1 Bulletin of the Shiretoko Museum, Special issue 1: (2016) New Challenges for Grizzly Bear Management in Yellowstone National Park Frank T. van MANEN...
1 GRIZZLY BEAR AND HUMAN INTERACTION IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, BEAR MANAGEMENT AREAS by Tyler Hardy Coleman A dissertation submitted in partial fu...
1 GRIZZLY BEAR HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS MODEL FOR BANFF, YOHO, AND KOOTENAY NATIONAL PARKS, CANADA Michael L. Gibeau, 1 Parks Canada, Banff National Park...
1 Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Respected by all, the Grizzly Bear is a symbol of wilderness, of something out there that is bigger and stronger than us. ...
1 THE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENTS AND PRMARY ROADS ON GRZZLY BEAR HABTAT USE N YELLOWSTONE NATONAL PARK, WYOMNG D. J. MATTSON, nteragency Grily Bear Study...
1 Visitor Perceptions of Roadside Bear Viewing and Management in Yellowstone National Park Leslie Richardson, Kerry Gunther, Tatjana Rosen, and Chuck ...
1 GRIZZLY BEAR RESPONSE TO HUMAN USE ESGBP2 GRIZZLY BEAR RESPONSE TO HUMAN USE Michael Gibeau and Saundi Stevens MOVEMENT AND ACTIVITY PATTERNS Daily ...
1 Grizzly Bear Value Summary April 2016 The Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) provides statutory decision-makers and resource managers with critical ...
1 CEF Cumulative Effects Framework Interim Assessment Protocol for Grizzly Bear in British Columbia (Tier 1 Provincial Scale Grizzly Bear Assessment P...
1 Grizzly Bear Population and Density Estimates for the 2005 Alberta (Proposed) Unit 4 Management Area Inventory Report Prepared for Alberta Sustainab...
PARK:SCIENCEANDPOLICYINGRIZZLY BANFFNATIONAL BEAR MANAGEMENT STEPHEN HERRERO, Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada, email: [email protected] JILLIANROULET,Parks Canada, Banff National Park, Box 900, Banff, AB TOLOCO,Canada, email: [email protected] MIKEGIBEAU, Resources and Environment Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada, email: mike_gibeau @pch.gc.ca Abstract: Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in Banff National Park, Canada,and the surroundingecosystem exist in one of the most developed and politically complex environmentswhere the species persists. Humandevelopmentand activityhave significantlystressedthe grizzlies' population andhabitat. The CanadianNationalParksAct was amendedin 1988 to ensurethe ecological integrityof nature. When a federaltask force (BanffBow Valley Study) was establishedin 1994, statusof grizzly bears was used as a fundamentalindicatorof terrestrialecological integrity. Also in 1994, the EasternSlopes Grizzly Bear Project(ESGBP) was formed as a multi-stakeholderpartnershipbetween 4 societal segments:nationaland provincial governments,business, conservationgroups, and academicresearchers. The primarymandatewas to scientifically define throughresearchthe cumulativeeffects of humandevelopmenton the regionalgrizzly bearpopulation. An ESGBP SteeringCommitteemeets quarterlyto set researchpolicy, primarilyby using strategictargetingand knowledge of the policy and managementprocess to design input into the Banff-Bow Valley planning process. Strategic targetingindicated the importanceof analyzing preliminarydata on mortality,habitat effectiveness, habitat security,habitatquality,andlandscapelinkages. ESGBP dataon these topics significantlyinfluencedpolicy decisions because we: (1) took a multistakeholderand interagencyapproachto research, (2) established a solid public understandingof the issue before discussion of solutions, (3) providedthe messages as expertsoutside government,(4) involved key decision makersdirectlyin developingthe parkmanagementplan, andthey understoodour concerns and contributedsolutions, (5) provided specific targets and goals that could be incorporatedinto policy, and (6) were persistentand timely in presentingour results (goals and targets)and theirimplications. Ursus:12:161-168 Key words: Banff NationalPark,bear,decision making,grizzly bear,management,planning,policy, politics, research,science, Ursus arctos
Scientific knowledge is fundamentalto manage and conserve grizzly bears. Conservation-orientedscientists often wish that what they believe are the implicationsof theirresearchwouldbe translatedinto policy changesand managementactions. However,to thinkthatscience alone will resultin desiredobjectivesin publicpolicy would be naive and may be counterproductive.Successful grizzly bear managementand conservation,while groundedin science,is basicallya problemsolvingartrequiringa broad base of public and political support(Peyton et al. 1999). Science, values, andpolitics combineto formpublicpolicies regarding management and conservation of bears (Kellert1994). An effective approachto influencepublic policy is based on awarenessand integrationof science, public values, politics, and socioeconomic factors. This awarenessis used to informpolicy alternativesandto attain goals (Franklin1995). Kellert (1994) cogently argues thatthe wildlife policy process is multidimensional, interactive,anddynamicandthereforeis extremelycomplex and subtle. "Therecognitionand understandingof bear policy as a complex web of interactingscientific, valuational,and political forces can enhancethe chances for developing more successful policies, as well as increasethe opportunitiesfor greaterprofessionaleffectiveness anda senseof controloverthepolicyprocess"(Kellert 1994:43). Decision-making processes within land management agenciesrespondto manyforces anddo not adaptquickly to change or to new information.Existing policies therefore have inertiabecause often they have evolved to bal-
