Sterling D. Miller

Prairie Dogs: An Ecological Review and Current Biopolitics

Abstract In recent years, people have interpreted scientific information about the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in various, and sometimes conflicting, ways. Political complexity around the relationship among black-tailed prairie dogs, agricultural interests, and wildlife has increased in recent years, particularly when prairie dogs occur on publicly owned lands leased to private entities for livestock grazing. Some have proposed that estimates of prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) numbers from 1900 are inflated, that prairie dog grazing is not unique (other grazers have similar affects on vegetation), and that prairie dogs significantly reduce carrying capacity for livestock and wildlife. We address all these issues but concentrate on the degree of competition between prairie dogs and ungulates because this motivates most prairie dog control actions. We conclude that the available information does not justify holding distribution and numbers of prairie dogs at a level that is too low to perform their keystone ecological function. We further conclude that it is especially important that prairie dogs be sufficiently abundant on public lands to perform this function.

Homing of Transplanted Alaskan Brown Bears

Forty-seven brown bears (Ursus arctos) were captured and transplanted in Alaska in 1979. Post-release data were adequate to evaluate the survival and homing movements for 20 adults and 9 young. At least 12 adults (60%) successfully returned from an average transplant distance of 198 km. Age (for males) and distance transplanted (sexes combined) were directly related to observed incidence of return (P < 0.05). Sex or reproductive status did not appear to be related to observed incidence of return. Initial postrelease movements of non-homing as well as homing bears indicated that most bears were aware of the correct homing direction. None of the transplanted females was known to have produced young in the year following transplanting. Six of 9 cubs or yearlings transplanted with their mothers were lost. Transplanting nuisance brown bears does not appear to be a reliable management procedure. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 46(4):869-876 Wildlife biologists frequently are requested to resolve conflicts between bears and man by transplanting the bears away from the area of conflict. Most biologists recognize this approach as ineffective because the bear may become a problem elsewhere or because it returns to the site of capture. This general premise is, however, supported by relatively few published data, a situation which led Cowan (1972) to recommend careful documentation and publication of transplant records. Homing of transplanted nuisance brown or grizzly bears has been reported by Craighead and Craighead (1972), Cole (1972), Pearson (1972), Craighead (1976), and Meagher and Phillips (in press). Typically, these bears were transplanted distances of less than 100 km and high frequencies of homing were observed. As part of a study on the impacts of brown bear predation on moose (Alces alces) populations (Ballard et al. 1981; Ballard et al., unpubl. rep., Alaska Dep. Fish and Game Fed. Aid Proj. W-17-9, W-17-10, W17-11, and W-21-1, 1980), brown bear densities were artificially reduced in a portion of south central Alaska. This reduction was accomplished by capturing and transplanting as many bears as could be found within a well-defined experimental area. This paper reports on the rates and frequency of return of the transplanted brown bears. Financial support was provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Additional support was provided by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. We gratefully acknowledge the field assistance provided by employees of ADF&G, and the skills of our pilots: V. Loftsted, K. Bunch, A. Lee, and R. Halford. We also acknowledge C. Gardner (ADF&G) for assistance with data collection. The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company was cooperative in permitting access to the right-of-way of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. K. Schneider, K. Pitcher, and D. McKnight (ADF&G) reviewed earlier drafts of the manuscript. STUDY AREA AND METHODS Bears were captured in the headwaters of the Susitna River in south central Alaska. The area was bordered on the north by the Alaska Range, on the east by the Clearwater Mountains, on the south by Butte Creek, and on the west by Wells Creek. Topography, vegetation, and climate of the area have been described elsewhere (Skoog 1968). Bear densities J. Wildl. Manage. 