IBA News Letter 2018

International Bear News
Tri-Annual Newsletter of the

International Association for
Bear Research and Management (IBA)
and the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group
Fall 2018 Vol. 27 no. 3
Sloth bear feeding on a honeycomb in Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, India. Read about it on page 59.
IBA website: www.bearbiology.org

Table of Contents
International Bear News
3 International Bear News, ISSN #1064-1564
IBA President /IUCN BSG Co-Chairs

4 President’s Column
6 Ancestry of the Bear Specialist Group: the
People and Ideas at the Inception
Conference Reports Biological Research

9 26th International Conference on Bear 49 What is it About the Terai of Nepal that
Research & Management Favors Sloth Bears over Asiatic Black Bears?
52 Characterizing Grizzly Bear Habitat using
IBA Member News Vegetation Structure in Alberta, Canada
54 Identifying Seasonal Corridors for Brown
25 Start of the 30+ Club in Service to Bears
Bears: an Integrated Modeling Approach
57 Does Rebecca, a Seasoned Andean Bear
IBA Grants Program News Mother, Show Seasonal Birthing Patterns?
26 Crowdfunding Bear Stories – the Art of 59 Observations of a Sloth Bear Feeding on
Asking Strangers for Help a Honeycomb in a Tree in Melghat Tiger
Reserve, Maharashtra, India
Conservation
27 Investigating a Population of Brown bear Manager’s Corner
(Ursus arctos) in K2 Valley Karakoram Range 61 SEAFWA BearWise Program Launches
of Northern Pakistan Website: Biologists and Managers
30 Rehabilitation of the Andean Bear in Collaborate on Landmark Regional Bear
Venezuela and the Strategic Alliances with Education Program
Rural Communities in the Release Process
33 Sun Bear Conservation Action Plan Workshop Announcement
Implementation Update
62 24th Eastern Black Bear Workshop, April 22
35 If You Build It They Will Come: Black Bear
– 25, 2019. Potosi, Missouri
Dens on Vancouver Island
Illegal Trade Student Forum

62 Truman Listserv and Facebook Page
36 Towards Establishing Efficient Protection
Against Poaching for Sun Bears
Publications
Human-bear conflicts 63 Recent Bear Literature
39 Brown Bear Behavior in the Human-
Modified Landscapes of Cantabrian IBA Officers & Council
Mountains (NW Spain) 70 Executive Council Members and Ex-Officio
42 Communication is Key for Human–bear Members
Coexistence: the Experience of Trentino
(Italian Alps) BSG Expert Team Chairs
44 Use of Geospatial Techniques to Target 71 Bear Specialist Group Team Chairs
Water Sources for Sloth Bears, Aimed at
Alleviating Conflicts with People
47 New Project: The Ecology of Brown Bear
Damage at Large Scales
2 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

Table of Contents
International Bear News, ISSN #1064-1564
Tri-Annual newsletter of the International Association for Bear Research and Management
Editors: Mark Edwards (Managing Editor)
Amy Macleod (Layout & Design)
Jim Tomlin (Proofing)
Jennapher L Teunissen van Manen (Distribution)
907 Jessie Way Bozeman MT 59715
Email: jennapher.teunissenvanmanen@outlook.com
Website: www.bearbiology.org
Back issues are available at www.bearbiology.org
Editorial Policy
International Bear News welcomes articles about biology, conservation, and management of the world’s eight
bear species. Submissions of about 750 words are preferred, and photos, drawings, and charts are appreciated.
Submissions to regional correspondents by email are preferred; otherwise, mail or fax to the address above. IBA
reserves the right to accept, reject, and edit submissions.
Correspondents:
Western US and Canada: Carrie Lowe, Email: carrie.lowe@dfw.wa.gov
Eastern US and Canada: Jared Laufenberg, Email: jared_laufenberg@fws.gov
Central and South America: Marco Enciso, Email:marco.enciso@gmail.com
Europe: Stefanie Franke, Email: frankest@hotmail.de
Central Asia: Tatjana Rosen, Email:trosen@panthera.org
Zoo and Captive Bear Organizations: Jordan Schaul, Email:jordan.schaul@gmail.com
Bear Specialist Group: Dave Garshelis, Email:dave.garshelis@state.mn.us
Manager’s Corner: Rich Beausoleil, Email: Richard.Beausoleil@dfw.wa.gov
All other submission and/or inquiries: Mark Edwards, Email: mark.edwards@gov.ab.ca
Consult website for submission guidelines. Deadline for the Spring 2019 issue is 26 February 2019.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this issue. Artwork is copyrighted – Do not reproduce without permission.
For Membership Information and Publication Ordering

Go to www.bearbiology.com to order or renew memberships, make donations, and/or update member information.
The use of the IBA logo at the end of The use of the BSG logo at the end of The use of the IBA-BCF logo at the
an article indicates articles submit- an article indicates articles submitted beginning of an article signifies
ted via the IBA regional correspon- via the Bear Specialist Group. work that was supported, at least in
dents and the IBN editorial staff. part, by the Bear Conservation Fund
through an IBA grant.
International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 3

IBA President
President’s Column
Andreas Zedrosser
Institute for Natural Sciences and Environmental Health
University College of Southeast Norway
Pb. 235, N-3603 Kongsberg, Norway
Email: andreas.zedrosser@usn.no
IBA 2.0 – prepping for the future

IBA has embarked on a process to play a bigger role in the conservation and management of bears on the global scale. As
part of this process, a major goal is to be able to provide more training and funding opportunities for our members to en-
hance science-based bear management and conservation. But how can IBA become more efficient and effective in reaching
our goal, the science-based management and conservation of all bear species across the world, as well as provide improved
services to our membership? IBA Council has worked with the management consultant company Oliver Wyman to prepare a
road map to IBA on how to become a bigger player and to provide more training and funding.
IBA Council, as well as additionally invited IBA members, held in conjunction with the Ljubljana conference a one-day
workshop on the future development of IBA based on the suggestions by Oliver Wyman. Special attention was paid to
represent as many aspects of IBA membership as possible in this work shop, ranging from highly experienced to younger
(and maybe more modern thinking?) members, from wildlife managers to university scientist and conservationists, from
web designers to fund raisers.
This working group is currently working on several aspects of IBA’s future:
1. Organizational structure: The workload of IBA officers has increased over time, and is now at a point where it
becomes difficult to manage on a voluntary basis. To alleviate the workload and to better prepare the organization
for the future, IBA Council will hire a Director of Transition with the main responsibilities of 1) coordinating activities
among IBA committees working on different aspects of the future development of IBA, 2) taking over electronic
membership management from the IBA secretary (which has proved to be a very time consuming activity), and 3)
coordinating fundraising activities for IBA’s future. Legal advice as well as an accountant will be hired on a contract
basis to manage payroll, taxes, etc. The seed funding for these positions was obtained from a generous donor.
Down the road, IBA plans to hire an Executive Director, reporting to Council, who will run the day to day business of
IBA as well as be the central figure responsible for fund raising.
At our workshop it became very clear how important it is for everyone to maintain the democratic structure of IBA
and at the same time modernize the organization. IBA as an organization will maintain its membership as a profes-
sional society of diverse bear biologists with an elected Council. The essence of IBA, the close contact and commu-
nication between its members, the conferences, IBN and Ursus, will remain the same.
2. Strategic plan: An important part of the future organizational structure will be a strategic plan on how IBA plans to
distribute funding for management and conservation activities and projects. Different parts of the world have dif-
ferent needs for bear conservation and management. A North American manager dealing with bears in a suburban
area has different needs and concerns compared to an Asian manager trying to conserve a highly fragmented
and endangered population. Common to both, is the need to exchange ideas and experiences with colleagues, to
receive additional training, as well as opportunities to apply for funding to better understand or solve their specific
management and conservation challenge. It is the goal of IBA to better address needs and concerns for science-
based bear management and conservation in all parts of the world. Therefore we are working on plans that ad-
dress needs and concerns on a geographic basis. In the long run, this will ensure relatively equal access to funding
opportunities for all IBA members.
3. Finances and fund raising: A financial and business plan until the end of 2020 was prepared, detailing the expected
income (for example from donations, Ursus page charges, etc.) as well as the expected costs for slowly building IBA
into a larger organization with a larger budget for membership activities and funding opportunities. Based on this
cashflow timeline, a fund raising team is working on a diverse strategy to obtain the necessary funds. IBA is also in
contact with professional fundraisers to obtain advice on the best strategies.
4. Communications: Modern times come with modern challenges; the new website has greatly increased the visibility
of IBA, and we now receive more feedback, requests and questions than ever before from the general public. Many

IBA President
of them are very relevant (“What kind of bear is this?” asked especially by many media outlets), some are rather
unique (a group of engineering grad students asked the question: “Who would win a fight between a silverback go-
rilla and a grizzly bear?” In case you know the answer, check in on Facebook and tell me your opinion!), but common
to all is greater interest in bears. But a good website is not enough any longer to attract the interest of potential
donors. Therefore we are working on a detailed communication plan, messages and materials that can be used to
address different target audiences and potential donors.
Working on these plans is very inspiring and very exciting, as it brings the future to life. But, it is also time consuming
and, frankly, hard work carried out by many volunteer brains. Feedback and advice from additional members is essential.
We will therefore make an overview of the future plans available on the IBA website, with the possibility for feedback and
comments.
As an organization we want to better address your needs and concerns for bear management and conservation in your
part of the world. We would like to make IBA more efficient and effective to our members, which entails some changes to
our organizational structure to be able to meet these new challenges. The core values of the democratic structure of IBA will
not change. Expressed in computer terms: our goal is not to build a new software, but our goal is to upgrade the existing
software to create a win-win situation that benefits all members by increased access to services and resources provided by
IBA as well as improves science-based bear management and conservation across the world – IBA 2.0!
IBA Distinguished Service Award for Stephen Herrero

At the Ljubljana conference, IBA’s Distinguished Service
Award was handed out to our colleague and friend Prof. Stephen
Herrero. Rarely has there been an individual more deserv-
ing of this award! Throughout his career, Stephen has been
a strong supporter of IBA, by serving many years on Council
as well as President. His book on bear attacks is THE classic in
bear literature, and is famous even among the general public.
Unfortunately, Stephen was not able to attend the conference
personally. Lana Ciarniello accepted the award on his behalf and
presented a very humorous and touching overview of Stephen’s
career and how he has influenced the life and careers of many
bear students and biologists through his kind and supportive
personality. The Slovenian conference organizers generously
recorded and prepared a video of the award ceremony. This
video will be presented to Stephen together with the award.
Congratulations!
University of Calgary
Stephen Herrero with one of his many publications.
International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 5

IUCN BSG Co-Chairs
Ancestry of the Bear Specialist Group: the People and Ideas at the
Inception
Dave Garshelis
Co-Chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA
Email: dave.garshelis@state.mn.us
Consider the old adage about the chicken and the egg: how can a chicken appear in the absence of an egg, and how
can a chicken egg be laid with no chicken to lay it? The enigma is basically that a species cannot arise instantaneously from
nothingness. The same could be said of organizations. For example, the IBA and BSG did not simply spring into existence
from nothing.
The “egg” of the IBA was an ad hoc “gathering” (later dubbed a workshop) of 49 North American biologists, organized by
Art Pearson in the Canadian Yukon in 1968. That egg matured and eventually hatched the idea of a professional society of
bear biologists.
What was the “egg” of the BSG? That question was discussed at the recent BSG business meeting at the conference in Lju-
bljana, where BSG and IBA members described the 2 organizations as “close”, “broadly overlapping”, “sister organizations”,
“Siamese twins”, or “parent–offspring”. Given some confusion as to the present relationship between these 2 organizations,
it seems useful to look back in the history and try to uncover how and why the BSG got started.
Unfortunately, several details of that history have become hazy with time. The following is reconstructed from some
written accounts (especially LeCount 1999, and some old newsletters), and discussions with several key people with (faded)
memories of what transpired.
1968: This was a breakthrough year for bears. Not only was this the year of the first gathering/workshop on brown/grizzly
bears (Ursus arctos) and American black bears (U. americanus), but it also marked the establishment of the Polar
Bear Specialist Group (which celebrated its 50 year anniversary this year). The PBSG was formed under the IUCN/
Species Survival Commission (SSC) –– it stemmed from an initial meeting of polar bear (U. maritimus) biologists in
1965, whereupon it was decided that the IUCN would act as the “coordinating agency for international exchange of
information”, and that the IUCN would organize future polar bear meetings every 2 years.
1970: The “Second International Conference on Bear Research and Management” was organized by Steve Herrero, and
held at the University of Calgary. Steve edited the papers and made connections with the IUCN to publish the
proceedings in 1972 (it can still be downloaded in full as an IUCN publication: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
library/files/documents/NS-023.pdf ). The proceedings were mainly focused on North American brown bears and
black bears, but also included papers on polar bears, 2 papers on brown bears in Europe, and an abstract on brown
bears in Japan. It also included a seminal paper on “The status and conservation of bears (Ursidae) of the world ––
1970”, the first review of the conservation status of the world’s 8 bear species, which was presented at the banquet
by Ian McTaggart Cowan. Ian was a professor at the University of British Columbia, and PhD advisor (during the
1960s) of Chuck Jonkel (a vital player in this story, see below); Ian’s synopsis, which lamented the threats to and also
lack of information about the bear species outside North America likely impacted Chuck’s thinking.
1973: An historic “Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears” (still in effect today) was signed by representatives of
the 5 polar bear range states (Canada, the United States, Denmark [Greenland], Norway, and Russia), mainly as an
effort to reduce over-hunting, which was the major threat at the time, and also to enhance coordinated research,
monitoring, and management. This agreement was facilitated by the IUCN (in politically neutral Switzerland) in con-
sultation with these governments, and expedited by information on population status and threats provided by the
PBSG; both of these organizations helped draft terms of the eventual agreement (Larson and Stirling 2009). Chuck
Jonkel, working for the Canadian Wildlife Service on polar bears, was deeply involved in the IUCN/PBSG efforts,
witnessing the effectiveness of these still fledgling organizations in leveraging significant governmental actions to
aid bear conservation.
1974: The proceedings of the Third International Bear Conference was actually a collection of papers given at 2 separate
meetings, 1 in New York and 1 in Moscow, increasing the geographical breadth of papers, yet it still only covered
the same 3 species (brown, American black, polar). It was again published (in 1976) as part of an IUCN series (https://
portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/NS-040.pdf ). At the close of the meeting in New York, Mike
Pelton, one of the co-conveners, called for a vote on forming an official organization; the vote was unanimous in
favor. A small group was formed to write bylaws for this new organization of professional bear biologists, and began