ancemanydifferentforces. Giventhe resistanceto change and the complex natureof policy decisions, scientistsinterestedin influencingwildlife policy need to understand the decision process and to thinkstrategically(Clarkand Brunner1996, Servheen 1998). However, "scientificresearchoften does not focus on policy-relevantissues, and it may not be presentedin terms that are useful or even understandableto decision makers"(Clark 1994:579). To increasechances of achieving desiredfutureconditions, the fundamentalof planning,Servheen(1998) recommendsa strategicplanningapproach.Identifyingand prioritizingthreatsis fundamental,as is developingmeans to address them (Servheen 1998, Peyton et al. 1999). Threatsmay potentiallyaffectmajorfactorsimportantfor population survival-including mortality,survivorship, natality,habitat,linkages,monitoring,andpublic andpolitical support,or the lack thereof. Servheen(1998) recommendsusing strategictargetingto identify,prioritize, and act on perceived threats. The mandateto do these things must come from relevantpolicy. Clark(1994:589) cautionsthat"sharedknowledgecannot obviate the conflicts that arise from inherentdifferences in values and perspectives,"and that predictionis not always possible in a rationaland scientific sense because all variablesand their interactionsare seldom understood. Given these limitations, Brunnerand Clark (1997) recommenda practice-basedapproachin ecosystem (grizzlybear)management.Here, changeis initiated at a relatively small scale throughprototyping. A prototype is a trialchange,a sortof controlledexperiment,in a
162 Ursus 12:2001 system. If successful, this change can be implemented elsewhere (Brunnerand Clark 1997). Ourpaperexamines the developmentof one such prototype,a new managementpolicy regardinggrizzly bears in Banff National Park (BNP), Canada (Parks Canada 1997). This new and significantly differentpolicy was influenced by researchresults and managementrecommendationsmade by a major,multi-stakeholderresearch effort,The EasternSlopes GrizzlyBearProject(ESGBP).
BEAR ESGBP AND GRIZZLY MANAGEMENT POLICYFORMATION The ESGBP began in 1994 as a partnershipbetween 4 major societal sectors: national and provincial governments, businesses, conservationgroups, and academic researchers.Representativesfromthese sectorscompose a Project Steering Committeethat sets policy regarding researchandinformssupportersregardingresults(Herrero et al. 1998). The SteeringCommitteecoordinatesa major researcheffort with the primaryobjective to understand the cumulative effects of human development on ecology of grizzly bearsin and aroundBNP. Because of wide-rangingmovements,especiallyof males, manygrizzly bears enter numerous land jurisdictions each year. They exist in one of the most developed landscapes in North America where grizzly bears survive. Approximately one million people live within a few hours drive of the Park. Millions of touristsannuallyvisit the Park and surroundingarea. BNP is the most developed nationalparkin NorthAmerica,but it still providesprotection and habitatfor a geographicallysharedgrizzly bear populationestimatedat 60-80 individuals. It is also part of a significantlylargerregionalgrizzly bearpopulation. The CanadianFederalGovernment,respondingto concerns abouteffects of developmenton the ecological integrityof the Park,establisheda majortask force in 1994 (Banff-Bow Valley Study)to report,by 1996, on the status of the Park and to provide recommendationsfor the future. Additionally,the federal governmentwas mandatedto revisetheBNP ManagementPlanwithin6 months of receiving the reportof the task force. The status of largecarnivores,especiallygrizzlybearsandwolves (Canis lupus), was identifiedby the task force as a key indicator of ecological integrity. The ESGBP was asked to preparea detailedreporton the statusof the grizzly bear population and habitat;at the time the report was prepared,our researchresults regardinggrizzly bears were preliminary.We examine the natureof our data,conclusions andrecommendations,andhow they interactedwith otherpolicy issues and influencedpolicy decisions in rewritingthe BNP ManagementPlan. We describethe interactionbetweenscientificdata,othersocietalforces,and
new managementactions relatedto grizzly bears as evidenced by changes in policy.