46(4):1982 869 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.164 on Thu, 07 Jul 2016 05:52:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 870 HOMING OF TRANSPLANTED BEARS *Miller and Ballard in this area were considered equivalent to that in the areas of south central Alaska where captured bears were released. Bears were captured from 22 May through 22 June 1979. They were initially located from fixed-wing aircraft, immobilized from a helicopter (Bell 206B), and transported to a nearby highway where they were weighed and measured, specimens were collected (teeth, hair, and blood), and bears were marked with lip tattoos, ear tags, and ear flags. Radio collars (Telonics, Mesa, Ariz.) were placed on bears estimated to have completed 80% of their growth. Reproductive status of females was determined by examination of the vulva. Immobilized bears were transported by an open pickup truck either to their release sites or to an airport where they were further transported with fixed-wing aircraft (Cessna 206) to remote airstrips. Ages of the bears were estimated from counts of tooth cementum lines in a premolar (Mundy and Fuller 1964). Thirty-six bears were immobilized initially with phencyclidine hydrochloride (Sernylan, BioCeutic Laboratories, St. Joseph, Mo.) at doses of 0.5 mg/kg of estimated body weight. Sernylan was also used to maintain immobilization during transport for all but 6 bears at doses of 0.2-0.5 mg/kg. Bears not immobilized (N = 9) or maintained (N = 6) with Sernylan were given a mixture of ketamine hydrochloride (Vetalar, Parke-Davis and Co., Detroit, Mich.) and xylazine (Rompun, Cutter Laboratories, Inc., Shawnee, Kans.) (Hebert and McFetridge 1979) at doses of 2.3 mg/kg of estimated body weight for initial immobilization and 1.32.3 mg/kg of measured weight for maintenance. Ketamine hydrochloride/xylazine mixtures were discontinued for immobilization maintenance because recovery was unpredictable and thus constituted a hazard for handlers. Two cubs were transported in cages and were not immoblized during either capture or transportation. Bears transported by truck were observed until mobility was regained. Twenty-four bears remained immobile from 6.4 to 26.2 hours (2 = 14.4 hours) from the time of initial capture. Recovery was not observed for bears transported by aircraft (N = 13), but all release sites were checked to verify that bears had recovered and moved away. Bears were transplanted in easterly directions to several places in the vicinity of Mentasta Pass, in southeasterly directions into the Wrangell Mountains or along the Copper River in the foothills of the Chugach Mountains, and in southwesterly directions along the lower Susitna River (Fig. 1). Twelve fixed-wing aircraft flights were made to relocate radio-marked transplanted bears in 1979 (1 in May, 4 in Jun, 3 in Jul, 2 in Aug, 1 in Sep, and 1 in Oct). Other location data were collected from miscellaneous radiolocations and hunter kills in 1979-81. Locations were plotted on U.S. Geological Survey maps (scale = 1:250,000). Distance transplanted and distance between subsequent sightings were measured as a straight line without regard to topographic or hydrographic features. Rates of movement were calculated by dividing the distance between consecutive sightings by the number of days between sightings. The direction of movement was defined as homing if the direction taken from the previous sighting was within 35 degrees of the direction required to return to the capture site. The criteria used in making a determination on when a particular bear had returned were subjective in some cases. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(4):1982 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.164 on Thu, 07 Jul 2016 05:52:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HOMING OF TRANSPLANTED BEARS* Miller and Ballard 871

