Michael F. Proctor’s research while affiliated with International Union for Conservation of Nature and other places

Historical persecution of grizzly bears in North America reduced the species range by 55%. Today, dedicated recovery efforts and shifting societal perceptions have supported the recovery and expansion of grizzly bear populations in many areas. With increasing overlap between people and bears, conservation actions and scientific inquiry are now shifting efforts toward supporting coexistence with bears. Here, we assessed the demography and behavior of grizzly bears in a coexistence landscape in southeast British Columbia, Canada, where abundant grizzly bear populations occur among busy, human‐settled valleys. Between 2016 and 2022, we captured 76 individual grizzly bears and monitored their conflict behavior, survival, and reproduction for 160 animal‐years. The cause of death for 14 animals with a functioning collar was human–wildlife conflict ( n = 6), road or rail collision ( n = 6), unknown but human suspected ( n = 1), and natural ( n = 1). Subadult survival was the lowest recorded in North America, while adult survival was similar to other studies, suggesting an intense demographic filter for young animals. We estimate that human‐caused mortality is underreported in government databases by 65%, or for every recorded mortality, there are ~2 that go unreported. Reporting was especially low for road and rail mortalities. Grizzly bear mortality in the Elk Valley due to collisions and conflicts with people is an order of magnitude greater than elsewhere in British Columbia. Combining DNA‐ and collar‐based estimates of population growth, we show that grizzly bear abundance is stable due to source‐sink dynamics, whereby ~7 immigrant bears per year offset the high mortality rates in the area. Grizzly bears dispersing into the valley are often young and more conflict‐naïve, creating a conflict spiral that can be interrupted by reducing mortality of young animals. Creating a self‐sustaining population of bears in the Elk Valley that is not reliant on immigration will require targeted efforts to reduce or secure attractants on private property and strategies to minimize collisions with trains and vehicles.

The influence of bottom-up food resources and top-down mortality risk underlies the demographic trajectory of wildlife populations. For species of conservation concern, understanding the factors driving population dynamics is crucial to effective management and, ultimately, conservation. In southeastern British Columbia, Canada, populations of the mostly omnivorous grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) are fragmented into a mosaic of small isolated or larger partially connected sub-populations. They obtain most of their energy from vegetative resources that are also influenced by human activities. Roads and associated motorized human access shape availability of food resources but also displace bears and facilitate human-caused mortality. Effective grizzly bear management requires an understanding of the relationship between habitat quality and mortality risk. We integrated analyses of bottom-up and top-down demographic parameters to understand and inform a comprehensive and efficient management paradigm across the region. Black huckle-berry (Vaccinium membranaceum) is the key high-energy food for grizzly bears in much of southeastern British Columbia. Little is known about where and why huckleberries grow into patches that are useful for grizzly bears (i.e., densely clustered fruiting shrubs that provide efficient access to high energy food) and how Wildlife Monographs. 2023;e1078. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/wmon |

Understanding how human infrastructure and other landscape attributes affect genetic differentiation in animals is an important step for identifying and maintaining dispersal corridors for these species. We built upon recent advances in the field of landscape genetics by using an individual-based and multiscale approach to predict landscape-level genetic connectivity for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) across ~100,000 km2 in Canada's southern Rocky Mountains. We used a genetic dataset with 1156 unique individuals genotyped at nine microsatellite loci to identify landscape characteristics that influence grizzly bear gene flow at multiple spatial scales and map predicted genetic connectivity through a matrix of rugged terrain, large protected areas, highways and a growing human footprint. Our corridor-based modelling approach used a machine learning algorithm that objectively parameterized landscape resistance, incorporated spatial cross validation and variable selection and explicitly accounted for isolation by distance. This approach avoided overfitting, discarded variables that did not improve model performance across withheld test datasets and spatial predictive capacity compared to random cross-validation. We found that across all spatial scales, geographic distance explained more variation in genetic differentiation in grizzly bears than landscape variables. Human footprint inhibited connectivity across all spatial scales, while open canopies inhibited connectivity at the broadest spatial scale. Our results highlight the negative effect of human footprint on genetic connectivity, provide strong evidence for using spatial cross-validation in landscape genetics analyses and show that multiscale analyses provide additional information on how landscape variables affect genetic differentiation.