GRIZZLY BEARPOPULATION, HABITAT, AND LINKAGE ZONEANALYSIS The Banff-Bow Valley Task Force asked the ESGBP to preparea reporton the grizzly bearpopulationand associated habitat,focusing on the intensively developed Banff-Bow Valleyarea. At thattime we had only 2 years of researchdata. Validand statisticallyreliableestimates of populationparametersfor grizzly bears require5-10 years of data(Hovey and McLellan 1996). Consequently,we used 4 techniquesto deriveestimates of grizzly bear populationand habitatstatus (Gibeau et al. 1996). We: 1. Summarizedand analyzeddataon grizzly bear motalitiesin BNP from 1971 to 1995; 2. Analyzed (Weaveret al. 1987, USDA Forest Service 1990, Gibeau 1998) the effects of developmentand humanactivitieson grizzly bearhabitateffectiveness in Banff, Kootenayand Yoho NationalParks; 3. Conducteda securityareaanalysis (Mattson1993; Puchlerzand Servheen 1994) to determinesize and qualityof securehabitatunits availableto grizzly bears in Banff NationalParkand the CentralRockies Ecosystem in 1950, 1995, and undera futuregrowth scenario,and; 4. Conducteda linkage zone analysis (Servheenand Sandstrom1993) for areasalong the Trans-Canada Highway where combinationsof landscapefeatures suggestedreasonableprobabilityfor grizzly bears being able to cross. Linkagezone analysis was performedfor 1950, 1995, and undera futuregrowth scenario.
MortalityAnalysis Analysis of the mortalitydatabaseshowed a minimum of 73 recordedmortalitiesand removals for Banff Park from 1971 to 1995. This minimum estimate later increasedto 107 (Benn 1998). The estimateof the average annualnumberof mortalitiesandremovalsfor this period was high for a protectedarea (2.92/year or 3.65-4.87%/ year of the populationbased on 60-80 bears. The Province of Albertaestablisheda harvesttargetof 2% of an area'sgrizzlybearpopulationestimateandcurrentlymanages the populationto keep total mortalityat roughly4% to allow for populationgrowth(Nagy andGunson 1990). Using a populationestimateof 60 or 80, this would allow an averageannualmortalityandremovalrateof 1.2-1.6/ year. Five-year averageannualmortality/removalnumbers ranged from 1.6/yearto 6.2/year. Mortalitieshave beendecreasingsince 1981,probablybecauseof improved
ANDGRIZZLY BEARMANAGEMENT * Herrero et al. SCIENCE,POLICY,
garbagemanagement. Given the grizzly bears' low reproductivecapability,this decreasein numberof mortalities may also have been from a significantdecline in the local bearpopulationfollowinghigh annualmortalityprior to this period. Knightand Eberhardt(1985) reportedthatthe deathof 1 or 2 adultfemalescouldhave significant,negativepopulation consequences for Yellowstone grizzlies. In BNP, the female cohort accounted for 56% (24 of 43) of all known mortalitiesandremovalssince 1971, and 88%(16 of 18) since 1983. This is the highest percentageof female mortalityandremovalfor a 10+ year periodknown to have been reportedfor any grizzly bearpopulation. Mortalitytype analysis revealedproblembear control accountedfor 71% of grizzly bear mortalities,followed by highway andrailwaykills (17%),unknown(8%), and naturaldeath (3%). Over 90% of grizzly bear mortalities in Banff Park occurredin front-countryareas, within a 500 m zone surroundingroadsandhumaninfrastructure.