Conservation of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Abstract “… discovered a Village of Small animals that burrow in the grown (those animals are Called by the french Petite Chien) … we found 2 frogs in the hole and Killed a Dark rattle Snake near with a Ground rat [prairie dog] in him … Those Animals are about the Size of a Small Squ[ir]el … much resembling a Squirel in every respect … his tail like a ground squirel which they shake and whistle when allarmd … it is Said that a kind of Lizard also a Snake reside with those animals.” (Meriwether Lewis, Lewis and Clark Expedition, 17 September 1804)

A comparative analysis of management options for grizzly bear conservation in the U.S.–Canada trans-border area

Abstract Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) populations spanning the U.S.–Canada border in the south Selkirk, Purcell–Yaak, and Cabinet Mountains are small, vulnerable, and at the front lines of any further range contraction in North America. Recent genetics work demonstrated that the south Selkirk grizzlies are an isolated population (no male or female connectivity) of fewer than 100 individuals with a 15–20% reduction in genetic diversity and that the Purcell–Yaak population is declining and demographically isolated (no female connectivity) with fewer than 50 individuals. The <25 animals living in the Cabinet Mountains population are likely isolated from both the south Selkirk Mountain and the Purcell–Yaak populations. We recognize these populations need enhanced management. To guide the development of a comprehensive management plan, we explored the effects of 3 actions (population augmentation, enhanced population interchange, and reduced mortality through management actions). We simulated 2 populations of 50 and 100 individuals using population viability analysis (PVA) software (VORTEX). We examined these management actions and combinations of them on population growth rate and extinction probabilities. Our simulations suggest that augmentation had the largest demographic effect on population growth rate over the short-term, mortality reductions had the largest effect in the long-term, and establishing population interchange and reducing mortality had the greatest effect on extinction probability. Enhanced cooperative U.S. and Canadian efforts are required to address the issues facing these small grizzly populations and to build connectivity to existing larger populations and areas of vacant habitat. Our findings apply to recovery and conservation efforts for small populations of all species of bears.

Trends in Intensive Management of Alaska's Grizzly Bears, 1980–2010

ABSTRACT Hunting regulations for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in much of Alaska since 1980 increasingly were designed to reduce bear abundance in the expectation such regulations would lead to increased harvests by hunters of moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Regulations were liberalized during 1980– 2010 primarily in the area we termed the Liberal Grizzly Bear Hunting Area (hereafter Liberal Hunt Area) which encompassed 76.2% of Alaska. By 2010, these changes resulted in longer hunting seasons (100% of Liberal Hunt Area had seasons > 100 days, 99.7% > 200 days, and 67.8% > 300 days), more liberal bag limits (99.1% of the Liberal Hunt Area with a bag limit ≥ 1/yr and 10.1% with a bag limit > 2/yr), and widespread waiver of resident tag fees (waived in 95.7% of the Liberal Hunt Area). During 1995–2010, there were 124 changes that made grizzly bear hunting regulations more liberal and two making them more conservative. The 4-year mean for grizzly bear kills by hunters increased 213% between 1976–1980 (387 grizzly bears) and 2005–2008 (823 grizzly bears). Since 2000, long-term research studies on grizzly populations in the Liberal Hunt Area have been terminated without replacement. Management of large predators by the State of Alaska is constrained by a 1994 state statute mandating “intensive management” in areas classified as important for human consumptive use of ungulates. Current grizzly bear management in the Liberal Hunt Area is inconsistent with the recommendations of the National Research Councils 1997 report on predator management in Alaska. Current attitudes, policies and absence of science-based management of grizzly bears in Alaska are increasingly similar to those that resulted in the near extirpation of grizzly bears south of Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries. If current trends continue, they increase risks to portions of the largest and most intact population of grizzly bears in North America.

Overestimation bias in estimate of black‐tailed prairie dog abundance in Colorado

White et al. (2005) estimated the area occupied by “active” colonies of black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Colorado as 255,398 ha (95% CI of±9.5%) based on data collected with aerial transect surveys during 2001–2002 by staff of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). During 2004 we conducted on-the-ground examinations of a sample of the colony intercept data used by White et al. (2005) and found evidence of misclassifications that would yield significant overestimation bias. We found that 25.4% of the total length of the colony intercepts we examined was incorrectly classified as being a prairie dog colony (these segments had no prairie dog burrows of any age). We also found that 50.3% of the length of examined intercepts fell on currently inactive colonies or portions of colonies (vacant burrows but no living prairie dogs) and only 24.3% fell on active prairie dog colonies with signs of living prairie dogs at our examinations 2 years after the survey reported by White et al. (2005). Further, in Bent and Kiowa counties, where plague (Yertsina pestus) and poisoning were active, we examined 36.9 km of reported active prairie dog intercepts and subjectively classified only 1.6% as active at normal-appearing prairie dog densities. Our fieldwork demonstrated that the estimate by White et al. (2005) was based on data with substantial errors as well as overestimation biases that will be repeated if protocols are not modified for future surveys.

