Search for Human-Habituated Grizzlies in Glacier National Park Ends With Two Dead Bears

A sow grizzly and one of her cubs were killed Monday by Glacier National Park rangers near Two Medicine Lake. Jim Burnett photo. In the bottom photo, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologists work with Glacier rangers to transfer the grizzly yearling to a larger trap. NPS Photo by Wade Muehlhof

A grizzly sow that had come to view humans as a source of food in Glacier National Park has been killed by rangers, who also accidentally killed one of her yearling cubs when they tried to tranquilize it. The killings Monday brought to a close a long-running effort by park rangers to get the sow and her two cubs to rely on their natural food sources and to avoid backcountry travelers.

The 17-year-old sow, nick-named the "Oldman Lake Bear," was shot by two rangers armed with rifles as she and her cubs were heading towards the backcountry campsite at Oldman Lake in the park's southeastern corner, not far from Two Medicine Lake. The two yearlings were darted with tranquilizers about an hour later, and one died from the drug despite mouth-to-nose CPR efforts by the rangers. A necropsy -- an autopsy -- will be conducted to try to determine why the cub died. Possible causes include the tranquilizer dart hitting a vital organ, an improper dosage, or shock.

"The unintended death of this yearling grizzly is a very unfortunate outcome of a very difficult operation," Glacier Superintendent Chas Cartwright said Tuesday in a prepared statement. "The National Park Service will conduct a thorough review of the cause of death of the yearling, but we are also relieved to have captured the other yearling."

The killings came in a popular and incredibly scenic part of Glacier. The thickly forested area is hard along the eastern flanks of the Continental Divide, dotted with lakes and spread out below glacially horned peaks. There are a number of designated backcountry campgrounds in the area, which also is very popular with day-hikers. Last summer the area saw roughly 3,200 backcountry camper nights, while over the past decade the average has been right around 3,000, according to park officials.

Glacier officials realize the killings will likely bring condemnation from some corners, but believe they had no other choice.

"There are numerous bears in the area that don't walk through the middle of campgrounds with their cubs," Jack Potter, the park's chief of science and resource management, said Tuesday. "We did not feel safe with having that bear out there. ... We knew it was going to be unpopular. It's been very hard on our staff. Nobody likes to do this. Nobody joins the Park Service to kill animals. ... If someone had gotten mauled, it (criticism) would have been the other way."

Glacier has a grizzly population of about 365 animals, according to a U.S. Geological Survey census in 2004. While bears are common in the area where the sow was killed, areas with greater grizzly densities can be found elsewhere in the park.

The last time the Park Service put down a Glacier grizzly was in 1998, when rangers tracked and killed one believed to have killed and devoured a backpacker near Scenic Point east of Two Medicine Lake. The decision to kill the sow this week was made only after years of efforts to dissuade her from viewing backcountry campgrounds as buffets.

“Unfortunately, this entire family group of grizzly bears had become overly familiar with humans," Superintendent Cartwright said. “Park resource personnel worked to keep this bear and her offspring in the wild for five years, but given her most recent display of over-familiarity in combination with her history of habituation, we determined that the three grizzlies posed an unacceptable threat to human health and safety; and therefore, needed to be removed from the park.”

In 2005 and again in 2006 this section of backcountry was closed because of the sow's behavior, said Chief Potter. Additionally, Karleian Bear Dogs were brought in for about two weeks both summers with hopes they could convince the sow and her offspring to avoid humans, he said.

While the sow seemed to vanish in 2007 and 2008, this year she was "back doing the same things," said the chief. "I hate to assign personifications with these animals, but she was boldly going after these camps."

The bears had been closely monitored in recent weeks. Rangers were actually stationed in some of the campgrounds to observe their behavior, and twice they were approached by the bears. The sow's demise came Monday about 4:30 p.m. when rangers spotted her and her yearlings about 300 yards from the Oldman Lake backcountry campground and heading toward the site. Rangers were about to close the backcountry campground, which was occupied, when they spotted the bears.

After the female was killed, rangers arranged for helicopter support and to retrieve drugs to dart and tranquilize the two yearlings that remained in the vicinity. The yearlings were darted over an hour later. One cub died shortly after being tranquilized despite efforts by rangers to resuscitate the yearling by performing mouth-to-nose CPR.

Glacier’s internationally-vetted Bear Management Plan and Guidelines specifies that conditioned bears that display over familiarity must be removed from the wild population. While park officials reached out to find a facility that might take the sow and cubs, no zoos or other federally-authorized captive facilities were willing to take an adult bear. The Bronx Zoo in New York City was willing to take the yearlings. Now just one will be shipped there.