HabitatEffectiveness Habitateffectivenessmodelingis the majorcomponent of cumulativeeffects analysisdevelopedto quantitatively and qualitativelyassess effects of humanactions on grizzly bears and their habitat. Results indicatedthat a significant portion of the landscape was only moderately productivegrizzly bear habitat(Gibeau 1998). The disturbancecomponent of the model suggested that much habitatin Banff NationalParkis underutilizedby bearsto avoid people. Overall,the model suggestedthatthe ability of the landscapeto supportgrizzly bears was significantly reduced.
HabitatSecurity There is a strongcase to preserveareas where grizzly bearencounterswithhumanswill be minimal:wherebears can meet their energeticrequirementsand avoid people. Such securityareaswouldfosterthe warybehaviorin grizzly bears that most managersconsider desirable. Security area analysis uses GIS (geographic information system) technologyto identify areasthatarefunctionalat the scale of individual foraging bouts for adult female bears. Results of this analysis showed a progressiveapparentloss of security areas and habitatquality starting with 1950 throughthe presentandinto the future,depicting an ever-increasingdeteriorationof habitatwithinBanff National Park (Gibeau et al. 2001). Fragmentationand insularizationof core habitatwithin the Banff Parklandscape was evident, coincidentwith a loss in the ability to foster wary behaviorin grizzly bears.
LinkageZone Analysis Linkagezones areareasin which combinationsof land-
scape structuralfactors allow wildlife to move through and live in areas impactedby human actions. Linkage zone analysis assesses the degree of habitatfragmentation causedby the cumulativeeffects of humanactionsin an area. A model to predictlinkage zones was developed in the USA to identifyandquantifyareasof potentialcarnivore crossing and use in mountainvalleys (Servheen and Sandstrom1993). Results for Banff showed a dramaticdecreasein potentialcrossingareasovertime. Fencing of the Trans-CanadaHighway significantly affected the ability of grizzly bearsto move acrossthe Bow River Valley. Implicationsof such a barrierare unknown,althoughthe Trans-CanadaHighway could profoundlyaffect grizzly bearpassageacrossthe Bow RiverValleyand ultimately movement throughoutthe Central Canadian Rocky Mountains.
Analysissummary The combined results of our 4 analyses, though preliminary,demonstratedconvergingevidencethatthe grizzly bearpopulationandhabitatin the Banff-Bow Valley, BNP, and the CentralRockies Ecosystem were seriously stressedby the combinedeffects of people's development and activities (Gibeau et al. 1996). The situation was deemed urgent,especially for BNP, which is designated as a protectedarea. A betterpolicy regardinggrizzly bear managementand conservationwas warranted.
THEPOLICY DECISION PROCESS The CanadianNationalParksAct requiresthat a managementplan with public inputbe preparedfor each national park. These plans must reflect the policies and legislation of the Canadianfederalgovernment. A managementplan guides the overall directionfor the parkfor a 10 to 15 year period and serves as a frameworkfor all land use and managementdecisions. The first managementplan for BNP was approvedin 1988, based on consultationandresearchthatoccurredin the 1980s. By 1994, the recommendationsin the plan were being repeatedlyquestioned. Developers and those withcommercialinterestsin theparkviewedParksCanada as overly zealous in adheringto its mandateof protecting park resources. In contrast,environmentalistsfelt that too much use and developmentwas being permittedand questionedthe long-termecological integrityof the park. In 1994, the Ministerresponsiblefor ParksCanadaappointedthe Banff-BowValleyTaskForceto review available informationon BNP, facilitate public examination and discussion of the informationbase, and recommend ways to maintainthe long-termecological integrityof the park while allowing appropriatelevels of development and use. These recommendationswere to be made di-
164 Ursus 12:2001 rectly to the Minister,who would then incorporatethem into a new managementplan for the park.Tablingof recommendationsand partial implementationoccurred in October 1996 when the ministerimmediatelyappointed 5 membersof the public to an ImplementationAdvisory Group,chairedby the AssistantDeputyMinisterfor Parks Canada. The advisorygroupreviewed over 500 recommendationsandidentifiedthe principlesandactionsto be incorporatedinto the parkmanagementplan. By January 1997, a draftparkmanagementplan was availablefor review and discussion; the Minister approveda new park managementplan thatApril. The new park managementplan, with its high public support,was stronglybased on quantitativescientific informationandcontainedspecifichabitateffectivenesstargets for each bear managementunit and a grizzly bear annualmortalitytargetof <1% of the estimatedpopulation. These targetswere directly derived from ESGBP researchfindings and recommendations. The plan containedan arrayof actions, some based on otherquantitative scientific input. Over the long-term,the plan will result in improved carnivore habitat effectiveness, improved wildlife corridorsand linkages, reducedhumancaused mortality, and reduced habituation of bears to humans. Many specific recommendations,positive for grizzly bears and other sensitive large carnivores,have been implementedas of 1999. A bison (Bos bison) paddock has been removedand a horse corralrelocated. The Town of Banff completeda new communityplan thatreduced the areaof the town by 17%and cappeddevelopment. A growthmanagementstrategyfor the town is also now in place. Bicycle use was terminatedin the Bryant Creek area. Some backcountrycampgroundswere removed and some shorttrailconnectionswere closed. An environmentallysensitivesite was establishedin the montane zone wherebicycle use is not permittedandtrailuse is aggressively discouraged. Parks Canadaalso served notice that it intends to shut down summer use of the sightseeing gondola at Lake Louise. This currentlycarries (on averageover the last 5 years) 75,000 people/year into high quality grizzly bear habitat. Actions resulting from the new managementplan are a success story concerningscientificinformationchangingthe directiontaken by an agency thatmanagesa large tractof naturalland.
Science-basedKnowledge Integrating and PolicyDevelopment
Six identifiabledimensionsof the ESGBP researchinfluenced the developmentof a sound managementplan. Such componentsare applicablein designingresearchto influence wildlife planning. 1. Takea multi-stakeholderand interagencyapproach to research-Early in the research,the ESGBPdetermined
that the involvementof a multi-stakeholder,interagency steering committee was essential (Herreroet al. 1998). This committeeprovidedstrategicdirectionforthe project andhelped to focus the researchon regional-scalecumulative effects of developmenton grizzly bears. Members on the committee included representativesof the major governmentagencies that managed land in the Eastern Slopes areaandthose who could affect grizzly bearhabitat by theiractivities,such as ranchers,the logging industry, the oil and gas industry, and recreational users. Additionally,the Parks Canada'srepresentativeon the SteeringCommittee(the second authorof this paper),ultimatelybecamethe mainauthorof the parkmanagement plan. Familiaritywith the ESBGP enabled her to promotetherecommendationsof theESBGPwith seniorpark managersand supporttheirincorporationinto the plan. Because influencingpublicpolicy was a projectobjective, we involved stakeholdersoutside of the research communityearlyin the scientificresearch.This provided relevance for the researchand remindedus how the researchresultswere relevantto andused by others. It also enabledothers,particularlylandmanagers,to understand and buy into the researchearly on and to influence the design and analysis of researchso it met theirneeds. 2. Establish a solid public understandingof the issue before discussing solutions-Too often, people involved in establishingpolicy or writingplans, are quick to outline solutions. Moretime needs to be investedin discussing the issue, prior to identifying options to resolve, so thatthereis a solid acceptanceof the problemandunderstandingof the issue. Senior land managersand the public generallydo not readscientificarticles.Whattheyheartendsto be through the media when scientists respond to an action a land managementagencyor developeris proposing.However, duringtheBanff-Bow ValleyStudythereweremanypublic presentationsof scientific informationregardingthe currentstate of the ecosystem and specific wildlife species. Scientists communicatedtheir findings to a broad audience.ESGBPanda wolf researchprojectconsistently describedimportantaspectsof the statusof the terrestrial ecosystem. This public exposureandexaminationof scientific informationled to a wide cross-sectionof interest groupsacceptingthe problemof loss of ecological integrity of the park,particularlyas it relatesto carnivores. It was establishedthat past and currentmanagementpractices thatalloweddevelopmentinsideandoutsidethepark had a negative effect on ecosystems in the park and the surroundingregion. The messages were consistent and repeatednumeroustimes,especiallyemphasizingtheproblem of mortalityanddecliningsecurityof habitatforbears and wolves. 3. Use expertsfrom outside of governmentto present
* Herrero et al. ANDGRIZZLY BEARMANAGEMENT SCIENCE, POLICY, information-The information presented by scientists duringthe Bow ValleyStudygenerallywas not new. Most of the scientistshad been conductingresearchin the park for some time. ParksCanadahad providedmuch of the informationto the public before; however, in the past it had not been viewed as credible or had not been heard. The Bow Valley Studygave a focus for informationsharing and the public knew decisions would result, and so people listened more intently. The informationalso was more credible in the public's mind because government employeesdidnotprovideit. Furthercredibilitywas given by externalpeer review by respectedscientists not associated with the ESGBP. In Canadaand the USA, there is a distrustof government and governmentemployees. Agencies need to seek the assistance of credible individualsoutside of government to publicly discuss scientific information. No matter what the credentials,governmentemployees lack the necessary public credibility.Workingwith external expertshelps public acceptanceof findings. 4. Involve key decision makers in developing park managementplans-The usual process for parkmanagementis to preparea plan at the parklevel with parkstaff, includingthe Superintendent,and the public. This is followed by plan approvalby senior ParksCanadamanagers who recommend for approval to the Minister responsiblefor ParksCanada. This is usually a lengthy processin whichkey aspectsof the planmustbe defended and are frequentlychanged. Becauseof theprofileof BNP andtheBow ValleyStudy, key decision makerswithin ParksCanadawere involved in developing the plan. Consequently,the plan received approvalin a very shorttime, with very few changes,and was stronglydefendedand supportedby senior management of the organization. Consequently,having senior managersinvolved earlyin the planningprocesswas very valuable. In manyinstancesthiswill notbe possible;however, it will be importantto identify issues that can become obstacles and ensure that senior managers are familiarwith them and their scientific background. 5. Use specifictargetsand goalsfromthescientificcommunitythatcan be incorporatedintopolicy-Frequently, scientific informationaboutecological processes is quite nebulous;it outlines generalitiesor trends. Senior land managersprefer somethingmore definitive;they expect specific goals or targetsto which the organizationshould be headed and towardwhich progresscan be measured. In this situation,the researchersconductingthe ESGBP were able to define specific targetsthat could be turned into policy direction. They were able to demonstratethe long-termimplicationsof human-causedmortalityof grizzlies, includingmanagementactionsrequiredto increase survivalof habituatedbears. A targetwas suggestedand
incorporatedinto the managementplan of reducing the annualnumberof grizzly bearskilled from humanactivity to <1% of the population. This resultedin changes in the bear managementplan, bettermanagementof roadside bear situations,and programsof aversiveconditioning. Targetsalso were set for habitateffectiveness for each carnivoremanagementunit (CMU;these are the same as bearmanagementunits). Implementingthese will require a concertedeffort to manage human use, particularlyin backcountryareas. Some actions have been undertaken taken, such as eliminating bicycles from certain areas, discouraginguse of sometrailsby removingtrailheadsigns and eliminating trail maintenance, and closing some backcountrycampsites. Considerabledialoguemusttake place with users so they understandthe conceptof habitat effectiveness and to identify ways thathumanuse can be managed. This will include relocating trails and establishing quotas and a reservationsystem. Although it is unlikely thatthe targetswill be met for all CMUs, Parks Canadamustbe able to demonstratethatit is actively taking significant steps to improve carnivorehabitateffectiveness from where it was in 1997. These targetswill makeit easierfor the publicandParksCanadato measure progressin achieving the policy directionoutlinedin the managementplan. 6. Be persistent and timely-Scientifically-based recommendationswere incorporatedinto policy partly because of thepersistenceof scientists,who viewed the Bow ValleyStudyas an opportunityto influencelanduse decisions. They gave priorityto the study and fitted theirresearchfindingswithinthe information-gathering structure provided. Two lessons emerged. First,scientistsneed to takeadvantageof opportunitiesto influencedecisionseven when those opportunitiesarisepriorto the researchbeing completedandeven understringentdeadlines(See Herrero et al. 1986 for anotherexample of this in grizzly bear management).The second lesson was thatpolicymakers need to create opportunitiesfor scientific informationto be sharedwiththoseoutsidethe scientificcommunitywho can influence decision making. Scientists can not be passive players, hoping that by publishingresearchthey will influence decisions, or by writing the occasional letter, or by talking to mangers through the media, or by pounding the table at public meetings. Scientists need to adapttheir behaviorto the process of informationgatheringor decision makingthat is being used.
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING The approvalof thenew managementplanin April1997 was a beginning. Implementationof many of the actions
166 Ursus 12:2001 identified has proceeded. A concerted effort by Parks Canadastaff has resulted in closing or relocating some facilities and roads, establishingpublic advisorygroups, developing a new community plan with a low-growth strategy,and modifying and restrictingbackcountryuse. To achieve grizzly bear managementtargets, more and difficultchangeswill be needed. Additionalresearch,developing an interactive computer habitat effectiveness model, and extensive consultationwith backcountryusers is requiredbeforemanagementcan implementfurther actions,which may resultin trail-usequotas,eliminating or relocatingcampgrounds,seasonal closures, etc. Although there is widespreadpublic supportfor the managementplan, therearegroupsandindividualsquestioningspecific actionsthatwill directlyimpactthem. To gain supportfor actions that will directly affect groups and individuals,a major communicationeffort is being pursuedto assist those who will be affected and the generalpublic in understandingthe scientificbasis andrationale for the action. Because of the public exposure the researchscientists received in the past, the special interest groupsarerequestingpresentationsfromthe researchers ratherthanfromParksCanadastaff. Thereis need for ongoing commitment of ESGBP researchersto be involved in communicatingwith the public to help implement plan recommendations. Althoughthe first phase of the ESGBP ended in 1999, informationon the grizzly bearpopulationandthe effects of land use on their survivorshipand activity must continue to be collected. ParksCanadawill need evidence thatthe variousactions thathave been takenare actually reversing past trends concerning inadequatehabitateffectivenessandsecurityandundesirablegrizzlybearmortality. Monitoring must be conducted regionally. Decisions have not been made as to the intensityof data collection, funding sources, and the agencies involved.
ment changes. Fundamentalto this success was having supportivepolicy andlegislationregardingthe importance of maintainingecological integrity. The ESGBP argued thatthe populationandhabitatstatusof grizzlybearswere good indicatorsof aspects of terrestrialecological integrity in BNP. Withinthis framework,the ESGBP recommendedmeasurable,scientifically-determined population and habitattargets. Senior parkplannersacceptedthese recommendations,partlybecausethey hadbeen involved andinformedthroughouttheresearchprocessandbecause the findingsandrecommendationswere supportedby scientific peer review. Existence of the ESGBP multistakeholder,interagencysteeringcommitteeand its dialoguewas fundamentalto encouragingpolicy changes supportiveof many of the grizzly bear managementrecommendationsmade by the ESGBP. The willingness of ESGBPresearchersto presentinferencesbasedon incomplete data also was important in influencing policy changes. Policy review processes most often evolve independentlyof research. Researchersinterestedin influencingpolicy andmanagementmustsometimesbe willing to drawinferencesfrom incompletedata,usually at awkward times. The senior authorhad previous experience of this regardinggrizzly bears and was able to apply this experience(Herreroet al. 1986).
CITED LITERATURE BENN,B. 1998. Grizzly bear mortalityin the CentralRockies Ecosystem,Canada.Thesis, Universityof Calgary,Alberta, Canada. BRUNNER,R.D., ANDT.W. CLARK. 1997. A practice-based approachto ecosystem management.ConservationBiology 11:48-58. T.W. 1994. Conservation biologists in the policy CLARK, process. Pages 575-597 in G.K. Meffe and C.R. Carroll, editors. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,Massachusetts,USA. , AND R.D. BRUNNER. 1996. Making partnerships work
CONCLUSIONS Many researcherswho study wildland species such as grizzly bears do so because of stronginterestin wildlife conservation. These scientistsmay be passionateregarding whatthey perceiveto be the need for policy makersto respondto theirfindingsby changingpopulation,habitat, andbehavioralconditionstowarda more sustainableand respectful state. However, policy makers for land and wildlife managementagencies work in a professionally complex environmentwhere a host of societal interest groups try to get their findings or desires translatedinto supportivepolicies and managementactions. We have identified6 primaryreasons why the ESGBP succeededin translatingmanyof its researchfindingsand managementrecommendationsinto policy and manage-
in endangeredspecies conservation. Endangeredspecies UPDATE 13(9):1-5. J.F. 1995. Scientists in wonderland. BioScience FRANKLIN, Supplement:Science andbiodiversitypolicy 45:S74-S78. M.L. 1998. Grizzly bear habitateffectiveness model GIBEAU, for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada. Ursus 10:235-241. -
J.L. KANSAS,ANDB. BENN. 1996. Grizzly , S. HERRERO,
bearpopulationandhabitatstatusin Banff NationalPark:A reportto the Banff-Bow Valley TaskForce. EasternSlopes GrizzlyBearProject,Universityof Calgary,Alberta,Canada. J. KANSAS,ANDB. WORBETS. HERRERO, S., D. POLL,M.L. GIBEAU,
1998. Th eastern slopes grizzly bear project: Origins, organizationand direction. Pages 47-52 in D. Onysko and R. Usher, editors. Protected areas in resource-based economies: Sustainingbiodiversityandecological integrity. Conference Proceedings, CanadianCouncil on Ecological
* Herrero et al. AND GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, POLICY, Areas, Ottawa,Ontario,Canada. ANDJ.G.WOODS.1999. Managingfor , B.N. MCLELLAN grizzly bear security areas in Banff National Park and the CentralCanadianRocky Mountains. Ursus 12:000-000. 1986. Using grizzly ANDB. PELCHAT. , W. MCCRORY, bear habitat evaluations to locate trails and campsites in KananaskisProvincial Park. InternationalConference on Bear Researchand Management6:187-193. B.N. MCLELLAN. 1996. Estimatingpopulation F.W.,AND HOVEY, from the FlatheadRiver drainage of bears growth grizzly using computer simulations of reproductiveand survival rates. CanadianJournalof Zoology 74:1409-1416. S.R. 1994. Public attitudestoward bears and their KELLERT, conservation. InternationalConference on Bear Research and Management9(1):43-50. 1985. Populationdynamics R.R., ANDL.L. EBERHARDT. KNIGHT, of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Ecology 66:323-334. D.J. 1993. Backgroundand proposedstandardsfor MArrsON, managing grizzly bear habitat security in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. CooperativePark Studies Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. 1990. Managementplanfor grizzly NAGY, J., ANDJ.G.GUNSON. bears in Alberta. Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton,Alberta,Canada. PARKS CANADA. 1997. Banff National Parkmanagementplan.
Ministryof CanadianHeritage,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada. ANDS. HERRERO. 1999. An overview PEYTON, B., C. SERVHEEN,
of bear conservationplanning and implementation. Pages 8-24 in C. Servheen,S. Herrero,and B. Peyton, compilers. Bears: Status survey and conservation action plan. InternationalUnion for the Conservationof Nature,Gland, Switzerland. PUCHLERZ,T., AND C. SERVHEEN. 1994. Grizzly bear/motorized access management. Interagency grizzly bear committee taskforce report. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula, Montana,USA. C. 1998. Conservationof small bear populations SERVHEEN, throughstrategicplanning.Ursus 10:67-73. 1993. Humanactivitiesandlinkage , ANDP. SANDSTROM. zones for grizzly bears in the Swan-Clearwater Valleys, Montana. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana,USA. U.S.
DEPARTMENTOF AGRICULTUREFOREST SERVICE. 1990.
CEM-A model for assessing effects on grizzly bears. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula, Montana,USA. AND D.S. WINN. 1987. A WEAVER, J.L., R.E.F. ESCANO, frameworkfor assessing cumulativeeffects of grizzly bears. Transactionsof the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference52:364-376.