Conservation and management of large carnivores in North America

Between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries in North America, large carnivores were significantly reduced in numbers and distribution. Wildlife management priorities changed during the last century to emphasize recovery and conservation with benefits to all species. Populations of large carnivores are likely to persist and expand into new areas within their original range where habitats are both socially and biologically suitable. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are an exception to this pattern as major contractions in numbers and distribution caused by global warming are now unavoidable. The extinction of polar bears during the twenty-first century is possible without great reductions in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Conservation and management of large carnivores is complicated because they require large landscapes, they may compete with hunters for ungulate prey, they can adversely impact economic activities such as livestock operations, and they sometimes, although rarely, attack and kill people.

Distinct population segments and grizzly bear delisting in Yellowstone: a response to Rosen

Abstract Tatjana Rosen (previous article) recommends reforms to the policy outlining how distinct population segments (DPSs) are defined and then objects because the proposed DPS for delisting grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) does not mesh with her recommendations. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 US Code 1531–1544) is to prevent the extinction of species, subspecies, and distinct population segments (DPSs) of imperiled plants and animals, not to keep species perpetually listed. Policies designed to implement the ESA should be judged based on their contribution to the recovery of taxa and DPSs. In response to management efforts by state and federal agencies assisted by conservation groups, grizzly bears in the GYE have expanded in range and numbers and have exceeded recovery criteria established in the Recovery Plan. Although the current DPS policy may not be the perfect tool for listing or delisting in all circumstances, the DPS proposed for delisting Yellowstones grizzlies meshes well with the intent of the ESA. Rosens suggested revisions would lead to perpetual listing in areas where recovery has occurred and would be inconsistent with the purpose of the ESA to delist taxa and DPSs following recovery. In the GYE, and elsewhere south of Canada, grizzly bears will probably always remain a conservation-reliant species; this does not mean that they require or will benefit from continued listing when conservation efforts have succeeded in reaching recovery targets and regulatory mechanisms are in place to nurture the recovery.

Small populations of grizzly bears in the U.S.–Canada Transborder Region: Introduction to the workshop proceedings

Papers in this supplement were presented at the Border Bears Workshop ‘‘Small populations of grizzly bears in the U.S.–Canada Transborder Region: How can we work together to enhance recovery?’’ in Sandpoint, Idaho, USA on 2–4 December 2002. The workshop was initiated by The National Wildlife Federation, which organized the workshop along with representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the University of Calgary. The workshop was attended by .200 people, including U.S. and Canadian residents, agency biologists, university scientists and students, public officials, representatives from timber and other industry groups, and representatives from conservation organizations. The workshop was held in conjunction with the winter meeting of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). The IGBC is the organization of state, provincial, and federal land and resource management agencies that developed and is charged with implementing recovery plans for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in the U.S. south of Canada. The IGBC has 5 subcommittees, each charged with the recovery of grizzly bears in an area: the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE), and the combined Cabinet–Yaak (CYE) and Selkirk (SE) ecosystems. By holding their winter meeting in one of the areas that was the focus of the workshop, the IGBC exposed itself to a different set of voices than it typically hears during meetings in the GYE or NCDE. We believe the IGBC, residents, and local officials benefited from exchanges during the workshop and during the following IGBC meeting. This workshop focused on the endangered grizzly bear populations in the CYE, SE, and NCE recovery areas on both sides of the U.S.–Canada border (hereafter ‘‘transborder’’ populations). Grizzly bear populations in these areas are small and largely isolated from larger neighboring populations. There is no verified permanent population of grizzly bears on the U.S. side in the NCE. The population on the British Columbia, Canada, side of the NCE, is considered the most endangered grizzly population in Canada (McLellan and Banci 1999). The CYE population is potentially a stepping stone for natural dispersal into the BE (where grizzly bears were exterminated by the 1940s) by grizzly bears from populations to the north or east. Since grizzly bears were listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S. Code 1531–1544) in 1975, recovery efforts in these areas (USFWS 1993) have not increased populations, although these efforts have succeeded, so far, in avoiding extinction of these small and vulnerable populations. In 1999, grizzly bears in the Cabinet–Yaak and Selkirks were reclassified as warranted for listing as endangered under the U.S. ESA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Workshop organizers attempted to identify the most important topics that needed to be addressed to improve the status of these populations and invited experts in these areas to speak on these topics. The organizers also advertised for papers and a number of non-invited papers were received and presented. The papers in this volume were accepted following peer review.