Phylogeographic studies uncover hidden pathways of divergence and inform conservation. Brown bears (Ursus arctos) have one of the broadest distributions of all land mammals, ranging from Eurasia to North America, and are an important model for evolutionary studies. Although several whole genomes were available for individuals from North America, Europe and Asia, limited whole-genome data were available from Central Asia, including the highly imperilled brown bears in the Gobi Desert. To fill this knowledge gap, we sequenced whole genomes from nine Asian brown bears from the Gobi Desert of Mongolia, Northern Mongolia and the Himalayas of Pakistan. We combined these data with published brown bear sequences from Europe, Asia and North America, as well as other bear species. Our goals were to determine the evolutionary relationships among brown bear populations worldwide, their genetic diversity and their historical demography. Our analyses revealed five major lineages of brown bears based on a filtered set of 684,081 single nucleotide polymorphisms. We found distinct evolutionary lineages of brown bears in the Gobi, Himalayas, northern Mongolia, Europe and North America. The lowest level of genetic diversity and the highest level of inbreeding were found in Pakistan, the Gobi Desert and Central Italy. Furthermore, the effective population size (Ne) for all brown bears decreased over the last 70,000 years. Our results confirm the genetic distinctiveness and ancient lineage of brown bear subspecies in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia and the Himalayas of Pakistan and highlight their importance for conservation.

Under the North American Model of wildlife Conservation, wildlife managers are encouraged to update management approaches when new information arises whose implementation could improve the viability of wildlife populations and the well‐being of animals. Here we detail an observation of several grizzly bears with amputated toes in southeast British Columbia between 2016‐2020 and assemble evidence to inform management strategies to remedy the issue. During the capture of 59 grizzly bears, 4 individuals (~7%) had amputated toes on one of their front feet. The wounds were all healed and linear in nature. Further opportunistic record collection revealed that similar examples of amputated toes occurred beyond our study area in neighboring mountain ranges and internationally. We found evidence that seasonal overlap between the active season for grizzly bears and the fall trapping seasons—for small furbearers with body‐gripping traps and for wolves with foothold traps—were frequently responsible for toe amputation. Photo evidence suggested that body‐gripping traps were the main trap type associated with toe amputation. Multiple options to reduce or eliminate the incidental amputation of grizzly bear toes exist, and the options have varying degrees of expected efficacy and require differing levels of monitoring. One option is to delay the start of the marten trapping season until December 1, when most bears have denned, instead of opening the season on or prior to November 1, when more than 50% of bears are still active. An alternative solution, such as a license condition that requests trappers narrow trap‐box entrances to exclude bear feet while still allowing entrance of target furbearers, has the potential to minimize accidental capture of bears, but the effectiveness of this approach is unknown. Finally, experimental toe extraction trials suggested that better anchoring traps was not a viable solution given that adult grizzly bear feet only came free from body‐gripping traps 20% of the time under maximum human force. At least 230 kg pull was required to consistently free toes from body‐gripping traps, which not all bears will be able to produce unless the cable is long and allows a running start. Solutions that do not involve season changes will require monitoring of efficacy and compliance to ensure success. We observed several grizzly bears with amputated toes in southeast British Columbia. Here we assemble evidence to inform management strategies. We found evidence that seasonal overlap between the active season for grizzly bears and the fall trapping seasons for small furbearers with body grip traps and for wolves with foothold traps likely explains the issue. We explore the efficacy of multiple options to reduce or eliminate this issue.

Efficient and effective monitoring methods are required to assess population status and gauge efficacy of conservation actions for threatened species. Here we review the spectrum of field methods useful for monitoring distribution, occupancy, abundance, and population trend for the five species of Asian terrestrial bears. Methods reviewed include expert opinion, local knowledge, bear sign, visual observations, camera traps, DNA-based methods (hair and scat derived), and radio telemetry. We examine the application of each method in terms of realizing specific monitoring objectives, their assumptions, challenges, and advantages. Our goal is to assist researchers in matching appropriate field methods with sought-after project objectives and to highlight shortfalls and trade-offs. Methods vary greatly in terms of cost, logistics, required number and expertize of staff, and the reliability of the data they provide. Many Asian bear population assessments have relied on expert opinion, local interviews, and sign surveys to provide estimates of distribution, abundance, and trend, in part because these are inexpensive and relatively easy to employ. However, increasing use of camera traps and DNA-based methods now allow for better monitoring via occupancy or rigorous capture–recapture population estimation, with the caveat that these methods may be restricted by inadequate budgets or logistical constraints. For distribution monitoring, camera traps and DNA yield the most definitive records of presence, but in low density bear populations, sign and local knowledge may be more effective. For occupancy, camera traps and DNA are advantageous in providing definitive detections in known time periods. For abundance/density or population trend monitoring in relatively small areas (

