crown) is illegal :eek:.
 
eltorro said:
You're partially right. I was extrapolating the methodology used to count bears in Ontario. Black bears that is. I did read some reports about grizzly bears and I doubted the data used in both gatering and the means to gather it... but hey, it's far easier to buy a biologist's report.... specially if the terms used are hard to understand.


A little bit off topic, but every time I call the ministry of S.D. on a matter, I get a different answer, everyone delegating the responsability to a different branch.... Not later than yesterday they told me that hunting rabbits on public land (crown) is illegal :eek:.

No, I'm entirely right. You read "some" reports about grizzlies, but obviously not the ones discussed in the article at the top. In fact, you clearly didn't even read the article at the top of the thread, cause you were talking about biologists estimating populations from hunter reports, and the article clearly says that population estimates were made using DNA capturing at bait sites.

The "guys with pencils" spend more time in the woods than most of us. So does a tree logger. It's the nature of the job. What does this have to do with the doubts I have about their reports?

Because in your first post, you said this:"like it has been said in the posts above - they would do anything not to have to move their asses in the woods and count the population."

And now you're saying that "yeah, they do spend a lot of time in the woods?"

Which is it?

See, if you'd prefaced your comments by saying "I don't know anything about Alberta grizzlies, but here's what I think about the ministry in Ontario" I wouldn't have a problem with what you wrote. But you didn't. You called a bunch of hard-working wildlife biologists (most of whom hunt, by the way -- I've met some of them) lazy liars, spread misinformation and uninformed crap about something of which you have no knowledge, and are now trying to cover it up.

Like I said before, the numbers can be disputed. Grizzlies are damn near impossible to count, and the guys are using the best methods they have. Those methods might be wrong. But there's very good reasons why we don't just guess the populations based off hunter sightings.

As an example, somebody up there said that they've seen 12 bears near GC this year, and that that means that there are 5200 bears in the province. Well, I spent 30+days in the backcountry looking for sheep last year, in some of the best bear country in the province, and I didn't see a single grizz. So clearly, there are NO bears in the province.

Also, all the game biologist-bashing that goes around here sometimes -- in case you guys didn't know this, almost all wildlife biologists hunt -- that's generally why they got into it. And I'd be willing to bet that there's a bunch on this site who don't share what they know cause a lot of guys here seem to think that they're all hippies or something. Personally, I think people who spend their professional lives working for wildlife and hunters probably deserve a little more respect, and shouldn't get called "lazy pencil pushers" or anti-hunting liars just because people don't like the results of their work.
 
Back
Top Bottom