Glacier's bear management policy is to maintain natural population dynamics and, to the extent possible, promote natural behavior in the presence of humans. So far in 2009, three separate incidents had been documented in which the female grizzly exhibited behavior that could be classified as “repeatedly and purposefully approaches humans in a non-defensive situation.” The female was again demonstrating this same behavior on Monday afternoon when she was shot and killed approaching Oldman Lake campground.

“Given the possibility that her offspring had learned this type of overly-familiar behavior and the diminished chance of their survival, we simply could not leave the yearlings in the wild. We deeply regret the loss of the one cub, but are thankful that the other yearling will soon be transported to the Bronx Zoo,” Superintendent Cartwright said.

The female had frequented the Morning Star and Old Man Lake backcountry campgrounds, both in the Two Medicine/Cut Bank area repeatedly since 2004. During that time, the sow produced two sets of offspring. Throughout this time, both the sow and her offspring approached hikers, forced hikers off trails, came into cooking areas while people yelled and waved their arms at the bears, and sniffed at tents during the night. Numerous efforts were attempted to haze the female and her offspring away from backcountry campsites.

“As a protected species under the Endangered Species Act, the decision to remove the family of grizzlies was not taken lightly, but was the result of Glacier’s ongoing coordination with the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, the agency charged with administering the Endangered Species Act," said Superintendent Cartwright.

Comments

The last release I read here stated that the sow was to be relocated to a remote area & the cubs sent to an accepting zoo - apparently the Bronx Zoo from this report.
Then this release stating the bear was killed - on purpose - and the cub accidentally.
As an oft visitor to Glacier, I understand the management program. But why the original mis-information on the tactics? Afraid of public reaction?
If that's the case, I would think the publicity of the "real" tactic to be employed would be far worse than just telling the truth. Particularly now that one cub was also lost.
It's such a shame that we as humans invade THEIR habitat & then remove them when they don't behave as we feel necessary.

The park's initial plan was indeed to try to find a facility that would take the sow. Unfortunately, no facility that was federally approved could be found, so the decision was made to put down her down.

Mention "problem bear" to a zoo and they won't take it. I suppose the Bronx Zoo is hoping that they can get to it early enough.

I guess we can get all indignant about it, but the human visitation in Glacier NP isn't going away, and this bear wasn't going to stop approaching people. I don't think it was just that this sow was approaching people, but that it was setting the cubs for the same cycle of looking for human food/company and the potential for a reaction by the bear if it felt that a panicked human was a threat to the cubs.

There is no such critter as a "problem bear."

"If people persist in trespassing upon the grizzlies' territory, we must accept the fact that grizzlies,
from time to time, will harvest a few trespassers." ~ Edward Abbey ~

You could make a case that the sow is better off now than at some of the alternatives. The quality of life for bears at zoos is questionable.

I respectfully disagree with that assessment that there are no "problem bears" or that humans are somehow trespassing on their "territory". Bears aren't particularly territorial and this particular bear seemed to treat humans as welcome visitors in its range. I remember once joking with a Yosemite ranger (Shelton Johnson if anyone knows who he is) during a snowshoe walk that as a UC Berkeley grad I was used saying we were in "Bear Territory" - as we looked for bear scratch marks on trees. With his quick disarming wit he politely corrected me that since bears weren't particularly territorial, we would be better described as being in "bear country".

Of course coming from Edward Abbey, I understand where it's coming from. If he had his way, the only means of entering or traversing a national park would be via foot or horseback.

I certainly understand that a lot of the human-bear conflicts in a notorious place like Yosemite are a result of bad human behavior, such as failure to store food properly. I'm not sure what went wrong where this bear decided that humans weren't to be avoided or didn't react to typical hazing techniques.

Stop being so critical. The rangers are doing a very difficult job under very difficult cirumstances. If they did nothing and somebody got mauled, then you would be complaining about that. Give them some credit. They really do care.

A problem is something that prevents or frustrates what you want to do. A good security system is a problem to a burglar. A martial arts expert is a problem to a mugger. And a bear can be a problem to people who want to go camping without getting eaten. Likewise, the bear views the rangers as problems because they keep trying to prevent her from feasting on the banquet set out for her at the campground. It all depends on your perspective. You have Ed Abbey and the bears on one side, most casual park visitors on the other side, and the good rangers of Glacier National Park in the middle trying to keep everyone (bears, Abbeyites, and weekenders) happy. That's the toughest job, and I wouldn't think of second guessing their work.