Many wildlife species are threatened in Asia, including the five species of terrestrial bears (Asiatic black, Ursus thibetanus; brown, U. arctos; sloth, Melursus ursinus; sun, Helarctos malayanus; giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca): many populations of these bears are thought to be declining or imperiled by small population size. Here our aim is to document how population assessments have been conducted for bears in Asia. We searched the literature and identified 102 studies published during 1999–2021 that investigated the status of an Asian bear population; these occurred in 24 of the 32 bear range countries in Asia. At the most basic level, 11% of studies verified presence of bears in places where they were not known to exist. The most common objective (53% of papers) was a distribution map, often derived from presence locations in a habitat-based model. Occupancy studies (15%) used temporal (time stamps on images from cameras) or spatial (transect segments) replicates, but tended to focus on “use”, so detector spacing was sometimes not appropriate for occupancy. Purported population indices, such as sign density or camera trap encounter rates, were reported in 16% of studies. One third of studies provided a population estimate, but only 10 studies in two decades used a rigorous method (e.g., mark–recapture). Sign surveys and interviews were the most common methods for determining bear presence, and local interviews were heavily relied upon for assessing population trend. Camera trapping has become increasingly prevalent, but only one study obtained a population estimate using photographs to distinguish natural individual markings. Only three studies used hair traps to obtain DNA-based population estimates, and three other studies obtained population estimates from DNA in scats. Just three studies quantitatively measured change in population size or occupancy over time, and none of these showed a decline. Unique rangewide sign surveys of giant pandas showed significant geographic expansion. The opinions of experts and local people, now heavily relied upon for population assessments, are not reliable or sensitive enough for monitoring. Quantitative population assessments are desirable to direct conservation actions toward the most perilous situations, and provide a means to gauge the effectiveness of conservation actions. This paper demonstrates the paucity of rigorous monitoring of Asian bears, and leads off a series of papers that propose improved methods for assessing distribution, occupancy, and density.

Changes in the distribution of a species can be used to as a metric of conservation status and to identify the loss or gain of isolated populations. This mapping process is a primary tool of the IUCN SSC Red List assessment. Most distribution maps are based on expert opinion or species distribution models based on a combination of species detection records and known habitat and landscape affiliations for that species. However, modelling the distribution for some species is difficult due to low levels of sampling, low detectability, and loose or uncertain associations with landscape attributes. These issues may be particularly prevalent for Asian bears that have generalist habitat requirements and are heavily poached across their range. Presently the range of all bear species in Asia is delineated primarily using expert opinion. Members of the IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group attempted to create a rule set to combine current detections with known habitat and home range preferences to improve distribution maps for the purpose of conservation metrics and monitoring. The results of applying this rule set for giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) closely matched the current IUCN mapped range, but the results for Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) did not corroborate the IUCN map based solely on expert opinion. We present a list of recommended actions for improving distribution mapping for bears in Asia and possibly any species whose current distribution is heavily influenced by poorly measured metrics such as poaching.

Information about population demography is crucial for developing and implementing conservation measures. The brown bear in the Gobi desert of southwestern Mongolia (referred to as the Gobi bear) is one of the smallest and most isolated brown bear populations in the world. We conducted genetic sampling (n = 2660 samples collected) using hair corrals around feeding sites at 13 water sources during 2009, 2013, and 2017 to evaluate population size, survival, and population trend. Bears were identified using 13 microsatellite loci and one sex marker. We detected 51 unique individuals (15F and 36M) from our targeted surveys in 2009, 2013, and 2017. Based on capture-mark-recapture robust design, population estimates were 23 (95% CI: 21-32) in 2009, 28 (95% CI: 25-35) in 2013, and 31 (95% CI: 29-38) individuals in 2017. Spatial capture-recapture analysis suggested abundance was very low (N = 27; 95% CI: 22-35), and there was no significant change from 2009 to 2017. The population density was 0.93 bears/1000 km 2 (95% CI: 0.74-1.17). Our population estimates suggested a stable population trend. However, the population is still very small, and the sex ratio is skewed toward males, raising concerns for future persistence. Annual survival based on Robust design CMR was 0.85. Low abundance and apparent survival for both sexes in this unhunted population coupled with a skewed sex ratio highlight the need for on-the-ground conservation action to conserve this isolated population of bears.

Science and adaptive management form crucial components of the North American model of wildlife management. Under this model, wildlife managers are encouraged to update management approaches when new information arises whose implementation could improve the stewardship and viability of wildlife populations and the welfare of animals. Here we detail a troubling observation of multiple grizzly bear toe amputations in southeast British Columbia and assemble evidence to inform immediate action to remedy the issue. During the capture of 59 grizzly bears in southeast British Columbia, we noticed that four individuals (~7%) were missing some or all their toes on one of their front feet. The wounds were all well healed and linear in nature. Further opportunistic record collection revealed that this pattern of missing toes occurred beyond our study area, and that furbearer traps were responsible for toe loss. We documented a problematic seasonal overlap between the active season for grizzly bears and the fall trapping seasons for small furbearers with body grip traps and for wolves with leghold traps. Instead of opening these trapping seasons on or prior to November 1, when more than 50% of bears are still active, we recommend delaying the start of these seasons until December 1, when most bears have denned. Innovative solutions, such as narrowing trap entrances to exclude bear feet while still allowing entrance of target furbearers, have the potential to minimize accidental capture of bears but the effectiveness of these approaches is unknown. Solutions that do not involve season changes will require monitoring of efficacy and compliance to ensure success.