IUCN BSG Co-Chairs
publication of a once-a-
year newsletter.
1977: The Fourth Internation-
al Conference was held
in Kalispell Montana,
and for the first time,
the proceedings was
published (in 1980)
under the banner of the
“Bear Biology Associa-
tion Conference Series”
(instead of the IUCN). At
this conference the BBA
(former name of the
IBA) officially came into
existence: membership
fees were established,
Chuck Jonkel (who
chaired the bylaws
IUCN
committee) was elected
as the first president,
Chuck Jonkel was the first Chair of the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group (1977–1989), and simultane-
and the first Council
ously, first President (1977–1979) of IBA (then called Bear Biology Association). His motivation to
meeting was held. start the BSG likely stemmed from being a part of the original Polar Bear Specialist Group (photo:
During this first Council Jonkel, front row, far right), and the success of that group, with the IUCN, in striking an international
meeting it was decided governmental agreement to conserve polar bears (Larsen and Stirling 2009). At the time, Chuck
to approach IUCN about was also well known for his work on American black bears, gaining a PhD (1967) that was published
the establishment of as the first monograph of a scientific study of that species (Jonkel and Cowan 1971).
a Specialist Group for
the terrestrial bears. A number
of taxa-specific Specialist Groups
were being formed at the time.
Jonkel had been part of the PBSG’s
success with the conservation
agreement, and saw merit in
forming such a group to aid in
the conservation of other bears.
Notably, the Fourth Conference,
while somewhat broader in scope
than the previous ones, still lacked
papers on half the bear species
(sloth, Melursus ursinus; sun,
Helarctos malayanus; Andean,
Tremarctos ornatus; and giant
panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca).
Sir Peter Scott, first Chair of the
SSC, accepted the proposal to
establish a Bear Specialist Group
(for the 7 non-polar bear species),
and for Jonkel to chair it. In his
role as BSG Chair, Jonkel (1985) The Second and Third International Bear Conference proceedings were official
posed the novel idea that agen- publications of the IUCN. Coincident with the Fourth conference in 1977, the
cies managing American black IBA (originally BBA) and BSG were born as official organizations.
bears should consider “aiding
research and management efforts for other bear species within their black bear programs.” It does not appear that
he actually formed a “group” per se, but interacted with the SSC, which only had a few functioning specialist groups

IUCN BSG Co-Chairs
at the time. (Interestingly, an ad hoc Spectacled Bear Group, formed in 1982, later petitioned the SSC to become an
independent Specialist Group, but this was denied. There remain, though a few single species specialist groups, the
PBSG being one.)
1989: New SSC Chair George Rabb appointed new BSG co-chairs, Chris Servheen and Steve Herrero, with the aim of creat-
ing a more active group of specialists, focusing particular attention on conservation of bears outside North America.
Chris and Steve, both IBA Council members at the time, had credentials that suited them well for this responsibility.
Chris was chosen because of his unique knowledge of the status of bears of the world (he published an IBA mono-
graph on the subject in 1990), threats to Asian bears (he was involved in a comprehensive study of the Asian trade in
bear parts, published in 1991), as well as work on small populations of bears in Europe. Steve, who had just finished
his term as fourth IBA president and also had experience with bears in Europe, was especially well known for his
recently-published book on bear attacks (1985).
Chris and Steve searched for people with some knowledge of bears worldwide, and eventually put together a group
of 350 “specialists” (in quotes because many did not actually specialize in bears). The group included IBA members
as well as many others from outside the IBA. A core group included 2 noted experts on Andean bears, Bernie Peyton
and Jorge Orejuela.
1990: The BSG began publishing its own newsletter. (In 1995 the IBA and BSG newsletters merged).
1999: As tasked by the IUCN, the BSG and PBSG together created “Bears: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan”.
This publication, which took nearly a decade to produce, was a milestone for the BSG, involving authors worldwide,
reports on the global and country-specific status of all 8 species, and global range maps. This document (https://
portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/1999-004.pdf ) was one of more than 60 such taxa-specific ac-
tion plans developed by Specialist Groups under the auspices of IUCN through 2008 (when the process for develop-
ing such plans was significantly revised).
The next 20 years will be reviewed at another time, as the purpose here was only to investigate the origins of the BSG. The
IBA and BSG arose at the same time, with common ancestors (same key people) as drivers, and many points of interaction.
The “ultimate chicken” in this story might be the desire for improved science-based bear management and conservation
that lived in the minds of those early pioneers who we are now so indebted to: notably Chuck Jonkel (who died in 2016),
Steve Herrero, and Chris Servheen on the terrestrial bear side, plus those who had the forethought in organizing the PBSG,
and of course those who conceptualized, hatched, and grew the IUCN (originally International Union for the Protection of
Nature, 1948) and SSC (originally Survival Service, 1949) in an attempt to help governments save vanishing species.
The BSG was designed to bring together biologists across the globe to focus more effort on bears outside North America
(where IBA had most of its members), to engage and train more people in other countries, and to focus on alleviating threats
in areas where conservation actions were lacking (often nonexistent).
It is useful to trace back roots and credit those who had the bold ideas that led to the organizations we rely on today for
our professional communication (the original concept behind the 1968 workshop) and for fostering science and conserva-
tion of bears. Documenting these events from the past may help in thinking about how the 2 organizations should partner
to move forward and tackle the issues of the present and future.
Acknowledgments
I thank the following people (listed alphabetically) who provided information, comments, or useful edits on an earlier
draft: Steve Herrero, Djuro Huber, Al LeCount, Bruce McLellan, Mike Pelton, Michael Proctor, Harry Reynolds, Chris Servheen,
Rob Steinmetz, and Frank van Manen. Nevertheless, I take responsibility for all errors or misinterpretations. I joined IBA (BBA)
when it was first born at the Kalispell meeting in 1977, but didn’t know then about the coincident birth of the BSG.
Literature Cited
Jonkel, C. 1985. Black bear research and management relative to “other bears”. Page 4 in Abstracts of the 3rd Western
Black Bear Workshop, Missoula, MT, USA.
Jonkel, C., and I. McT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildlife Monographs 27:1–57.
Larsen, T.S., and I. Stirling. 2009. The agreement on the conservation of polar bears – its
history and future. Rapportserie nr. 127, Norsk Polarinstitutt, Tromsø, Norway. https://
polarbearsinternational.org/media/3215/2009-larsen-and-stirling_pb-agreement-history.
pdf
LeCount, A. 1999. History of the IBA 1968–1998. Ursus 11:11–20.

Conference Reports
26th International Conference on Bear Research & Management
September 16-21 2018 in Ljubljana, Slovenia
The 26th International Conference on Bear Research & Manage-
ment was held September 16-21, 2018 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The
main theme “Life with Bears” is a human-bear coexistence in human
dominated and politically fragmented landscapes. Specific confer-
ence topics were designed in a way to welcome recent research
results, technical advances, and case studies on a wide spectrum
of issues relevant to ensuring a long-term coexistence of bears and
humans.
The following are reports from the session moderators, workshop leaders, and people that presided over notable events (e.g.
awards).
Dr. Stephen Herrero Wins the 2018 IBA Distinguished Service Award*
Lana M. Ciarniello, Ph.D., RPBio.
IUCN BSG Co-Chair Human-Bear Conflicts Expert Team
Aklak Wildlife Consulting
Email: aklak@telus.net
The 2018 IBA Distinguished Service Award (DSA)

was presented during the gala dinner at the 26th IBA
Conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia to Dr. Stephen Herrero.
Dr. Herrero has been professionally involved in human-
bear conflict reduction since 1967. A significant part of
his career was spent as a professor at the University of
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where he mentored 63 Master
and PhD students, led the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear
Project, and produced many refereed journal publica-
Amy Macleod
tions. He is a grandfather of the IBA and held the second
IBA “meeting” in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in 1970. That
meeting was a “major step toward the emergence of IBA
as we know it today” (M. Pelton). He is a past president of
the IBA (1986-88), and past Co-Chair of the International
Lana Ciarniello giving presentation on Steve Herrero,
Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN) Bear Specialist recipient of the IBA Distinguished Service Award.
Group (BSG, 1989-2001). He is a current member of the
IUCN BSG Human-Bear Conflicts Expert Team (HBCET).
Dr. Herrero dedicated his career towards teaching people how to avoid bear attacks on humans and to reduce injury to
people and bears by applying a behavioural approach to human-bear conflicts. His book, Bear Attacks: Their Causes and
Avoidance, was first published in 1985 and has been in print continuously since then, selling over 115, 000 copies and on
its 3rd edition. It was nominated as the best wildlife book by the Wildlife Society, and has been translated into German and
Japanese. In 1990, Bear Attacks was chosen as “the most important scientific work on bears in past 25 years” by research
peers. As a founding member of the Safety in Bear Country Society, and in association with IBA, Dr. Herrero has helped pro-
duce 4 state of the art videos related to bear safety, conservation and management. Dr. S. Herrero could not be in attendance
but asked Dr. Lana Ciarniello, me, to accept the award on his behalf. A well-deserved award recognizing a career dedicated to
the conservation of the world’s 8 bear species - Congratulations Dr. Herrero!
* The DSA was created in 2011 to acknowledge individuals who have made outstanding and lasting contributions to IBA’s
mission to promote science-based conservation of the world’s 8 bear species. Nominations for the award must be made
by an IBA member and should be presented to IBA Council for consideration. No more than one Distinguished Service
Award will be given per year.

Conference Reports
Session: Human-Bear Interactions and Management I
Co-Chairs: Andrea Morehouse and Rok Černe
This session covered a diversity of topics related to the challenges

that are faced when bears and people share the landscape. The session
began with 2 talks from Scandinavia. Jon Swenson spoke about some
of the challenges faced in Sweden regarding brown bear (Ursus arctos)
population management. He talked about management objectives for the
brown bear population and the whether management decisions resulted
in the brown bear population meeting the defined management objec-
tives. They found that in only one time period from 1943 - 2013 had the
management objective been met. He recommended stronger working
relationships between researchers and management agencies.
The session continued with Anne Hertel’s talk on the relationship be-
tween soft mast production, life history traits, and human-bear conflicts in
Scandinavian brown bears. Anne’s research showed a positive relationship
between the fall weights of female bears and bilberry (Vaccinium myrtil-
lus) production (the main food for bears in south central Sweden). Unlike
research from North America, however, they did not see any changes in
bear movement, activity or home range in relation to berry production.
Additionally, bear use of human settlements did not increase with natural
food shortages suggesting that the drivers of conflict might not be natural
food production.
From Scandinavia, we moved to Cambodia and a presentation by Brian
Crudge about bear hunting. Sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Asiatic
black bears (U. thibetanus) in Southeast Asia are sought after for their
parts, which are used in traditional medicine. Brian conducted interviews
to determine the primary reason for hunting bears (note that hunting is
not legal, but Brian chose to use the word ‘hunting’ as opposed to ‘poach-
ing’ to avoid alienating the people he was interviewing). The 2 primary (top) Jon Swenson speaking about management of
Swedish brown bears. (bottom) Anne Hertel speaking
reasons people hunted bears were to sell them or use them for food.
about Scandinavian brown bears.
Respondents specified gallbladder as the primary body part to be sold.
The session then moved to Europe for the next 3 talks. Patricia Graf
spoke about the food preferences of brown bears at feeding sites in Slovenia. Both maize and carrion are used at feeding
sites and attract different wildlife, also brown bear. Feeding is carried out mainly for population management purposes. It is
often assumed that carrion is more attractive than other food types. Results suggest a slight preference for carrion feeding
sites among all age classes/social groups except for females with cubs.
Moving from Slovenia to Greece, Maria Petridou spoke about some of the challenges associated with using livestock
guardian dogs (LGD). LGDs are a widely used form of livestock protection, but the use of illegal baits is causing high mortal-
ity of these dogs. Consequently the breeders are discouraged to use LGDs. Intentional poisoning related to rivalries with
hunters was the most common reason for the use of baits expressed by shepherds during interviews. To address the issue,
the research team has distributed first-aid leaflets and anti-poison first-aid kits. They are also using poison detection dogs to
help find and remove baits.
The next speaker, Robin Rigg, talked about bear attacks on humans in Slovakia. Through his work, Robin investigated the
circumstances around 56 brown bear attacks from 1999 - 2017. Hunters, mushroom/fruit pickers, and forestry workers were
the groups most frequently involved in bear attacks. They also returned to the attack sites to attempt to quantify habitat
characteristics associated with the attacks.
The session ended with a talk from a study area in Alaska by Wesley Larson. Wesley spoke about the effects of den distur-
bance on polar bears (U. maritimus). The use of aircrafts resulted in the highest potential for den abandonment.
All talks in this session focussed on the challenges associated with bears sharing the landscape with people. This session
highlighted the need for stronger collaboration among researchers and managers. We thank the presenters for an engaging
and dynamic session.

Conference Reports
Session: Human-Bear Interactions and Management II
Co-Chairs: Konstantin Tirronen and Klemen Jerina
During the second part of Human Bear Interactions and Management session, there were 10 presentations (1 invited, 3
regular and 6 speed talks) in total, all connected to diverse challenges rising from human-bear coexistence in different parts
of the world.
The session was opened with the invited talk by Tom Smith. Based on rich personal experience and good practice ex-
ample (North America), he presented the importance of systematic long-term documentation of conflict situations between
human and bear. Databases on conflicts enable an informative insight in the causes of conflicts and an effective bear safety
messaging that in turn lessen the conflicts. The speaker also presented the cons of such databases and showed how we can
avoid them during interpretation.
Two talks tackled the most dramatic form of conflict, direct bear attack on humans ending with injury or death. Giulia
Bombieri et al. have collected data on bear attacks on humans since 1970 in North America, Europe and Russia (in total 759
cases), and analysed the geographical distribution of the attacks, the age, sex and activity of attacked people and the social
status of the attacking bears, and concluded the talk with management recommendations. Ole Gunnar Støen similarly
presented a detailed overview of the topic from Scandinavian data, where 44 attacks occurred after 1977, with 2 human
deaths and 42 injured people; in 42 cases a man was attacked, in 1 case a woman and in 1 case a child. Most of the attacks in
Scandinavia happened during hunting (33 cases), when an injured bear attacked the hunter (26 cases). Importantly, results
showed that attacks by female bears with cubs occurred on 8 occasions.
Attack is an extreme bear reaction to a human. Luc le Grand et al. have studied the behavioral and physiological response
of collared bears during simulated hunting, letting the bear escape after the simulation. They found that bears responded
to hunting with faster running, higher heartbeat and sometimes higher body temperature. This may cause indirect effects
of hunting on demographical parameters, due to higher energy consumption, but likely also increases bear weariness to
people.
Two talks focused on damages to livestock. Rok Černe presented the rich practical experience of damage prevention,
mostly to sheep and goats, from Slovenian Dinaric Mts. He stressed that both effective prevention measures as well as
controlling their correct use, is crucial to obtain good results. In Slovenia, the combination of education and regular control
proved to be the most effective approach as damages from wolf and bear have dropped by one third. Adriane Gastineau et
al. have spatially analysed the hot spots of bear attacks on livestock in Pyrenees. They showed that at a certain combination
of environmental factors, the possibility of attacks increases greatly. Besides understanding the causes of attacks, mapping
the locations of attacks is also important for rationalizing alleviation measures – using the prevention methods in areas
where conflicts are most plausible.
A similar approach was presented by Eva Filipczykova et al., showing the
results of conflict analysis with Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in Napo
province, Ecuador. Based on bear locations and environmental variables,
they have presented a spatially explicit model for bear presence, followed by
highlighting the areas where the conflicts are most likely to occur.
Courtney Hughes and Scott Nielsen have analysed the social aspects of
grizzly bear acceptance in Alberta, Canada. Using social process mapping they
examined the perspectives, values and strategies most proximate to grizzly
bears and their recovery. Their analyses revealed several unique sub- cultural
groups, their values and attitudes toward grizzly bears and conservation.
Michel Proctor presented the results and experience of diverse long-term
activities, connected to conflict mitigation and grizzly bear conservation in
the borderline area between Canada and the US. He showed that human-bear
conflict (HBC) significantly contributed to grizzly bear Threatened status by Eva Filipczykova speaking about
causing population declines, fragmentation, and decreased habitat effec- Andean bears in Ecuador.
tiveness. Implemented measures to reduce HBCs have resulted in reduced
mortality, increased connectivity, and improved habitat effectiveness resulting in increased reproduction and survival and
improved conservation status. Several challenges remain including a plethora of offspring from females living adjacent to
agricultural areas. They also discussed strategies to incorporate a vision for success into conflict reduction programs.
Jennifer Fourtin-Noreus moved the session to the Arctic, which is an area with a long history of local people being fully
dependent on natural resources. At the same time, the area has relatively recently been introduced to recreational activities.
Using questionnaires, Jennifer evaluated the frequency of these activities and discussed their potential effects on the polar
bear (Ursus maritimus).

Conference Reports
The session finished with a presentation by John Hopkins, discussing the basis and methodology of a study in which they
plan to build a prediction model for black bear (U. americanus) fitness in the state of Maine, in the US, using stable isotope
analysis.
Session: Bears and Society

Co-Chairs: Seth Wilson and Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek
This extensive session was co-chaired by Seth Wilson and Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek and had a total of 14 presentations
that covered a diversity of topics in terms of human-bear interactions, current and historic conservation efforts, values, and
general human acceptance of bears as understood at the individual and societal level and through the media.
An invited presentation by John Linnell focused on the current
challenges of human-bear coexistence. Linnell discussed case studies
from France, Romania, Italy, and Brussels to illustrate that conflicts are
not just a matter of material damages but also incorporate conflicts over
power structures, policy directives, and human values. He emphasized
how threats from human-to-human conflicts, contested paradigms,
populist politics, and a “post-fact era” all contribute to more division
among people who live with carnivores. A silver lining from Linnell’s
talk was that carnivores like bears are doing remarkably well in human-
dominated landscapes of Europe.
Lucy Rogers presented her findings next and focused on wildlife val-
ues among bear researchers and managers based on surveys conducted
at the last IBA conference in Quito. Rogers suggested that the diversity in
values and particularly non-dominant narratives that respondents hold,
John Linnell speaking about the current
can be a positive way to relate to the diverse values held among the
challenges of human-bear coexistence.
general public and could help IBA present a more cohesive and inclusive
framework regarding the multiple ways people and different cultures value bears.
Ole-Gunnar Støen explored people’s fear of bears using information meetings and guided bear viewing walks to test
whether people’s fear of bears can be altered. Støen found that people’s fear of bears appears to decrease upon exposure to
bears via guided walks and detailed information about bears from people who have extensive experience with bears.
Seth Wilson described 4 bear reintroductions. Wilson found Trentino (Italy) reintroduction to be the most successful. Key
positive attributes were: diverse stakeholder engagement, collaborative process and information exchange, appropriate
political support, comprehensive management, financial commitments, and public outreach. While France’s effort is showing
positive results from a biological response, social tension and local opposition continue to be a challenge. In Austria, the lack
of local support and suspected poaching resulted in a failed reintroduction. And in Idaho (USA) the lack of political support
led to the plan not being implemented.
Stefanie Franke sought to understand visitor perceptions of brown bears at a wildlife viewing park in Sweden. During the
course of Franke’s study, a park employee was mauled by a captive bear at the facility and subsequently died—this incident
was incorporated into the study and did not appear to change perceptions of bears among visitors. What did appear to influ-
ence visitor perception was the presence of interactive interpretational
activities that included guided tours.
Edgars Bojārs addressed brown bear recovery in Latvia. His main
question, “Is the brown bear wanted in Latvia?” elicited somewhat
ambivalent responses from his survey respondents of the general public
and hunters. He found that Latvian society is generally tolerant of bears
as 42.8% or respondents were neutral and 39.6% held positive attitudes
towards bears. Bojārs suggested that Latvians may need to relearn skills
for living with bears.
Pierre-Yves Quenette presented an overview of brown bear man-
agement in a fragmented administrative landscape of the Pyrenees.
Quenette described the political complexity of the region that en-
compasses portions of France, Spain, and Andorra and explained how
collaboration at both the administrative and field levels has helped
improve management of the bear recovery. Pierre-Yves Quenette speaking about brown bear
Urša Marinko described the evolution of the LIFE DINALP BEAR com- management in the Pyrenees to conference attendees.

Conference Reports
munication plan and explained that an important outcome in addition to a robust external communication plan was also an
internal communication protocol among project partners.
Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek presented how the media portrayed bears in Slovenia during 2002 - 2016. Additionally, she
was interested in whether a robust population size estimate influenced media coverage in Slovenia. Upon the release of the
population size estimate, this topic was covered less and media became focused on human-bear conflicts. Majić found that
medians of favorable reporting about bears were lowest during local election years. This was a result of negative instrumen-
talization of bears during political campaigns.
Jasmin Pašić explained that there is little scientific information about bear population in BIH. His baseline survey found
that hunters hold generally positive perceptions of bears. Both hunters and conservationists expressed similar concerns
about threats facing the current bear population and the need for improved scientific data in the management. Pašić
indicated that it will be vital for hunters and foresters to play an active role in future bear management.
Hüseyin Ambarli presented his findings on teenager acceptance of brown bears. Ambarli contrasted findings from
“no-bear” countries (Latvia and Lithuania) to countries with existing populations (Bulgaria and Turkey). Additionally, Ambarli
explored if acceptance differed across urban and rural respondents. While teenagers were overall positive about bears, nega-
tive opinions were stronger in “bear-countries” and among rural respondents.
Clara Tattoni measured the monetary value of bear appearances on TV from 2011-2017. Tattoni reported 5 million EUROS
in potential advertising value from bears over the time-frame, suggesting that a flagship species like bears may be a way to
attract tourists to places like Trentino.
Irena Kavčič described how the LIFE DINALP BEAR Project has helped spawn an effort to create a value added bear-friendly
label in Slovenia and Croatia. Kavčič described how they have involved different local community groups into bear the
friendly labeling system to boost their sense of co-ownership and generate benefits for the broader community.
Aleksander Trajce used participant observations in an ethnographic study to better understand how rural Albanians think
about brown bears. Trajce found that rural Albanians regard bears as social actors—a “fellow homeowner”. He described that
among farmers it was a matter of honor and integrity to take precautions to avoid losses to bears. This presentation was a
reminder that different cultural perceptions have much to teach those who are responding to the recovery of carnivores or
have forgotten how to live with carnivores.
Session: Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology I

Chair: Miha Krofel
Student Chair: Zoe Makridou
This part of the session consisted of 6 presentations with topics ranging from human effects on bears, bear movement
patterns and daybed selection, interspecific interactions and the use of remote sensing to monitor bear food sources.
Firstly, in his plenary lecture Andres Ordiz (Norwegian University of Life Sciences) provided a comprehensive overview
of the effects that people have on bear behavior, especially in human-dominated landscapes. Andres stressed the general
pattern that bears respond to humans similarly as prey responds to predators. However, bears have evolved as apex preda-
tors and may thus not be that well adapted to evade human predation or handle side-effects of predator pressure. One of
the most evident response of bears living in human-dominated landscapes is change of their
circadian activity patterns towards more nocturnal behavior, which is more pronounced during
the bear hunting season and in areas more accessible to people. Studies from Scandinavia also
demonstrated how bears change their behavior after encounter with humans by running to a
more concealed site and becoming more nocturnal in the days following an encounter. Andres
also noted that while this flexibility in bear behavior increases individual survival, it also comes at
cost. This includes lower efficiency in foraging and may in extreme cases result in an ecological
trap for bears, with potential further consequences at the ecosystem level due to bears’ impor-
tant ecological role.
Kamil Barton (Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences) in his talk on long-
range dispersal and mental maps, amusingly reduced individual bears to mere pixels and used
them to develop Bayesian models of movements of European brown bears (Ursus arctos). Kamil
stressed the need to account for bear’s ability of long-range navigation when building connectiv-
ity models and argued that bears use olfactory cues to build mental maps of their environment,
which help them to make decisions where to go and which areas to avoid.
Russ Van Horn (Institute for Conservation Research of San Diego Zoo Global, USA) moved from
theoretical bears to the real ones in South America, where his team observed movements of
UNKNOWN
Andean bears (Tremarctos ornatus) braving a mountainous terrain. This species in some regions

Conference Reports
appears to be under nutritional stress and their populations are often isolated, so their ability to navigate across rugged
terrain of the Andean landscape could have important implications. Russ and his colleagues recorded bears’ paths from the
start to end point and compared them with random, direct and least-coats paths. In contrast to their predictions, the bears
were not optimizing for the most efficient routes, as their paths were not the shortest or most straight, neither did they
observe that bears would take slope of the terrain into account during their travels.
Dusit Ngoprasert (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand) then took us to Asia, where sun
bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (U. thibetanus) overlap extensively in their range, but their coexistence
and habitat sharing is still poorly understood. His team used camera traps to study distribution and temporal activity pat-
terns in 2 areas in Thailand, which differ in human disturbance. Both species occurred at higher densities in less disturbed
area. Dusit also noted that despite potential interspecific competition, the 2 species occurred in syntopy and with high
temporal overlap in their circadian activity, which peaked at twilight periods.
Michaela Skuban (Carpathian Wildlife Society, Slovakia) brought us back to Europe, where she studied brown bears’
selection of daybed locations, which bears sometimes used repeatedly for up to several months. With her team Michaela
noted that cover is the most important parameter bears take into account when looking for best place to spend the day.
However, not all bear categories behave in the same way, which may be connected with the need of subadults and females
with cubs to avoid encounters with mature males. This was supported with females’ tendency to move closer to human
settlements during the mating season, likely to take advantage of the human shield from potentially infanticidal males.
During the autumn hyperphagia period males also joined females in the use of areas close to people, most likely in search of
anthropogenic food, which often brought them into the corn fields and up to 30 m from nearest houses, raising concern for
public safety.
We finished first part of this session in North America, where Cam McClelland (University of British Columbia, Canada)
shared their novel remote-sensing methods to monitor changes in the vegetation with the help of lapse-time photography,
LANDSAT and daily MODIS imagery. This data will be used in the future to better understand grizzly bear movements in
Alberta in respect to phenology of the main plant food sources.
Session: Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology II

Chair: Mei-Hsiu Hwang
Student chair: Anthony Seveque
Bears are omnivorous, but are bears crucial for berries? This question, asked by Sam Steyaert (Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, Norway), inaugurated the second part of the session. He introduced the audience to the ecological role of brown
bears (Ursus arctos) as seed dispersers of bilberries (Vaccinium myrtillus) in the boreal forests of Scandinavia. Particularly, he
showed that bears can facilitate the sexual reproduction of bilberries through the combination of bedding behaviors (e.g.,
scraping the ground) and defecations located in close proximity to beds (on average, 1 bear scat comprised 54000 viable
bilberry seeds). However, because human encroachments into natural habitats are continuously increasing, this ecological
function could be altered.
This was addressed in the next presentation by Shane Frank (University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway), who investigat-
ed whether human features (e.g., settlements, roads) affected the distance and direction of bilberry seed dispersion by the
very same population of Scandinavian brown bears. Using GPS collar data, he observed that bears were eating and dispers-
ing berries farther away from human features. Additionally, dispersal distances increased with higher human densities. These
combined effects could potentially alter the genetic diversity and spatial abundance of berry species, perfectly illustrating
indirect cascading effects of human perturbations. But while brown bears seem to be avoiding humans in Scandinavia, could
they, on the contrary, be attracted to them during hunting season?
Frank van Manen (U.S. Geological Survey, USA) investigated the spatial and temporal habitat use of grizzly bears in relation
to elk hunting season in Grand Teton National Park. Implementing a robust genetic sampling survey, he found that bears
outside of the hunting zones were in fact not attracted to the zone after the start of the hunting season. More immigration
events happened prior to the hunting season, which could be the demonstration of a learning process, or simply reflect an
increase in bear activity during hyperphagia. Additionally, only a small number of individual bears, usually residents all year
round, were found to specialize their diet around elk remains. Scavenging on elk carrion by grizzly bears may remain an
important driver of hunter-bear conflicts. Similarly, scavenging by bears can also affect other carnivorous species, and has
the potential to modify interspecific interactions.
In California, Maximillian Allen (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA) and his colleagues compared the relative
effects of black bears (U. americanus) and mountain lions (Puma concolor) on resource acquisition by smaller scavengers.
Pumas limited carrion acquisition by birds and mesocarnivores, which in turns facilitated scavenging opportunities for
smaller carnivores through cascading effects. Black bears, on the other hand, were dominant over the entire guild, and

Conference Reports
limited scavenging activity of all species, including mountain lions. Interspecific competition has the potential to shape
entire carnivore communities, and can strongly influence the foraging strategy of subordinate species. Similar responses
can be triggered by intraspecific competition, as subordinate bears need to adjust their behavior to reduce encounters with
dominant individuals.
In the highly anthropogenic alpine landscapes, Marta de Barba (Université Grenoble Alpes, France) investigated the
feeding behavior and relative importance of anthropogenic food source in the diets of a brown bear population. Extracting
information from DNA metabarcoding of scats, she was able to compare diets between individual bears of different age and
sex, as well as considering seasonal and anthropogenic effects. Human features (e.g., roads) influenced the accessibility to
certain food resources, but differences in diet were mainly explained by season and bear category. In spring, the diet parti-
tioning between males, females with cubs and younger bears was the highest, with different proportions of human-related
food sources in their scats. This trophic partitioning likely reflects the avoidance of dominant males by young bears and
females with cubs. In most bear species, aggressive encounters and sexually selected infanticide are common, and evading
dominant conspecifics can make the difference between life and death. One strategy to reduce encounters with competitors
is to communicate remotely, from a safe distance, using for example tree rubbing and scent marking. But could tree rubbing
serve other functions?
Andrea Morehouse (Winisk Research and Consulting, Canada) took a different approach, and investigated whether
tree rubbing could also be sexually selected for mating success. By collecting hairs from rubbing objects and conducting
paternity analysis in a Canadian population of grizzly bears, she showed that, both for males and females, the number of
rubbed trees was positively correlated with the number of mates and offspring. Tree rubbing may improve the reproductive
success of females by increasing chances of finding a mate, and by allowing them to operate a mate selection through scent.
Similarly, acquiring the smell of several males could confuse the paternity, and reduce risks of sexually selected infanticide.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to recognize individual bears by smell in-situ, yet.
And while genetic techniques are on the rise, Melanie Clapham (University of Victoria, Canada) took the opportunity to
introduce the audience to a promising tool, currently being developed: BearID. Using deep learning technology, coupled
with the “Facenet” methodology, this software is able to recognize individual bears with a high degree of accuracy from
camera trap images. Such technology likely will enhance many methodological opportunities for bear research and camera
trapping. However, in order to improve its accuracy, the recognition system needs more training, and more data to train with.
We strongly encourage anyone in possession of bear pictures or videos to visit the BearID website (www.bearresearch.org),
to see how your data could contribute to this project. By helping to develop this tool today, you could very well be helping
yourself tomorrow.
Session (Speed Talks): Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology III

Chair: Anja Molinari-Jobin
On the second day of the IBA conference the speed talk session covered 5 continents and 4 bear species. The diversity
was given not only geographically and species-wise, but also by the variety of topics that included captive and free ranging
bears, ecological, behavioral and physiological issues. Speakers were graduate students, researchers with several years of
experience, and professors:
Nicholas Coops, professor at the University of British Columbia, Canada, focused on the potential of combining freely
available satellite derived input variables into EcoAnthromes (e.g., ecoregions which integrate human disturbance into their
delineation). The derived classification was applied to a very large grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) dataset from Alberta, Canada, to
evaluate how grizzly bears respond to natural and human disturbance. He found that EcoAnthromes were a powerful tool in
helping explain the influences of different levels of anthropogenic activity at different spatial scales. The EcoAnthrome clas-
sification is a valuable tool for understanding the relationships between anthropogenic activities and ecological conditions
experienced by grizzly bears, but also by many other wildlife species!
Two graduate students of Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Japan, studied Asian black bears (U. thibetanus).
Kahoko Tochigi analyzed the influence of mast years on reproductive success by measuring the cementum annulus width.
She hypothesized that (1) annulus width becomes narrower after mast years because female bears successfully raise cubs
in mast years or (2) annulus width becomes higher as certain number of bears may not reproduce. Both annulus width and
variation in annulus width were not influenced by masting.
Akino Inagaki described scavenging of ungulate carcasses in Japan. Japan is unique in that there is no predator of ungu-
lates. Fifty-five sika deer (Cervus nippon) carcasses were monitored with camera traps. Asian black bear and the raccoon dog
(Nyctereutes procyonoides) were the most common scavenger species, the black bear being dominant over all other mam-
mal species. The same pattern was found in Slovenia: Miha Krofel, assistant professor at the University of Ljubljana, studied
interspecific competition of brown bear, wolf (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx). Scavenging bears frequently displaced wolf

Conference Reports
and lynx from their kills. Bear presence was detected at 20% of wolf kills
and 32% of lynx kills, resulting in increased kill rates.
Eva Filipczykova, a PhD student at Central Queensland University,
assessed scent marking in Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in Ecuador.
Camera traps monitored bear behavior at 7 marking sites. Eva pointed
out that activity of Andean bears in cloud forests is variable throughout
the year, which may be related to the timing of their breeding season.
Andean bears perform a number of activities associated with scent
marking, for example, claw marking, rubbing, biting and licking the
marked tree, scent-rubbing, males have erections and urinate, or are
pede-marking. Their activity at marking sites suggests that Andean bears
communicate dominance through scent marking and advertise them-
selves for mate attraction.
Akino Inagaki describing scavenging of Yaduraj Khadpekar, a veterinarian of Wildlife SOS, India, analyzed
ungulate carcasses in Japan. pseudopregnancy of captive sloth bears (Melursus ursinus). Five females
exhibited elevated progesterone levels for periods ranging from 85 – 191
days following estrus. One female dug an earthen den in both study years following the period of high urinary progesterone.
Both hormone levels and behavior indicate the possibility of pseudopregnancy in sloth bears.
The last presentation of the session was given by Jacopo Morelli who graduated from the Veterinary Faculty at the
University of Pisa, Italy. He compared 2 methods to monitor blood pressure in chemically immobilized free ranging brown
bears. Standard oscillometry and Korotkoff’s technique were tested in 25 anesthesized brown bears in Sweden and Croatia.
Oscillometry failed to measure blood pressure in many attempts and several inconsistent values occurred, while Korotkoff’s
technique provided more reliable trends of variations in all bear captures. All bears presented the common findings of
decreasing trend of blood pressure during handling, but some increments occurred during abdominal surgery in Sweden.
Korotkoff’s method resulted in an effective tool for blood pressure monitoring of brown bears.
Session: Bears and Climate Change

Chair: Nuria Selva
Student chair: Stefanie Franke
Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become the iconic symbol of climate change and a melting Arctic, and this session
started with them. Andrew Derocher highlighted that although the effects of climate change on polar bear life history are
well documented, management authorities have not reacted yet to the evident and unavoidable loss of ice cover. With
population declines between 17 and 50% in different areas of the Canadian Arctic, authorities do not consider these to
be significant declines and had no management response (e.g., kept or increased the harvest quota). Andrew questioned
then whether polar bear monitoring, based on mark-recapture (invasive and non-invasive) and aerial surveys, should be
continued. These are highly costly methods in terms of money and time. He suggested that monitoring habitat (sea ice) and
body condition of bears could be a more practical solution. Martyn Obbard showed how carbon dioxide levels have in-
creased since the industrial age and particularly in the last century (from 300 ppm in 1910 to 408 ppm in 2017), which means
that the Arctic sea ice is never going to recover. Martyn reviewed the effects of climate warming on different polar bear
subpopulations in the Canadian Arctic, including abundance, per-
centage of cubs and yearlings, time spent on land, survival rates,
body size and body mass. Individual-level effects (declines in body
condition) were first to be documented, followed by population-
level effects (declines in abundance and survival rates).
The next 2 presentations focused on the effects of climate
change on brown bears. Pablo Lucas modeled the current and fu-
ture distribution of the brown bear in Europe in relation to different
land use and climate change scenarios, together with the distribu-
tion of about 100 bear food items. He presented the preliminary
results of the model, based on the energy provided by the species
in the diet, and called for sharing data on bear presence and diet in
Conference attendees listening to the session Europe. This study is part of BearConnect, a large collaborative proj-
on bears and climate change. ect with the participation of all European brown bear teams. Next,

Conference Reports
Ethan Berman presented snow cover dynamics and how it affects bear
movement. Snow affects bear behavior by mediating human access and
food availability. Ethan created a map of the snow cover temporal and
spatial variation in Alberta in 2000 - 2017 based on remote sensing data.
This product was compared to GPS telemetry data from 66 bear-years
to investigate bear movement during the 2 weeks after den emergence.
Bears avoided locations with more than 50% snow cover and selected
for lower elevations, which would increased the probability to encounter
humans during this period. He recommended managers to consider
snow dynamics for better planning of recreation and extractive activities
and to minimize climate change impacts on bear population recovery.
David Garshelis closed the session with a presentation on the adapta-
tions to climate warming by denning American black bears in northern
Minnesota. By combining camera trapping at den sites and telemetry Ethan Berman presenting on snow cover dynamics
of more than 40 black bears, he evaluated the time between first going and how it affects beear movement.
out of the den and completely leaving the den site. This period varied
from 8 days for solitary males and females to 15 and 20 days for females with yearlings and cubs, respectively. Cameras have
shown what the bears do in this period: they assess their surroundings, lay in the sun to warm up, exercise their muscles, eat
snow and drink water to rehydrate and cubs develop walking and climbing skills, play and learn, while they are still within
the protection of the den site. Black bears also collect bedding material during this time, something they cannot do in winter,
probably to keep dry during rain and snowmelt. Above-ground dens have become more common than excavated ones and
bears emerge earlier from the den since the 1980’s, as spring in the study area comes 2 weeks earlier.
BSG Session: What Would Have Been Without Us?

Dave Garshelis
Co-chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group
At the IBA Quito conference a year ago, the Bear Specialist Group presented a series of papers under the topic: “Is Bear
Conservation Advancing?” Of 15 presentations, only 3 gave an optimistic answer. Maybe our expectations in conservation are
too high. Or maybe it’s because we have a hard time visualizing our progress in the midst of so much negativity. In Ljubljana,
we looked at things another way. The theme “What would have been without us?” is what’s called the counterfactual ap-
proach. It means “counter to the facts” – or what didn’t happen. Imagine if we hadn’t been here working to help bears, what
would have occurred?
Rachel Hoffmann, Director of Conservation Outcomes at the IUCN Species Survival Commission, led off the session with
an engaging invited talk. She gave some examples of conservation actions dealing with other taxa, demonstrating how the
counterfactual approach helps to visualize success, even for species that are still declining (but at a slower rate than they
would have been without the conservation intervention). She also discussed the emerging field of “conservation optimism”,
which recognizes that the motivation to devote oneself to conservation, to recruit new people, and to enthuse donors, are
reinforced by highlighting successes rather than harping on gloom and doom. Rachel stressed the importance of celebrat-
ing, not diminishing successes, so these successes can inspire further actions, and also prompt replication of the successful
model. She also reviewed some of the specific successes of the Bear Specialist Group.
Emre Can, Research Scientist at Oxford University, gave examples of what might now be if not for the IUCN. He stressed
the importance of individual people in conservation success, contrasting talkers versus doers, Eastern versus Western
concepts, and disputed the notion that conservation successes will be reliant on technological breakthroughs. He used the
captivating story of the cave rescue of the youth soccer team in Thailand as an example of how complex issues can be solved
successfully by people working together, focused on a common urgent mission, and providing innovative perspectives from
multiple fields.
The session then moved to more specific case studies, first involving sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) in India. Nishith
Dharaiya, Co-chair of the Sloth Bear Expert Team (ET), discussed the accomplishments of this team, and mused about the lack
of collaboration and idea-sharing among sloth bear studies that would have occurred in the absence of this team structure.
He showed a series of range maps for sloth bears, ever changing yet still very divergent, and how the team is aiming to create
an accurate map that can be used as a baseline for gauging changes in sloth bear distribution. The ET had a meeting this

Conference Reports
year, and is looking forward to a Conservation Action Planning workshop in the near
future. Kartick Satyanarayan, CEO and co-founder of Wildlife SOS, India, showed
how an organization focused on rehabilitating wildlife and stemming the removal
of bears from the wild has expanded into many conservation arenas. Kartick’s
talk was presented by Yaduraj Khadpekar, Senior Veterinary Officer, Wildlife SOS.
Yaduraj discussed how dancing sloth bears were eliminated from India (by 2009),
and projected how many bears would now be taken from the wild had Wildlife SOS
not intervened. There are approx. 300 confiscated sloth bears in sanctuaries, which
are providing opportunities for educational outreach as well as research on captive
bears that is aiding research programs in the wild.
The next 3 talks featured European brown bears (Ursus arctos), in captivity and
in the wild. Lydia Kolter, Co-chair of the Captive Bears Expert Team, presented a
talk for José Kok, who is Zoology Director for Ouwehand Zoo and co-chair of the
EAZA Bear TAG. This presentation focused on the conservation role of captive
D. Garshelis
brown bears across Europe (340 bears in 95 institutions): namely as ambassadors

for wild bears (i.e., the importance of generating positive opinions by the public),
producing educational materials that promote positive coexistence, assisting with
fundraising, and answering research questions that would be unattainable in the
Rachel Hoffmann, from the office of
the IUCN Species Survival Commission,
wild. Annemarie Weegenaar, director of Bears in Mind, based in the Netherlands,
came to the IBA conference to present an continued on this same theme, using the example of bear sanctuaries, such as the
invited paper in the BSG session: “What Bear Forest, a large semi-natural enclosure. She stressed the importance of provid-
would have been without us?” She also ing visitors a positive view of bears: good welfare inspires a connection to the
made presentations at the BSG business animal, and wild-looking captive settings inspire a connection with healthy wild
meeting, and participated in meetings habitats. Imagine the tarnished image of the species had the 552 bears rescued over
with IBA Council. During the fieldtrip day the past 33 years remained in cramped cages or on leashes. Djuro Huber, Co-chair
she joined a group of BSG members (here of the European Brown Bear Expert Team, reviewed the status of the 10 wild bear
Mike Proctor) to hike up Mt. Snežnik, the
populations in Europe, 6 of which are presently increasing, and only 1 of which may
highest mountain in the Dinaric range
of southern Slovenia, and core of brown
be declining. He reviewed the many reasons for this conservation success, including
bear range. reintroductions, multiple international agreements, an explosion of research, and
specific conservation players, including IUCN’s Large Carnivore Initiative of Europe.
What would it look like without this effort? Djuro estimated that 2 populations would have gone extinct, and 3 would be in
serious decline.
The final talk was the only conference presentation on giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Dajun Wang, Co-chair of
the Giant Panda Expert Team, reviewed the epic success story of giant panda conservation, which was initially triggered by
a dramatic decline in pandas during the 1970 - 1980s. Included in these conservation efforts were: confiscation of all guns,
a logging ban, massive reforestation, and establishment of an extensive panda reserve system. Success was manifested by
the downlisting of giant pandas from Endangered to Vulnerable in 2016 on the IUCN Red List. This attracted much media
attention — far more than the downlisting of other iconic species. Dajun emphasized that whereas this success would not
have occurred without the multifaceted conservation program, giant pandas would not have disappeared, even without
this conservation, as they live in remote areas, are not involved in conflicts with people, and had no economic value (food or
fur). An often neglected benefit of giant panda conservation, though, are the many other species that benefited under the
umbrella of the panda, including many ungulates and the Asiatic black bear (U. thibetanus).
This collection of talks emphasized the important point that a world without bear conservation efforts would be a con-
siderably worse place. It is clearly discouraging to compare the present to a pre-human dominated world; instead, consider a
more modern baseline of say 20 years ago, and look at the progress we’ve made.
Session: Spatial Requirement and Demographic Characteristics of Bear Populations I

Chair: Lana Ciarniello
Student co-chair: Andrea Corradini
This session focused on current research on spatial requirement and demographic characteristics of bear populations in
the world. The session opened with Djuro Huber’s Keynote Speech presenting the history of International Bear Association
(IBA) Conferences, from the very first to today’s 26th conference, precisely 50 years later. Through an illustrated presentation,
Djuro showed both the evolution of the conferences and the organization itself. The first ever bear workshop was held in

Conference Reports
1968 in Whitehorse, Yukon, where 49 researchers met to discuss cur-
rent research on black (Ursus americanus), brown (U. arctos), and polar
bears (U. maritimus). However, it is not before 1974 that the conferences
become truly international, with double conferences held both in Mos-
cow and in New York. Over the decades, the IBA has undergone several
changes (name, logo, and species considered to name a few), to become
the organization we know today. The IBA has grown in members and
global coverage, and this is also thanks to the link established between
the IBA and the IUCN Bear Specialist Group (BSG). To date, a total of 31
official conferences have been held between America and Eurasia.
After the Keynote Speech, the session started with Alexandros
Karamanlidis from Greece, presenting the “Large carnivore population
recoveries: understanding the remarkable comeback of brown bears in
Greece”. Through an overview of the different methodologies applied to
study the bear population in Greece, Alexandros has shown the remark-
able effort carried out in the last 20 years and the current challenges to
preserve the species. Through an extensive systematic genetic sampling,
over 450 bears roam the entire country, and that is more than twice those
estimated 15 years ago. However, the inadequacy of the current Natura
2000 network, the increasing damages caused by the species, as well as
the limited connectivity between the south and north portions of the
population, show that there are still ongoing challenges with bears in
Greece.
The next speaker was Santiago Palazón from Spain, who presented
“The encouraging but still uncertain fate of one of the most endangered
brown bear population in Europe: conservation status of the Pyrenean
(top) Trishna Duta presenting on how well brown
brown bear population”. Santiago explained how the Pyrenean bear
bears act as umbrella species for large mammal
population has recovered from the verge of extinction thanks to different connectivity conservation. (bottom) John Boulanger
reintroductions and the joint effort of several researchers and institutions. presenting on using spatial mark-recapture for
Despite past struggles with population persistence, today there are over conservation monitoring of grizzly bears.
40 bears in an area of approx. 5000 km2. Santiago told us of the many
challenges that still threaten the future of the Pyrenean brown bear, such as inbreeding, the presence of 2 distinct sub-
populations, and high sub-adult mortality rates. Claudio Groff from Italy asked if the home range of females has increased,
but Santiago mentioned the strong philopatry for this population.
Remaining in Europe, Trishna Duta presented “Identifying umbrella species for large mammal connectivity conservation in
Europe: how well do brown bears do the job?” Her work focused on functional connectivity and the identification of move-
ment corridors that have the potential of being used by multiple species. Using simulated multiple-paths for 24 species in
Europe, Trishna combined a Europe-wide resistance surface with the current distribution of IUCN-ranked protected areas,
thus identifying the potential corridors used by multiple species. Despite the research being in the experimental phase (only
simulated trajectories were used), it seems very promising to use the bear as an umbrella species. Given the bears’ large
home ranges and generalist nature, it may be used as an umbrella species to help address and identify connectivity for
multiple species.
Moving to Canada, the last speaker of this first part of the session was John Boulanger, presenting “Using spatial mark-
recapture for conservation monitoring of grizzly bear populations in Alberta”. Genetic mark-recapture, despite having been
widely used to estimate population size, has important limitations related to the heterogeneity of detection probability and
the assumption of a closed population. To overcome these constraints, John and colleagues have tested the performance of
Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture (SECR) methods, combined with density surface modelling from 5 Bear Management
Areas (BMAs) in Alberta. After applying the methodology over 3000 sites of 7 km2 each, estimates from SECR methodology
showed a higher level of precision compared to closed population models. Moreover, they found that gender, habitat and
topography effects detections and movements of bears, while BMA-specific factors influenced density. Home-range centres
seemed to be also affected by habitat and risk, following an interesting north-south gradient. It was then asked from the
audience how the centre of activity was defined (for the spatial explication), and John replied that the centre of the home
range was used.

Conference Reports
Session: Spatial Requirement and Demographic Characteristics of Bear Populations II
Chair: Djuro Huber
Student Chair: Andrea Corradini
This second part of the session on spatial requirements and demographic characteristics of bear populations opened
with Brandon Prehn from Alberta, Canada presenting “Characterizing grizzly bear habitat selection using 3D remote sens-
ing”. Brandon and colleagues are currently studying fine-scale patterns in forest structure on bear movement, using high-
resolution data derived from Light Detecting and Ranging (LiDAR). With this information available, they have characterized
the forest in 3 dimensions and tested which forest parameters (forest height and cover) bears prefer. Using bear trajectories
from 2007-2014, and a matched case-control design based on the step selection function, their result suggests a strong
edge selection and their best model include forest height. The study is still preliminary but opens the field for many future
applications.
Next presentation was held by Sandeep Sharma, from India, presenting “Landscape connectivity of Sloth bears in Central
India”. India is a hotspot of biodiversity, however, most of the protected areas are assigned for few, large species that act as
umbrella species. This is the case for the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) that benefits from the establishment of protected areas
for the tiger. In order to study at which extent the meta-population of sloth bear is genetically connected, they have studied
the genotypes of 55 individuals from Central Indian, and used these results to parametrize resistance surfaces and then map
their connectivity. Their results suggest that there are 2 distinct populations, but gene flow still occurs with the forest as
main corridors that connect the 2 populations.
We remained in the Asiatic continent, and this time Lorraine Scotson presented “A shopping list of research priorities for
Southeast Asia’s bears”. The authors aimed at providing a ‘shopping list’ of site-specific research and management priorities
for sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) in Southeast Asia. After an extensive multi-
source bibliographic research, the authors have highlighted current methodologies and gaps in scientific and geographical
knowledge. They found that most of the studies were carried out by either transects or camera traps, narrowing the possibili-
ties of answering important ecological questions that cannot be measured in such a way. Moreover, many countries or areas
have not yet been used as areas of study (such as Borneo, Cambodia, Thailand, and Sumatra) and issues like baseline informa-
tion, conservations status over scales, population dynamics, abundance and monitoring gaps are still deficient.
The same study area but a different working group, represented by Giacomo Cremonesi, presented “Estimating Sun bear
occupancy in two different areas of Myanmar”. Following what was said in the previous presentation, the aims of Giacomo
and colleagues was assessing the occupancy of Sun bear in Myanmar (Southeast Asia) using 2 different models. Combining
camera trapping and remote sensed variables, they performed a model of single-seasons (45 days during the dry season)
using 8 different survey sites. As a result, 65 Sun bear videos were recorded, with a great variability (and confidence interval)
in both detection and occupancy across sites. Their results also showed that detectability was largely influenced by forest
cover, which suggests that detectability should be considered in each area to avoid misleading results on species.
Back in Europe with the presentation of Manuel Díaz on “Patterns of spatial recovery in the Cantabrian brown bear popu-
lation”. The Cantabrian bear population is recovering after years of decline. However, despite an increase in the area covered
by the species, the distribution map has not been updated yet. This lack of information does not make the evaluation of the
Recovering Plan possible, with obvious implications for the conservation of the species. To overcome this lack of knowledge,
they have studied the area occupied by bears in 3 periods: 1982 - 92, 1993 - 02, 2003 - 12, using occupancy information at 4
different scales: administrative (municipality level); atlas (5x5 km2); Local Convex Hull (LoCoH); and Kernel Density Estimation
(KDE). Their results suggest that there is potential for an increase in the coming years, and they discussed the need to update
the Recovery Plans, as it still does not include an area of about 8000 km2.
Mihai Pop from Romania addressed some issues regarding the largest European brown bear population with the presen-
tation “Mapping habitat conservation priorities for brown bears in the Romanian Carpathians”. A broad introduction to the
recent hunting ban in Romania opened the presentation. Major political (and cultural) changes happened in the country in
the last 3 decades, and the large carnivore population was affected in different ways. The trends have fluctuated heavily,
partly due to a lack of science-based data. As a result of many concurrent reasons, from 2016 the Ministry of the Environment
decided to stop hunting of large carnivores completely in Romania, de facto a social revolution for the Romanians. Mihai
and colleagues tried thus to develop a framework for identifying habitat conservation priorities for the brown bears in the
Romanian Carpathians. Using a comprehensive GPS telemetry dataset, they explored sex-specific seasonal home ranges and
population-level habitat selection. To conclude, they proposed science-based actions, local scale involvement, and compre-
hensive sharing of information for the public to promote the conservation of large carnivores in Romania.
The last talk of the morning was by Slaven Reljić from Croatia, who presented “Measures for prevention brown bear
vehicle collisions on Rickard-Zagreb motorway in Croatia as a part of the EU project LIFE DINALP BEAR”. Each year on the
Rupa-Rijeka-Zagreb motorway in Croatia over 50 animals are involved in traffic accidents, of these, on average 3 are bears.

Conference Reports
For this reason, within the LIFE project, several measures have been undertaken to reduce the risk of vehicle accidents while
preserving the natural habitat and connectivity. Slaven explained the actions performed during the project to prevent the
animals from entering the motorway, facilitate the animals that enter the motorway to leave it, and to decrease attractive-
ness (i.e., trash) for bears and other animals to the highway. Several measurements have been taken in this regard and the
results are more than encouraging, as not even a single bear has been killed since the implementation of described actions.
Session: Molecular genetics in bear conservation and management

Co-chairs: Marta De Barba and Tomaž Skrbinšek
Molecular genetic approaches have become an invaluable tool in bear conservation and management. The molecular
toolbox available to researchers has expanded to include new techniques and statistical methods, and the 6 presentations in
this session exemplify how this has enabled addressing a variety of research questions with increased efficiency and analyti-
cal power.
Bears are the most studied land carnivores of the world, yet their evolutionary history and how the environment influ-
ences it are still unresolved matters. Carlos Luna Aranguré opened the session tackling this topic with a presentation titled
“Exploring the role of past environmental change on the diversification patterns of Ursus bears”. Carlos and colleagues built
a genetic and a geographic database from published literature and applied phylogeographic, ecological niche and species
distribution models to explore the influence of the environment over the diversification patterns of the 4 extant species of
the genus Ursus. Their results highlighted the relationship between the patterns of diversification and the climatic niche
divergence for U. arctos and U. thibetanus.
Andrea Borbon followed with her study on the impacts of captivity on the gut microbiota and the metabolic potential
of Andean bears (Tremarctos ornatus), and the possible outcomes for bear’s health. Wild Andean bears’ gut microbiome is
adapted and enriched with genes to degrade complex sugars present in their diet, but Andrea found that captivity reduced
this ability and enriched pathogenic bacteria. Also, wild cubs raised in
captivity developed a gut microbiome with a very low genetic diversity
and lost most of the important bacteria for the metabolism of nutrients.
Andrea explained how these results provide strong evidence for the need
to improve diet schemes under captivity, in particular when re-introduc-
tion to the wild environment is expected.
Alexander Kopatz gave a clear example of the value for combining dif-
ferent molecular marker types, presenting on a study for reconstructing
the pedigree among identified brown bears in Northern Norway through
the combined use of a validated genetic data set of single nucleotide
polymorphism (SNP) and microsatellite (STR) markers. Alex showed how,
by combining data for these 2 marker types, the statistical power for
assigning family relationships increased substantially and likelihood ratios
passed the desired threshold. In addition, his results supported the utiliza-
tion of genetic information as a powerful tool to confirm and complement
field observations, as it may extend family structures by inclusion of more
individuals than known solely from observational data.
Tomaž Skrbinšek presented on a large-scale transboundary DNA
based mark-recapture study, illustrating the gain in efficiency by using
new technologies. Laboratory robotics and high-throughput sequencing
(HTS) were implemented to speed-up the analyses and decrease costs
of large-scale noninvasive genotyping. Increased throughput and lower
costs allowed for analysis in nine months, 4370 samples collected in
collaboration with approx. 2500 volunteers over the entire bear range in
Slovenia and Croatia, providing a population size estimate of 1392 bears in
both countries. In addition to increased efficiency, Tomaž pointed out the
benefit of an approach generating genotypes at the DNA sequence level
(top) Co-chairs of the session Tomaž Skrbinšek (left)
for ensuring data transferability between laboratories and continuously and Marta De Barba (right). Tomaž Skrbinšek also
evolving DNA sequencing technologies. presented in this session. (bottom) Odbayar Tumen-
Odbayar Tumendemberel then took us to southwestern Mongolia, demberel presenting on the population status of
where she assessed the population status of the critically endangered Mongolian Gobi bears.

Conference Reports
Gobi bears (U. arctos) and evaluated the need and/or the effectiveness of conservation measures. To accomplish this,
Odko and co-authors conducted 4 - 6 sampling sessions in 2009, 2013 and 2017 to obtain DNA-mark recapture population
estimates. Total, approximately 2360 hair samples were collected and genotyped using 14 polymorphic microsatellite loci,
providing population size estimates consistently as low as 31 (95% CI, 29-38) and estimates of sex ratio skewed toward males.
Nonetheless, the reported population trend was encouraging, and results highlighted the importance to continue tracking
individual bears, and monitor population size and reproduction over time using the non-invasive genetic method.
Tabitha Graves and her colleagues evaluated how well estimates of trend in effective population size (Ne) track more
intensive estimates of trend in northwestern Montana grizzly bears at 2 spatial scales, mountain brushtail possum, and
brown antechinus. Results suggested that the value of Ne as an indicator of demographic population size (Nc) is limited in
some cases, and that Fis (a measure of non-random mating in the population) may be a good indicator that the population
was sampled at a spatial scale at which genetic structure is not biasing Ne estimates. Tabitha prompted an interesting and
valuable initiative by inviting people to collaborate on a larger study to understand when Ne trend sufficiently tracks trends
in bears. If we can learn when Ne can be used reliably to track trend, says Tabitha, this method would be a relatively inexpen-
sive way to monitor the trend of bear populations.
This session clearly highlighted the wide range of applications of molecular genetics approaches in bear conservation and
management, including evolutionary studies, characterization of the microbiome, pedigree reconstruction, large-scale non-
invasive mark recapture estimation and genetic monitoring. Overall this demonstrates that this is an active field in constant
evolution, opening to new exciting research opportunities!
Monitoring Bears in Southeast Asia: Debrief of a Workshop in Ljubljana

Brian Crudge Dave Garshelis
Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Research Programme Manager, Free the Bears Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 723, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA
Email: research@freethebears.org Email: dave.garshelis@state.mn.us
Southeast Asia contains some of the highest human population densities on the planet, which pose severe constraints
on sun bears (Helartcos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) through habitat loss and hunting. Many bear
populations exist in increasingly fragmented forest habitats surrounded by human-dominated landscapes. Conservation of
bears in Southeast Asia will require action at every level – from site-specific interven-
tions, to national action planning and range-wide strategies. Baseline population
assessments and subsequent monitoring of bear populations is essential for assessing
the impact of threats and to evaluate the success (or failure) of conservation interven-
tions — both necessities for effective adaptive management.
During the 26th International Conference on Bear Research and Management held
in Ljubljana, Slovenia in September 2018, we convened a workshop to discuss the
development of guidelines for monitoring bears in Southeast Asia. The workshop was
attended by 30 participants, most of whom had some experience monitoring bears,
using a variety of techniques; however, many were not aware of the issues specific to
Southeast Asia. This provided a good basis for a lively intellectual exchange of ideas.
The two-hour workshop opened with an overview of the methods typically
applied to survey bears in Southeast Asia, specifically: bear sign transects; camera
trapping; and villager interviews. Sign surveys are a simple and relatively rapid way of
gauging presence of bears, their relative density and use of different habitats. Camera
trapping, now extensively used in Southeast Asia to monitor other species or docu-
ment changes in biodiversity, can yield estimates of bear occupancy and variables
associated with occupancy; if baited camera sites are set specifically for bears,
mark-resight estimates are obtainable by identifying individuals that stand and reveal
Highlighted quote from Gibbs, Droege, distinctive chest markings. Village interviews are particularly useful in gaining infor-
and Eagle (1998. Monitoring populations mation about population trends from the past to present, and what may be driving
of plants and animals. BioScience 48: 935- those trends, as perceived by local people. Also considered were non-invasive hair
940) emphasizing the need for reliable sampling and radio-telemetry studies, which although standard practices in North
population monitoring for conservation.
America and Europe have not been used thus far to monitor bears in Southeast Asia.

Conference Reports
The workshop then discussed each method in more detail, identifying
the data outputs as well as the issues and constraints, such as expertise
and effort required, sources of bias, and ability to distinguish between
sympatric bear species (a particular issue to this region, where the 2
species overlap extensively).
In order to conceptualize the application of the various methods,
the second half of the workshop presented several hypothetical (but
E. Davis, San Diego Zoo Global

realistic) scenarios to the participants, opening a free-flowing dialogue
about which method or suite of methods should be applied in a given
situation. The scenarios varied from how to determine species distribu-
tion and relative abundance for an entire country when there is little
to no baseline data, to designing monitoring protocols for the future
in an area where data already exist but seemingly better methods of
monitoring are now available.
The workshop outcomes will be used to create a decision tree to aid
researchers in determining when they should use a particular method.
One clear outcome of this workshop is that there are no obviously
“best” monitoring procedures. Workshop on Monitoring Bears in Southeast Asia,
The workshop session identified a number a key questions that will held at the 26th IBA conference in Ljubljana. Brian
Crudge introduced the current and potential
be important to address for future monitoring of bears in Southeast
methods, working towards consistently-
Asia. One was how to collect hair samples, which has proven difficult applied protocols across the region.
for sun bears in particular. A suggested approach is to incite rubbing
behavior with some kind of lure. Collection of hair from rub trees has
been used successfully for genetic mark–recapture of temperate bear species (in places where they naturally rub); this would
yield enormously more information about population size and structure than can be gained with the monitoring techniques
currently employed in Southeast Asia. Hair snaring for sun bears has not been effective to date due to the difficulty in
sampling their short sleek fur, and due to their apparent lack of rubbing on trees.
A number of workshop participants questioned the utility of sign transects for monitoring bears going forward, due to
uncertainty with regards to the precise relationship between bear sign density and population size, concerns regarding
inter-observer variability in detection and classification of sign (to species and age), and advances in other techniques such
as camera trapping and genetic sampling. Since bear sign surveys have been the most commonly applied method for
surveying bear in Southeast Asia to date, it was concluded that research was required to elucidate the uncertainties before
promoting or discontinuing use of this technique.
Acknowledgements
We would like to that all participants of the workshop for their insights and contributions. Thanks to Elizabeth Davis, San
Diego Zoo Global, for documenting the workshop discussions. And thanks to Perth Zoo Wildlife Conservation Action, and
International Association for Bear Research & Management Research & Conservation Grant for supporting this initiative.
Student Activities at the Quito Conference

Student Representative: Amy Macleod
Many students attended the IBA Conference in Ljubljana. There were at least 44 students from all over the world that gave
oral or poster presentations at this conference and many more that attended without giving a presentation. For some it was
their first poster or oral presentation at a conference, and for others it was their first at an IBA conference. The conference
organizers awarded all but two of the travel grants to student presenters. As the student representative, I organized the
judging of all the student oral and poster presentations, the student lunch, and the silent auction.
Judges (non-students) evaluated 20 oral and 33 poster presentations. Many of the students gave excellent presentations
but only the highest scoring oral and poster presentation received an award. It was my pleasure to give the Best Student Oral
Presentation award to Brandon Prehn and the Best Student Poster Presentation award to Daniele DeAngelis during the clos-
ing ceremony, both received a certificate and $100 (USD). You can read about the winners below and more about Brandon
Prehn’s research on page 52 of this issue of the IBN, and Daniele DeAngelis’s research on page 54.

Conference Reports
Brandon Prehn: Best Student Oral Presentation Winner
Brandon Prehn was raised in Dallas, Texas, and attended Texas A&M University. His
undergraduate experience was somewhat rough and he took a brief 3 year hiatus to
join the US Army. He served as a light infantryman with the 10th Mountain Division
in Fort Drum, New York. Interestingly enough, Brandon’s first remote sensing job was
doing I.E.D./weapons cache denial using a handheld magnetometer/ground penetrat-
ing radar system in Kandahar, Afghanistan. A bit of a (bad) jokester, he notes that the
job was not quite remote enough, so he went to school and began studying forestry.
After an internship at the Biospheric Sciences Lab at Goddard Space Flight Center, he
began searching for a MSc program involved in remote sensing and biodiversity. His
work with the Grizzly-PAW project involves using LiDAR/ALS to explore the relation-
ship between forest structure and the movements of bears in the Yellowhead area of
Alberta, Canada. His wife, Christina, grew up down the street from him and together
they enjoy traveling and learning about other cultures, as well as summer hiking and
winter snowsports.
Daniele DeAngelis: Best Student Poster Presentation Winner

Daniele obtained a bachelor degree in Ecobiology at Sapienza University of
Rome, where he is currently a PhD student mentored by Dr. Paolo Ciucci and Prof.
Josip Kusak (University of Zagreb). His research interests are focussed on better un-
derstanding the interactions between humans and wildlife in the Anthropocene,
with a focus on large carnivores and their spatial ecology. During his PhD, he is
Slaven Reljić
investigating the ecology and space-use patterns of brown bears in South-Central
Europe, in relation to both ecological and human-related factors. After his PhD
he plans to keep doing research and to get involved in communicating science to
increase the general public’s awareness on conservation issues. He believes the
latter can be as important as obtaining significant p-values!
Thank you to the members for your support of students at the conference and to conference attendees that took time
to talk and network with students at the conference. The student lunch was held at the restaurant at the conference venue.
Each table of 8-10 people included students and one or two IBA Council members (current and former) and the students
were encouraged to ask the council members questions about their careers and experience on council.
The Silent Auction was held during the evening and raised $2,462 EURO for the student activities fund which supports
student activities (e.g., conference student lunch). I am so very thankful to all those that donated items and to those that bid
at the silent auction. The auction is always a treat with many unique items from all over the world to bid on, and this year a
donation of a radio collar by Vectronic aerospace was a great addition.
A new option for the students this conference was the opportunity
to shadow a session chair. Students worked with a session chair to learn
what is required for communication with session presenters, sitting on
stage during the session, and writing up a summary of the session for
this newsletter. Students that took part are listed as Student Co-Chair
in the summaries above. Thank you to Jennapher Teunissen van Manen
(IBA Secretary) for organizing this capacity building opportunity for
students. Feedback from some of the students that shadowed session
chairs was very positive and we plan to provide this opportunity at the
next IBA conference.
I am grateful for all the help from various students during all these
student activities, and I am very thankful to all the judges that evaluated
Student Andrea Corradini (right) shadows Djuro Huber all the student oral and poster presentations. Overall, the students had a
(left) as he chairs the ‘Spatial Requirement and Demo- good time, showcased their research, learned a lot of new information,
graphic Characteristics of Bear Populations’ session of
and met lots of ‘bear’ people from all over the world.
oral presentations.

IBA Membership News
Start of the 30+ Club in Service to Bears
Dave Garshelis
There comes a time in one’s career when the realization hits: you’ve been at it a long time! Unlike many other day jobs,
being a bear biologist is something that people don’t just do, but “live”. There are many facets to this: the work itself is often
fun; the scientific intrigue is stimulating; the management or conservation value feels useful and thus rewarding; bears are
wonderful animals; and, as a bonus, we enjoy the camaraderie of our colleagues. As several of the colleagues in my cohort
are retiring (although many still remaining active in bear research), it struck me that one of the things I valued most over my
long career is them. There is truly something to be said about people you’ve frequently seen at conferences, corresponded
with, authored papers with, and read papers from, watching their ideas germinate, data sets broaden, and impact of their
work heighten. Unlike many other competitive fields, we actually root for each other. Let’s admit it: we are a “club” of sorts.
Before the names and faces of the longtime bear biologists fade away, I thought it would be useful to document, for
posterity, who they are. As a start, we gathered all the people at the Ljubljana conference who had been working on bears
for at least 30 years, and took a photo. We’ll never be able to get a group photo of all the people still living with 30+ years
of experience on bears, but this is a start. The next steps are to: (1) continue to take group photos at each conference or
get-together of those people in the “30+ club”; (2) compile a list of names of all those who reached this milestone (at least 30
years of bear work, not necessarily continuous), even if not available for a group photo; and (3) continuously add people as
they reach this threshold. Any further ideas are welcome.
If you’ve made it into the club, please send me your name and contact details, note your years of service to bears, and
which species you have worked with. We can publish a list periodically in this newsletter.
30+ Club: The inaugural members of the 30+ Club (those who were present in Ljubljana)
front row: Dave Garshelis, Djuro Huber, Jon Swenson, Claudio Groff; back row: Harry Reyn-
olds, John Hechtel, Andy Derocher, Marty Obbard, Frank van Manen, Karen Noyce, Gordon
Stenhouse. (Photo credit: Judy Garshelis)

IBA Grants Program News
Crowdfunding Bear Stories – the Art of Asking Strangers for Help
Angeliki Savvantoglou
PhD student, The University of the West of England
Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Coldharbour Ln, Stoke Gifford, Bristol BS16 1QY
Email: angeliki.savvantoglou@uwe.ac.uk
I will never forget the day my first ever bear-related scientific poster was accepted at the 24th IBA conference in Alaska. I
don’t think anyone on a 2km radius from my house will forget either… I was so happy. I was a few months away from finish-
ing my undergraduate degree, working on my dissertation, and I would get to print and hang that work next to the work of
accomplished bear scientists from all around the world.
For those who are just starting to introduce themselves in their field, this feeling of utter joy and equal terror must be
very familiar. For those who might have been in the core of it all for so long the memory has started to fade, it feels like you
have just inhaled while also breathing out, like your lungs just don’t know what to do with such an incredible stroke of luck. I
will meet my heroes. My work will be seen by other bear scientists.
When the first wave to excitement started to settle, I ran to my computer and started working out the logistics. It took
about 5 minutes to realise that this trip would use up all my savings and most of my salary leading up to it. I’d have to feed
on raisins for the rest of the year. I needed help. I had a meeting with my supervisor and explored every possible means of
support at my university. I looked for travel grants for days, phoned various organisations, but it all came back to this small
but important detail: travel grants are awarded to applicants further along in their career. No one wants to fund an under-
graduate who is not yet committed to a specific career path when there are PhD students and other dedicated scientists
that apply for the same pockets of money. I found this highly logical and hurtful.
I was stubborn and full of optimism with the belief that if something is this important to you, you can make it work. I sat
myself down and thought of the real reasons why it was important to me to attend the IBA conference and how this could
be important for other young people starting their careers in conservation. The main reason I wanted to go was not the pre-
sentations, or the networking opportunities. It was not even the possibility of my work being recognised. I was interested in
the bear biologists and their stories. How did they get where they are now? What were the moments that defined their lives
as bear biologists? The possibility of seeing that passion that fuelled their career made me want to travel to the other side
of the world and surrender myself to the raisin diet. Somehow, automatically, the idea of making a short, interview-based
video telling the stories of bear scientists became the main aim of my trip.
Wait a minute! That is not a scientific reason at all. On what basis can I apply for travel grants when the reason I want to
go is purely passion-driven? It was then when I thought that perhaps I was not the only one interested in bear stories. Even
if no single organisation offered a travel grant tailored to this, perhaps a large number of individuals felt a strong enough
connection to young researchers, bears, conservation and nature, and were willing to help.
Crowdfunding is as simple as that. You put yourself, your ideas and your cause out there and hope it reaches people
who want to support you. Some donate money, others share in social media - everything helps. It is a simple process but it
requires a large amount of planning, honesty in where the funds will end up, bundles of enthusiasm, and the nerves to keep
you sane as you sit there, staring at the countdown bar. My campaign lasted for a month and generated £3041 – about £500
over the amount I was asking for. This meant that I had enough money to cover myself and my dear friend Bert who was
going to be in charge of the filming while I was doing the interviews.
The week of the conference was one of the shortest weeks of my life. The conference was a crazy combination of mak-
ing manic plans of who I should interview, running after attendees and asking them to talk to the camera, filming during
breaks, and at the same time, trying not to miss some outstanding presentations or networking opportunities. In the end,
it all worked out. Conferences are a great opportunity to meet new people in your field, network, initiate collaborations
and catch up with friends. What I did not know then but know now, is that the IBA is an incredibly diverse and loving family.
And what is more special is that, in this often-cold world of science, bear scientists are never scared to show their love and
passion. I enjoyed every second of the interviews. I had fun learning to use complex editing software and putting my clips
together to create an eight-minute video. Admittedly, the latter took a fair amount of time, but it was worth all the effort.
The film is now online and can be found here: https://youtu.be/vdsayl-Qv70.
As a final note, I would like to thank everyone involved. I have always been amazed how much conserva-
tion has to do with people as opposed to animals and ecosystems. This entire crowdfunding campaign
and the resultant film is a great example of how much everyone can do to help. Everyone can play a role in
making a difference, from donating a small amount of money to support a cause we are passionate about, to
actually running a campaign of our own. So thank you, great bear supporters around the world, and thank
you bear biologists who braved the camera and shared your stories and passion with me.

Conservation
Investigating a Population of Brown bear (Ursus arctos) in K2
Valley Karakoram Range of Northern Pakistan
Ejaz ur Rehman1, Muhammad Shakil1, Fath ul Bari1, Tahir Mehmood1, Zubair Shah1, Muhammad Younus2 and
Muhammad Ali Nawaz1,2,3,4
1
Department of Animal Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, 45320, Pakistan
2
Snow Leopard Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan
3
Member: Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team, Bear Specialist Group
4
Co-chair: South Asian Brown Bear Expert Team, Bear Specialist Group
Globally, the brown bear (Ursus arctos) is listed as least concerned. While the subspecies found in Northern Pakistan, the
Himalayan brown bear (U. a. isabellinus), which represents an ancient lineage of the brown bear and is distributed over the
Himalaya region, are declared as critically endangered in a national assessment facilitated by the IUCN Pakistan (Sheikh and
Molur, 2004), yet information on their distribution and status is patchy. Threats to brown bear populations include habitat
loss and fragmentation, and human-induced mortality (i.e., bear baiting, commercial poaching for the sale of bear parts like
pelts and fats, capturing of bear cubs for sale to gypsies ,and competition with livestock over rare alpine pastures; Nawaz et
al 2014; Sheikh and Molur, 2004; Nawaz, 2007).
Our study area includes Basha and Braldu valleys (36.452371ON, 36.024926OE and 35.545308ON, 75.944354OE) in the
Karakorum range of Northern Pakistan. The whole area is the core zone of Central Krakoram National Park (CKNP) and this
terrain is characterized by narrow valleys and steep slopes and is considered one of the most rugged areas on earth. The K2
is the second highest mountain in the world, after Mount Everest, at 8611 m above sea level. It is surrounded by extensive
glacier system (Baltoro being the most prominent), and accessed through a long valley of Braldu, which is known as the
gateway to K2. Our major objectives were to:
• Assess the status and distribution of brown bears using multiple methods;
• Identify major survival threats to the brown bear population in the study area.
Map of Basha and Braldu valleys of CKNP.

Conservation
Human-carnivore interaction surveys
Standardized human-carnivore conflicts surveys have been conducted at the household level with the help of experi-
enced field staff. These surveys were conducted in the Basha valley during May, while in Braldu valley they were conducted
in July. All necessary information like household size, sightings of brown bear, number of livestock owned, livestock killed
in 5 years were collected. Other information like community perception about bears, and attitude towards wildlife was also
noted. In 23 villages, 220 respondents were surveyed.
Camera trapping
Camera trapping was conducted with scent stations in Basha valley during the period of May–July 2017. Thirty ReconyxTM
(HC500 HyperfireTM and PC900 HyperfireTM) cameras were installed in different watersheds of the valley. The cameras were
active for 1347 trap nights. Lures consisted of castor and fish oil. The study area was divided into different blocks of unequal
size demarcated by natural watershed.
(left) Setting up camera traps in the field by Muhammad Shakil. (center) Group photo of team during camera installation: from left to right
Tahir Mehmood, Zubair Shah, Fathul Bari, Ejaz ur Rehman, Muhammad Shakil, Sanaullah, Basharat). (right) Photo of Brown bear captured
at camera station. (left & center photo credit Muhammad Younas)
Sign survey
Site occupancy surveys (MacKenzie and Nichols, 2004) were conducted in May-July 2017, to assess the occupancy of
brown bear in Basha and Braldu valleys of the Shigher district. In both valleys, surveys revealed the presence of variety of
carnivores including snow leopard (Panthera uncia), brown bear, grey wolf (Canis lupus), stone marten (Martes foina), weasel
(Mustela spp.) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes), later confirmed by the results from camera trapping. Brown bear signs were
limited to the Braldu valley (Biafo glacier watershed) while in the Basha valley, only few signs were found that were insuf-
ficient for any statistical analysis.
Status of brown bears by sightings of local people

Locals were interviewed about sightings of bears and other carnivores. Almost all species were sighted at diverse loca-
tions with varying frequencies. Based on public opinion, annual sighting rate was highest for grey wolf (2.8), followed
by snow leopard (0.50). The least sighted species recorded were lynx (Lynx lynx isabellinus) (0.14) and brown bear (0.07)
respectively. Brown bear and lynx were declared absent by 82% and 50% respondents, respectively. Snow leopard and lynx
were considered rare by 88% and 50% of the respondent, respectively. Grey wolf and brown bear were listed rare according
to 21% and 17% of respondents, respectively.
Status of Brown bears by camera traps

Thirty cameras were installed in different watersheds of the valley, and remained active for a total of 1347 trap nights. A
total of 116793 photos were captured. Six carnivores’ species belonging to four families (i.e., Felidae, Ursidae, Canidae, and
Mustelidae) were photographed. A brown bear was photo-captured at a single camera station, with only two photographic
records and the percentage for this species was recorded 0.07%, which was insufficient for further analysis.

Conservation
Human attitudes and perception
There were diverse views about perceived danger from carnivores for livestock. The intensity of danger was categorized
into 5 ranks (1-5); rank 1 was assigned to least dangerous species while rank 5 was allotted for most dangerous species.
About 80% of people had
no idea about the perceived
danger of brown bears, while
the grey wolf was considered
most dangerous by 80%
respondents.
Being the major predator
of livestock, respondents had
extremely negative views of
wolves; 90% had negative
perception about them. Albeit
snow leopard livestock dep-
redation was a problem, still
more than half of the respon-
dents were accepting for it. The
majority of people shared no
view about brown bear and Perception of respondents about carnivores in Basha and Braldu valleys of CKNP.
lynx.
Conclusion and recommendations

Camera trapping confirmed the presence of brown bears, which was further concluded from sighting reports and the
negative perception towards the species. Further extensive study should be conducted in multiple seasons to determine the
status of the brown bear and there should be an effective plan to control grazing and competition between livestock and
brown bears.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely thankful to the International Bear Association for providing funds, which made all this study possible.
We owe a debt to Snow Leopard Foundation and Norwegian University of Life Sciences who provided trail cameras. We are
grateful to the Parks and Wildlife Department, Gilgit Baltistan and its staff for their support during this study.
Literature Cited
MacKenzie, D. I. and J. D. Nichols. 2004. Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance estimation. Animal Biodiversity and
Conservation. 27(1): 461-467.
Nawaz, M. A. 2007. Status of the brown bear in Pakistan. Ursus, 89-100.
Roberts, T.J. 1997. Mammals of Pakistan. Revised Edition. Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan. University of Ne-
braska–Lincoln., pp.71-78.
Sheikh, K., Molur, S. 2004. (Eds.) Status and red list of Pakistan’s mammals, Based on the Conservation Assessment and
Management Plan. IUCN Pakistan.

Conservation
Rehabilitation of the Andean Bear in Venezuela and the Strategic
Alliances with Rural Communities in the Release Process
Felipe Pereira Palacios
Director of Biocontacto
Mérida, Venezuela.
Phone: +58 416 5029117
Email: felipeapereirap@gmail.com
The efforts of the Biocontacto foundation for the conservation of the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in Venezuela
began in 2004 with the ex-situ work carried out in the Chorros de Milla Zoo in the city of Mérida.
Casuistry of Appearance
The casuistry of appearances of The casuistry of bear apperances in the Merida mountain range from 2004 -2016.
bears between 2004 and 2015 in the Year of Sex Location Report Type Age of the Current
Mérida mountain range, whether due to Appearance Specimen Location
confiscations or conflict situations, was 2004 0.1.0 Barinas Confiscation Juvenile DECEASED
almost 1 bear per year. Two of these were
rehabilitated and released into the wild, 6 2006 1.1.0 Táchira Confiscation Juvenile ZOO
were kept in zoos, and 1 died hours after 2007 1.0.0 Mérida Conflict Adult RELEASED
being confiscated. 2013 0.1.0 Mérida Confiscation Cub ZOO
2014 0.1.0 Mérida Confiscation Juvenile ZOO
Release and Monitoring 2015 1.0.0 Lara Conflict Adult ZOO
The sightings of bears and traces
of activity were distributed across the 2016 0.1.0 Mérida Confiscation Juvenile RELEASED
year, during 2 significant periods and in Source: Felipe Pereira 2018
Source: Image SENTINEL S2A_T19PBK_N02_01_01_2017. Radio data field monitoring 2017-2018. DATUM: SIRGAS_REGVEN.
Proyeccion Universal Transversa de Mercator. UTM-WGS84. Authors: Felipe Pereira, Dulce Benavides y José Rivas
Map of place of release and mobility monitoring.

Conservation
(left) Air transfer. (center & right) “Patty” at the release location. Photo credits: Gabriel Lacruz.
2 defined altitudinal levels of the Merida mountain range in the study area Páramo Los Conejos. They are defined by the
months of March and August in the transition between the cloud forest and the páramo (2200 m - 3500 m) coinciding with
the flowering of the “Piñuela” (Puya sp.). Also, during the months of September to November they show high activity, with
the most recent sightings of juveniles, adult males and females with offspring, occurring in the deciduous forest (1500 m
-1800 m) coinciding with the flowering of the “Cinaro” (Psidium caudatum).
There are 2 release and monitoring experiences documented in the Páramo de los Conejos. The first one in 2008 was an
adult male called “Cinaro”, which was translocated because of human-bear conflict and was monitored with no tracking
technology but the use of a tagging technique and community support. Using these methods, it was possible to verify that
this individual, who at the time was an old animal, perhaps more than 15 years old, stayed within an area of less than 10 km2
in a period of 6 months.
The second release and monitoring experience used radio-collar to track a female named Patty over a one year period in
the same study area beginning in March 2017. We determined that the displacement area of of the specimen was within the
16 km2 that Goldstein and Castellanos (2015) suggests, however, depending on the food disposition through the different
seasons of the year this displacement can increase considerably.
Community Work
Community work is fundamental to the success of conserva-
tion projects for any species. The bear does not escape this reality
and in the case of released bears, the support of the community
for the work of monitoring and safeguarding them was crucial.
Currently, the communities of the páramo go through difficulties
that can vary from the theft of cattle or their predation by feral
dogs, and sometimes it is the bear to whom these losses are
attributed. It is necessary to continue to advise communities, for
Gabriel Lacruz
the reproductive control of pets, the sanitary control of livestock
that are in direct contact with bears, and the control of feral dogs
using techniques that do not affect other wildlife such as the
poisoning of the carcasses.
Felipe Pereira, Elvis Albornoz, Pedro Gavidia, César López and
children from the community of “Las Gonzalez”
Discussion and Conclusions
• Livestock represents the main source of livelihood in
the area, therefore strategic alliances with the community is an important point to be addressed. (Sanitary control,
control of predation by introduced species and cattle rustling).
• The mechanisms of reproductive control of pets, eradication of introduced species and feral dogs that attack live-
stock in the area, is an important consideration for the survival of the species.
• There is a misconception about the behavior of the bear as a potential predator, and a lack of real knowledge about
the species, which requires modifying its conception as a dangerous animal.
• The different sightings throughout the study area together with the seasonal sightings, according to the availability

Conservation
of food, suggest that the movement of males and females may be increasing.
• The contact of the bear within conflict areas (livestock grazing activities), increases the risk and predisposition to
infectious diseases derived from poor sanitary control of the herd.
• The training of members of the community and their active participation in conservation programs, provide an
implicit gain in the conservation of the bear, where both parties will benefit in dispute litigation.
There are 84 communities between the Sierra Nevada and

Sierra La Culata (Merida Mountain Range) in which it is estimated
that there is greater pressure from anthropogenic activities on the
ecosystem. This will increase progressively over time. The accu-
mulated experience to date by the NGO Biocontacto in Venezuela,
will allow us to create the basis to establish legal frameworks and
protocols for the capture, management, rehabilitation and libera-
tion of the Andean Bear, in order to diminish and effectively solve
human-bear conflicts in the state of Merida, Venezuela.
Gabriel Lacruz
The scope of this project is to replicate the activities in the
communities mentioned, in order to establish a conservation plan
for the Andean Bear for the state of Merida, while considering the
influence of population centers in the ecosystems they occupy.
This project can be extrapolated to all these communities. Felipe Pereira, Sergio Santiago and Dario Santiago;
in post – release monitoring activities
Literature Cited
Beecham J, (2006). Orphan bear cubs. Rehabilitation and release guidelines. Funded by The World Society for the Protec-
tion of Animals WSPA.
Goldstein, I., S. Paisley, R. Wallace, J. Jorgenson, F. Cuesta and A. Castellano. 2006. Andean bear-livestock conflicts: a
review. Ursus 17(1):8-15.
Goldstein, I., X. Velez-Liendo, S. Paisley and D. Garshelis (IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group).2008. Tremarctos ornatus.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Accessed 1 October 2017 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.
T22066A9355162.en)
Grupo Ad Hoc de Especialistas en Oso Frontino Venezuela (GEOF-Venezuela). 1994. Plan de Acción para la Conservación
del Oso Andino (Tremarctos ornatus) en Venezuela.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2008. Tremarctos ornatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Spe-
cies. Version 2017-2. Accessed 27 September 2017 (http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=22066).
IUCN/SSC (2013). Directrices para la reintroducción y otras translocaciones para fines de conservación. Versión 1.0. Gland,
Suiza: UICN Species Survival Commission, viiii +57pp.
Lamas M. and F. Pereira. 2008. Captura, cuarentena y liberacion del oso andino. (Tremarctos ornatus) II Simposio
Internacional del Oso Andino, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.
Márquez, R. and I. Goldstein. 2014. Guía para el diagnóstico del paisaje de conflicto oso-gente. Conservation Society.
Colombia.
Rodríguez, J. P. and F. Rojas-Suárez. Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. 3rd edition. PROVITA.

Conservation
Sun Bear Conservation Action Plan Implementation Update
Brian Crudge Matt Hunt
Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-Chair, Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist
Research Programme Manager, Free the Bears Group
PO Box 723, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Chief Executive, Free the Bears
Email: research@freethebears.org Email: matt@freethebears.org
Caroline Lees Dave Garshelis

Program Officer, IUCN SSC CPSG Co-Chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Co-convenor, CPSG Australasia Branch, IUCN SSC Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Conservation Planning Specialist Group Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA
Email: caroline@cbsgaustralasia.org Email: dave.garshelis@state.mn.us
In September 2017 a hundred stakeholders gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for the 1st International Symposium on
Sun Bear Conservation & Management. The symposium was immediately followed by a conservation planning workshop
facilitated by the IUCN/SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group (CPSG) (Crudge 2017, Garshelis and Steinmetz 2017).
Throughout 2018 a small team of editors combined the outputs of the symposium, planning workshop and reviewer com-
ments to create the first rangewide conservation action plan for the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus), which includes both
in-situ and ex-situ populations, and links between them (Crudge et al. 2018).
The plan describes 20 objectives and 60 priority actions to be implemented over the next 10 years in order to work
towards the 25-year vision and goals for sun bear conservation.
Vision
Sun bears thrive as a functional component of all natural ecosystems in which they occur in each of the eleven range
countries. Human societies coexist with wild sun bears throughout the range with political and cultural appreciation of their
intrinsic value as living beings. Wild sun bear populations are no longer threatened. Captive sun bears are maintained under
high welfare standards and contribute to conservation through advocacy, education, research, and where appropriate,
release back to the wild. Conservation of sun bears aids in the conservation of other species and ecosystems in Southeast
Asia.
Goals
1. Eliminate illegal exploitation of sun bears.
2. Protect and restore sun bear habitats and populations across the species’ natural range.
3. Devise and employ methods to reliably monitor trends in sun bear populations.
4. Maximise the contribution of ex-situ sun bear populations to conservation.
5. Raise the profile and awareness of sun bears and their conservation needs.
The implementation of actions in this plan will be monitored

and coordinated by an Implementation Task Force comprised
of Focal Point persons for each range state and each of the 5
goals. The Focal Points will serve as contacts for anyone con-
ducting or wishing to conduct recommended actions within
range states or working group themes. The Focal Points will
report annually to the Action Plan Implementation Coordinator
B. Crudge/Free the Bears
for the duration of the action plan (2019–2028). This process

is aimed at ensuring communication and coordination to
efficiently use resources and maximise outputs.
The Implementation Coordinator will be recruited from
within the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group’s Sun Bear Expert
Team, which has a mandate to coordinate global sun bear
conservation. The coordinator will serve a term coinciding
with that of the Specialist Group membership and will report
annually to the Bear Specialist Group Co-chair(s). An imple- Malayan sun bear in a semi-natural enclosure.

Conservation
mentation progress report will be submitted
annually by the Implementation Coordinator
for publication in the winter issue of Interna-
tional Bear News. The role of Implementation
Coordinator for the first term (until 2020) is
being filled by Brian Crudge (sunbearaction-
plan@gmail.com), reporting to BSG Co-chairs,
Dave Garshelis and Rob Steinmetz.
The various actions in the plan relate to
both wild and captive sun bears and will be
implemented by a wide range of people and
organisations, including students, university
departments and researchers, government
departments, and non-governmental organ-
isations. The Implementation Task Force will
act as a central hub for this diverse array of
activities, keeping track of current and past
projects conducted under the umbrella of
the action plan.
People and organisations carrying out
projects and actions are encouraged to
notify and communicate their progress to
the Implementation Task Force. The Sun Bear
Expert Team has representatives in most sun
bear range countries, and these representa-
tives along with other Focal Points will be
responsible for monitoring and maintaining
communication with projects occurring in
their respective countries.
At the time of writing, the action plan
document is in the final stages of produc-
tion. Once complete it will be available to
download from the Free the Bears, BSG, and
CPSG websites. The IUCN/SSC is committed
to developing Conservation Action Plans for
all 23,000 Threatened species on the Red List.
In partnership with the IUCN/SSC, National
Geographic Society recently launched a new
Structure of the sun bear action plan implementation task force for 2018–2020 program to provide funding to halt further
(reproduced from Crudge et al. 2018). biodiversity decline by implementing species
conservation plans for species and groups of
species (see: www.nationalgeographic.org/grants/grant-opportunities/species-recovery/ ). One such grant was awarded in
2018 for research into motivations for hunting sun bears, one of the priority actions in the plan. There are many other priori-
ties identified for sun bear conservation and so it is our hope that this Action Plan will serve as a catalyst for further interest
in sun bear conservation and will aid all stakeholders in ensuring that their work contributes to a truly global effort aimed at
reversing the decline of the world’s smallest bear species.
Literature Cited
Crudge, B. 2017. Shining a light on sun bears. International Bear News 26(3): 34–35.
Garshelis, D., and R. Steinmetz. 2017. The world’s least known bear species gets its day in the
sun. International Bear News 26(3): 5-6.
Crudge, B., C. Lees, M. Hunt, R. Steinmetz, G. Fredriksson, and D. Garshelis. 2018 (in prep).
Status review and rangewide conservation action plan for sun bears, 2019–2028. IUCN/
SSC Bear Specialist Group, Free the Bears, TRAFFIC.

Conservation
If You Build It They Will Come: Black Bear Dens on Vancouver Island
Helen Davis, MSc, RPBio
Artemis Wildlife Consultants
1-1096 Stoba Lane, Victoria, BC, Canada V8X 2W5
Email: hdavis@artemiswildlife.com
A project aimed at increasing the supply of black bear (Ursus

americanus) dens on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada us-
ing a new and innovative approach has been underway for the last
5 years. The project is attempting to create black bear dens using
existing forest structures (e.g., hollow trees and stumps) and artifi-
cial structures in areas where past forest harvesting has reduced the
number of large trees needed by bears for denning.
Black bears in coastal BC typically only use cavities in and under
large trees because these are the only spots that keep them warm
and dry during the cool and wet winter weather. Black bears use
these dens for 3-6 months during which time females give birth to
cubs. Generations of bears often re-use the same den.
The team, led by Helen Davis of Artemis Wildlife Consultants,
worked to create potential bear dens in large hollow cedar trees by
cutting a bear-sized entrance into the base of the tree. They also
turned 4 large hollow stumps into potential dens by covering the
top and creating an entry for bears. In addition to enhancing natural
structures, the team installed 13 artificial black bear dens made
of plastic that simulate naturally-occurring den structures. Davis
included placing a bit of vegetation and bear hair in all the cavities
to make it seem “more like home” to bears when they investigated
the structures.
Davis has been monitoring the “new” dens with motion-sensitive
video cameras and was excited to document the first use of one of
the structures by a bear over this past winter (2017-18). Davis and
her technician created the den in 2015 by finding a large, hollow
western red cedar stump, cutting an entrance into the cavity and (top) Bear at entrance of den created in cedar stump.
capping the stump with plywood. The bear that used the den can (bottom) Bedding inside den after use by bear.
Photo credits: Helen Davis.
be seen moving and digging inside the den and pulling piles of
vegetation into the den to create its “nest” (see video: https://youtu.be/O_dxaZYBC6Q). It is unknown what sex the bear is,
but it first appeared at the den at the end of November 2017.
Black bear dens are not protected by regulation on Vancouver Island or the south coast of BC, unlike other areas of BC
(i.e., Haida Gwaii, Great Bear Rainforest). However, forest companies may take the initiative to conserve dens that are found
prior to logging.
The structures were installed and created on land owned by TimberWest Forest Corp and on Crown land managed by the
Queesto Community Forest and BC Timber Sales. The project is currently funded by TimberWest Forest Corp and BC Timber
Sales. Natural and artificial structures will continue to be monitored for use by Davis in the coming years.

Illegal Trade
Towards Establishing Efficient Protection Against Poaching
for Sun Bears
Roshan Guharajan Peter M. Lagan
Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia
Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin,
Germany Siew Te Wong
Email: roshang88@gmail.com Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Bornean Sun Bear Conservation Centre, Sabah, Malaysia
Azrie Petrus
Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, David L. Garshelis
Germany Co-chair, IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota, USA
Andreas Wilting
Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Gopalasamy Reuben Clements
Germany Sunway University, Selangor, Malaysia
Rimba, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Robert C. Ong Kim Leong
Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia Wai-Ming Wong
Member: Sun Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Indra Purwandita Herry Sunjoto Panthera, New York, USA
Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia
Johnny Kissing
Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia
Sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) in Borneo are threatened by habitat loss and degradation as well as illegal hunting. Apart
from the large scale forest conversion to agricultural use (e.g., oil palm) logging is one of the primary drivers of habitat loss
and degradation. Logging also creates roads, which increases access to poachers. However, previous studies have shown
that sun bears are indeed adaptable and can survive in some types of logged and degraded forests (Wong et al. 2002, 2004;
Wong and Linkie 2013; Yue et al. 2015; Guharajan et al. 2017; Wearn et al. 2017) . Given that so much of sun bear habitat on
Borneo is logged to various degrees, the conservation of this species is largely dependent on controlling poaching. A recent
comprehensive study of Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), which share these habitats with sun bears, showed that
poaching, not habitat per se, is the prime driver of population decline (Voigt et al. 2018). The aim of our work is to examine
the prevalence of poaching and find ways to alleviate it.
We are working within Deramakot Forest Reserve (Deramakot; 117.42924, 5.36803) and Tangkulap Forest Complex (Tang-
kulap; 117.23178, 5.45651) in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. These areas are within a large region of relatively contiguous forest
in central Borneo. The Sabah Forestry Department is responsible for these forests, and invests large amounts of resources
into their management. As such, both Deramakot and Tangkulap are currently certified as well-managed under the Forest
Stewardship Council scheme. Tangkulap was selectively logged up untill 2001, and is now a protected area comprised of 3
different forest reserves: Tangkulap, Sungai Talibu, and Timbah. Deramakot is a production forest where reduced-impact-
logging guidelines are practised. Sun bears have been documented in both these forests from previous camera trapping
surveys (Sollmann et al. 2017), alongside a Sunda pangolins (Manis javanica), banteng (Bos javanicus), and Sunda clouded
leopards (Neofelis diardi).
The management practices used in these forests have not shown any obvious adverse effects on wildlife. Poaching,
though, remains a threat to sun bears in this landscape, as evidenced by the discovery of a poaching camp with sun bear
carcasses in 2015. This highlights the need for a comprehensive anti-poaching plan. The first step is to deploy people on the
ground and collect baseline information on spatial and temporal patterns of poaching.
The Sabah Forestry Department conducts vehicle patrols on roads within Deramakot and Tangkulap. However, it is likely
that poachers enter on foot, making their detection difficult. Given this, the wildlife monitoring team from the Leibniz Insti-
tute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and the Sabah Forestry Department began carrying out foot patrols in both Deramakot
and Tangkulap beginning in January 2017. We focused patrols along ridgelines, riverbeds, and unused logging roads.
From January 2017 to July 2018, funded in part by an IBA grant, we detected 621 incidents of poaching activity (0.81
poaching sign/km). Signs of poaching included rubbish, cut trails, spent cartridges, snares, and camps. The low number

Illegal Trade
Deramakot Forest Reserve and Tangkulap Forest Complex and their location on the island of Borneo (inset).
of snares encountered (n=6) indicate this method is not widely used by poachers here, as opposed to elsewhere across
Southeast Asia. The camps we identified generally seem to be used by 3-6 people and were either longer term base camps
(with repeated use) or short term resting areas (typically single use). We distinguished these different camps based on the
amount of rubbish left behind.
Our patrols revealed 2 types of poachers: short-term poachers and people illegally cutting agarwood, which is locally
known as gaharu. Gaharu is a resinous, fragrant wood used to make incense, perfumes and small carvings, created when a
mould infests trees of the genus Aquilaria. Short-term poachers stayed close to roads and left the forest after one night (evi-
denced by their tracks), usually seeking ungulates for either personal consumption or commercial purposes. On the other
hand, gaharu poachers travelled in groups and spent lengthy periods in the forest, searching for gaharu and taking any
commercially valuable wildlife (including sun bears). Gaharu poachers travelled over long distances (because the targeted
trees were widely dispersed) and were especially difficult to track.
(left) Patrol team consisting of Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and Sabah Forestry Department personnel.
(center) A poaching camp and (right) rubbish left behind by poachers.

Illegal Trade
Although we have not managed to cover the entire landscape, we believe we have learned enough to demonstrate the
importance of these foot patrols in detecting and understanding poaching activity. We are now setting up covert camera
traps to document individual poachers in known entry points identified from our patrols. We have started to receive photos
of poachers, allowing us to begin building a database of offenders and document their activity patterns.
In parallel to patrolling, we are also conducting camera trapping surveys of wildlife, to understand gradients in species
distribution related to habitat quality and poaching. In the near future, this will enable us to examine the effects of poaching
pressure on sun bear distribution.
Establishing effective site protection for sun bears and other species that share its habitat is time consuming and chal-
lenging, due to funding limitations, manpower shortages, difficult terrain, and the knowledge and skills of the poachers in
evading detection.
A pragmatic approach to conservation in this region dictates that we view logged forests as viable sun bear habitat, but
only if poaching can be controlled. If we are to counter poaching in such forests, we need to urgently understand how and
where poachers operate (Lam 2017), and what drives them.
Acknowledgements
We thank the IBA and the donor of the Tropical Bear Research and Conservation Grant 2017 that has allowed us to
conduct this project.
Literature Cited
Guharajan, R., N.K. Abram, M.A. Magguna, B. Goossens, S.T. Wong, S.K.S.S. Nathan, and D. Garshelis. 2017. Does the vulner-
able sun bear Helarctos malayanus damage crops and threaten people in oil palm plantations? Oryx: 1–9.
Lam, W.Y., 2017. Where and when are poachers most active in Kenyir’s forests? Using crime science and wildlife research
techniques to detect spatiotemporal patterns in poaching. MSc thesis. Universiti Malaysia Terengganu.
Sollmann, R., A. Mohamed, J. Niedballa, J. Bender, L. Ambu, P. Lagan, S. Mannan, R.C. Ong, A. Langner, B. Gardner, and A.
Wilting. 2017. Quantifying mammal biodiversity co-benefits in certified tropical forests. Diversity and Distributions
23: 317–328.
Voigt, M., S.A. Wich, M. Ancrenaz, E. Meijaard, N. Abram, G.L. Banes, G. Campbell-Smith, L.J. d’Arcy, R.A. Delgado, A.
Erman, D. Gaveau, B. Goossens, S. Heinicke, M. Houghton, S.J. Husson, A. Leiman, K.L. Sanchez, N. Makinuddin, A.J.
Marshall, A. Meididit, J. Miettinen, R. Mundry, Musnanda, Nardiyono, A. Nurcahyo, K. Odom, A. Panda, D. Prasetyo,
A. Priadjati, Purnomo, A. Rafiastanto, A.E. Russon, T. Santika, J. Sihite, S. Spehar, M. Struebig, E. Sulbaran-Romero, A.
Tjiu, J. Wells, K.A. Wilson, and H.S. Kühl. 2018. Global demand for natural resources eliminated more than 100,000
Bornean orangutans. Current Biology 28: 761–769.e5.
Wearn, O.R., J.M. Rowcliffe, C. Carbone, M. Pfeifer, H. Bernard, and R.M. Ewers. 2017. Mammalian species abundance across
a gradient of tropical land-use intensity: a hierarchical multi-species modelling approach. Biological Conservation
212: 162–171.
Wong, S.T., C.W. Servheen, and L. Ambu. 2004. Home range, movement and activity patterns, and bedding sites of
Malayan sun bears Helarctos malayanus in the rainforest of Borneo. Biological Conservation 119: 169–181.
Wong, S.T., C.W. Servheen, and L. Ambu. 2002. Food habits of Malayan sun bears in lowland tropical forests of Borneo.
Ursus 13: 127–136.
Wong, W.-M. and M. Linkie. 2013. Managing sun bears in a changing tropical landscape. Diversity and Distributions 19:
700–709.
Yue, S., J.F. Brodie, E.F. Zipkin, and H. Bernard. 2015. Oil palm plantations fail to support mammal diversity. Ecological
Applications 25: 2285–2292.

Human-Bear Conflicts
Brown Bear Behavior in the Human-Modified Landscapes of
Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain)
Vincenzo Penteriani
IBA member, Ursus Associate Editor
Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (IPE), CSIC, Spain
Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo University, Spain
Email: penteriani@ipe.csic.es; webpage: www.cantabrianbrownbear.org
Alejandra Zarzo-Arias Carlos Romo

Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo C/Monroy 35-41, 2, 2ºC Salamanca, 37002 Salamanca, Spain
University, Spain
Pablo Vázquez García
Andrés Ordiz Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology,
Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource University of Valencia, Spain
Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås,
Norway Giulia Bombieri
Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo
María del Mar Delgado University, Spain
University, Spain Chiara Bettega
Juan Díaz García University, Spain
Asturian Bear Team, Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
Luca Russo
David Cañedo Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo
Asturian Bear Team, Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain University, Spain
Manuel A. González Pedro Cabral

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Department of Biology, School of Sciences and Technology,
Alberta, Canada University of Évora, Portugal
The current large carnivore recolonization of parts of their historical range in Europe (Chapron et al. 2014) is bringing wild
animal populations closer to humans, in areas where habitats are fragmented and encroached on by human settlements,
roads and a variety of human activities. This close coexistence of large carnivores and humans has the potential to produce
human-driven disturbances that can affect species behavior (Gaynor et al. 2018).
The current expansion of brown bears Ursus arctos in human-modified landscapes demands an improvement of our
knowledge on how this species manages to coexist with humans, and what potential effects human presence and activities
may have on bear behavior. Sharing the landscape with humans may be costly, and thus bear conservation and manage-
ment strategies should take into account potential behavioral alterations related to living in human-modified landscapes.
Brown bears in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain) represent an example of an endangered, small and isolated bear
population in human-modified landscapes, where human activities and presence might cause stress to bears and, conse-
quently, alter their behavior. Additionally, brown bear viewing is nowadays a common practice in the Cantabrian Mountains
(Ruiz-Villar et al. submitted; Penteriani et al. 2017).
Thanks to the IBA grant RG_16_2016, we studied brown bear behavior by analyzing 3132 videos (78.5 hours of observed
behaviors recorded by the digiscoping technique; 167 adult bears, 42 subadults and 112 females with cubs) with the
free software BORIS (http://www.boris.unito.it/pages/download.html) during a 10-year period (2008-2017). We explored
potential factors that may cause the appearance of vigilance/alert behaviors, as a proxy of human disturbance, as well as
the duration of such behaviors (Zarzo-Arias et al., submitted). We considered that bears were exhibiting vigilance behavior
when they were: (1) sniffing the air; (2) exploring their surroundings by intensively looking around; and (3) focusing attention
in a given direction. Then, we analyzed the time bears dedicated to different behaviors, namely feeding, resting, mating,
and nursing cubs, in relation to the human and natural characteristics of the landscape they inhabit. Specific characteristics
of individuals, such as fur marks, color and body morphology, allowed identification of some individuals over the years
(Higashide et al. 2012). Beyond the fact that it was not possible to observe bears during the night, we consider that diurnal

The locations (purple dots) of the 3132 videos (78.5 hours in total) of different brown bear behaviors (167 adults, 42 subadults and 112
females with cubs), within the population distribution (green shape) in the Cantabrian Mountains (north-western Spain).
observations are best to detect bear reactions to humans because that is the time when humans are active, and there is
greater potential for bear and human overlap. Each video was also classified seasonally, on the basis of the main bear cycle
in the Cantabrian Mountains, i.e., hibernation (January to mid-April), mating (mid-April to June) and hyperphagia (July to
December). In the Cantabrian Mountains, not all bears hibernate every year and hibernation may be relatively short, and
thus several observations were also recorded in winter. The location of each video-recorded bear was also used to analyze
the characteristics of the human and natural environment surrounding bear behavior.
Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to explore whether (a) the appearance of the vigilance behavior
and (b) the time bears spent alert (vigilance behavior duration) depended on the proximity of different human structures
(human settlements, roads, trails and bear tourism viewing points) or habitat types (forest, open habitat and shrubland).
Main results showed that: (1) the bear class had a significant effect, with adult bears displaying less vigilance than subadults
Distribution of vigilance behavior duration (in sec) among the different bear classes (adults,
subadults, and females with cubs) in each season (hibernation, mating, and hyperphagia).

and females with cubs; (2) the appearance of vigilance behavior
was not modulated by any of the human elements and habitat
variables we considered in our analyses; and (3) vigilance
behaviors lasted slightly less during hyperphagia, when bears
focus on feeding prior to hibernation and cubs are no longer at
risk of infanticide. Thus, as an end conclusion, neither the ap-
pearance nor the duration of vigilance behavior in Cantabrian
Vincenzo Penteriani
brown bears seemed to be influenced by the closeness of any
of the human structures and activities that we took into account
in this study. Additionally, during the mating season, when
the need to protect offspring is crucial due to the high risk of
infanticide, females with cubs spend somewhat more time on
vigilance behaviors compared to other seasons. Then, alert
behaviors of females with cubs may reflect the potential risk A female brown bear in a human-modified landscape of
driven by males rather than by humans and their activities. Cantabrian Mountains (Picture Vincenzo Penteriani)
In the Cantabrian Mountains, illegal poaching has declined in recent decades, resulting in the positive trends exhibited
by this population (Gonzalez et al. 2016). Lower rates of human-induced mortality in recent times might have improved
bear-to-human tolerance, as may have happened in other populations where bears are not persecuted (Smith et al. 2005).
Brown bears have largely coexisted with humans in Europe, including northern Spain. If the positive trend persists, brown
bears would have to expand into even more encroached landscapes in the Cantabrian Mountains (Zarzo-Arias et al.,
submitted). Human activities and infrastructure do not seem to provoke critical behavioral responses in the brown bears
of the Cantabrian Mountains, but physiological reactions of bears to human presence, i.e., stress responses, should also be
investigated, because they do not necessarily need to manifest visible behavioral changes and can have a cost on disturbed
animals (Støen et al. 2015). Certain levels of tolerance from both humans and large carnivores, which are reflected in behav-
ioral patterns, seem crucial to facilitate persistence and eventual recovery of bears in human-modified landscapes, even
where human encroachment is high.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Administrations of the Gobierno del Principado de Asturias and the Junta de Castilla y León for providing
the authorizations for the field work. This research was financially supported by the IBA grant project IBA-RG_16_2016
‘Brown bear behavior in human-dominated landscapes: the effect of human density and ecotourism’.
Literature Cited
Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andren, J. V. Lopez-Bao, et al. 2014. