Prior to the twentieth century, black bears (Ursus americanus) roamed the North American landscape in abundance. Their range reached as far south as northern Mexico and as far north as Alaska (Pelton 2000). But as human population soared to unprecedented numbers during the Industrial Revolution, black bear populations began to dwindle. Humans expanded across the landscape and intensified resource extraction, contributing directly and indirectly to black bear attenuation (McKee 2005; Orians and Soule 2001; Pelton 2000). Humans intensively hunted black bears for fur and reduced viable habitats in which black bears forage, hibernate, and mate (Pelton 2000). Many populations shrank or disappeared. When faced with ecological change, black bears are impressively plastic. As omnivores they can subsist on a variety of plant and animal tissues. Diet, body size, and hibernation (i.e., duration and location) vary between populations living in different habitats and climates. While this flexibility has enabled black bears to persist in certain regions, they have not been so successful in the state of Missouri. Both paleozoological (zooarchaeological and paleontological) and his torical data indicate black bears were widespread in Missouri prior to the twentieth century (Graham and Lundelius 1994; McKinley 1962). By the end of the nineteenth century, more than 98% of Missouri's hardwood forests had been cut (Korte and Frederickson 1977), thereby depleting prime black bear habitat. By about 1930 black bears were thought to be extirpated in Missouri (Schwartz and Schwartz 1981), though some suggested a small relict population might remain in the Missouri Ozarks. Whether or not that relict population did indeed exist may be difficult to determine because there is now a population in southeastern Missouri that could be descendants of the relict population of black bears, that immigrated from a population transplanted to Arkansas between 1958 and 1968, or of a combination of the two (Smith and Clark 1994). Analysis of ancient DNA from some of the Lawson Cave bears discussed in this chapter has failed to clarify this matter (Hudson 2009). Whatever the case, management of twenty-first- century Missouri black bears is a subject of some interest (Etling 2000; Hudson 2009; Rosania 2010; Wolverton 2008). In particular, what can be done to ensure their survival? The easy answer is to determine appropriate habitats for black bears and then to manage the landscape so as to create (if necessary) and to maintain those habitats. Unfortunately, the extirpation of black bears from the modern landscape prior to study of their local ecology means that we know very little about native Missouri black bears. To learn more about their behavior and ecological requirements, in relation to habitat range, mate accessibility, and diet, modern studies have focused on extant populations, including the recently transplanted populations in Arkansas (Smith and Clark 1994) and the small population in southeastern Missouri (Schwartz and Schwartz 1981). Despite the knowledge gleaned from these studies, we still know very little about black bear behavior in the Midwestern United States (Garshelis et al. 2008). This means that any wildlife management or conservation actions will at best be based on information from other populations in distant regions. Fortunately, information gleaned from paleozoological remains can expand our knowledge of local black bear ecology by elucidating the behavior and ecological requirements of pre-and periextirpation black bears in Missouri (e.g., Wolverton 2008). Paleozoology can indicate where black bears existed on the landscape and also suggest size of populations. Additionally, paleozoology can indicate what was available on the landscape for black bear consumption and, particularly, what materials were included in their diet. Dietary data will be important for identifying suitable habitats for management of resident black bear populations. We know that black bears are flexible consumers, but research to facilitate future conservation programs should concern questions about what native black bears should eat (or what they did eat prior to historic-period and modern anthropogenic effects), and not what they often do eat (i.e., human refuse in human modified landscapes) (Beck mann and Berger 2003). Due to extirpation of Missouri black bears, we have no modern reference data or benchmarks with which to assess native Missouri black bear diet. Thus any sort of conservation, management, or restoration activity must assume that native Missouri black bears had the same ecology as extant extralocal (non-M issouri) black bears. Fortunately, analysis of paleozoological remains can answer some questions about native Missouri black bear diet and habitat use. How might such data be gleaned from paleozoological remains? For over 30 years, geologists, anthropologists, paleozoologists, and zoologists have used stable isotope signatures recorded in organism tissues to study prehistoric and modern human and animal populations. Stable isotopes reflect diet, climate, migration, and weaning age. In this study I examine stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in a paleontological assemblage of 200-to 600-year- old black bear remains from central Missouri in order to determine native Missouri black bear diet. Specifically, I sought answers to three questions. First, are there observable differences in diet among paleontological omnivores, herbivores, and carnivores from central Missouri? Second, did native black bear diet change through time in Missouri? And third, do native late Holocene paleontological bears differ from modern Missouri black bears in terms of diet?.