Those who venture into the backcountry of Glacier National Park are not "most casual park visitors."

By entering the backcountry, certain risks must be accepted. These risks include the possibility of encountering bears.

When I last visited Banff and Jasper National Parks in 2005, I noticed that trails known to be frequented by grizzly bears were posted and well marked. Hikers were requested to enter in groups of 6 or more. Pets were prohibited in sections of the park posted for Grizz.

It would be interesting to obtain more details on the criteria used by the NPS to make the decision to put the bear down. What I have learned thus far is that the 17 year-old sow was euthanised due to a pattern of increased encounters with backpackers and backcountry campsites, and a lack of responsiveness to purposeful hazing. There was also the concern that this sow would pass on her behavior to her offspring, increasing the number of grizzly bears in the Glacier NP backcountry lacking a natural fear of humans.

I wonder, to what extent is this same criteria being used in other parks (including Alaska and Parks Canada) to cull backcountry bears if they are observed to be habituated to the presence of humans (i.e., behavioral deviants)?

Owen Hoffman
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

I don't know much about grizzlies, but in Shenandoah one female had to be removed and put into captivity because of her behavior. Hazing just wasn't working on her and she was teaching her cubs the same behavior. The NPS tried for years to get her to stop but finally it was getting to the dangerous point. She found out that if she walked up to campers eating dinner and growled, they would run away and leave all their food. Bears are so smart but sometimes that intelligence can get them into some bad situations.

Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry

Opps...forgot to put that I was talking about black bears

Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry

I've heard that black and grizzly bears generally react about the same to hazing and attempts to scare them off. I think the big difference is that a grizzly sow with cubs is far more likely to react defensively. I recently encountered a tagged/collared campground-raiding black bear that didn't respond to three campers trying the usual (posturing, making noises, throwing a small rock near it) but did react to a ranger without anything other than yelling. I think it knew from experience that projectiles were eventually coming at it if it didn't leave immediately. I haven't heard enough about this bear at Glacier - if it just took off and returned later or if the hazing didn't phase it at all.

Of course in the Sierra there's a completely different level of bear with demonstrated abilities to peel open car doors. My personal favorite story is of "Camaro Bear" - a bear that scored some really nice food from one particular Camaro and then proceeded to break into maybe 20-30 more (apparently on sight without necessarily sniffing for food) over the course of that summer.

She found out that if she walked up to campers eating dinner and growled, they would run away and leave all their food.

Hey, that worked for me in Curry Village after 8 days in the back country of Yosemite this spring :-)

"...adventure without regard to prudence, profit, self-improvement,
learning or any other serious thing" -Aldo Leopold-

Random Walker, I've experienced a few AT hikers that do the same thing. Sometimes I think it's the oder of an unwashed hiker that does the same thing

Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry

In Alaska, I thought the black bears were harder to handle than the brown/grizzly bears. Black bears seemed unrelenting. Perhaps it was because those black bears had been scavingers longer, I don't know.

Unfortunately, as brown/grizzly population increases, and as more humans move near or into bear country, bears do become more habituated to people, and that is deeply worrisome.

I think with bears operating close to people, if they do not experience active aversion conditioning before they are 3 they will grow without avoiding people. That means bears will die, unless we create bear country with highly restrictive controls on people. Such as the McNeil bear sanctuary. Even people who love bears the most know it is not a slam-dunk that the best thing to do is just clear out the people Long term, you may need to political power of people to preserve bear country, and maybe many of such critical allies need experience in bear country to appreciate why their survival is essential. I am not sure how or where to draw that line.

I completely disagree with killing this sow. This was a seventeen year old breeding female and a huge loss for the grizzly bear population. It's always about people and what they need and want. I wonder how this bear became habituated in the first place? What other measures were tried? Was she relocated, how many times? To gun down a perfectly healthy grizzly sow in the prime of her life, with two cubs? Just a terrible decision. Now one cub is dead and the other will spend a lonely life in a zoo. Worst possible outcome.

All "problem bears" are a result of humans behaving badly. Unfortunately, it only takes one incident of a bear obtaining human food. Of course, what could have been done to spare the bears' lives was probably not considered by the NPS, which would have been to close the area to humans for an exteded period of time (5-10 years). If a bear can lose it's life due to our incompetence/mistakes, we as NPS visitors should face some negative consequences for our (collective) bad behavior. As always nature bats last.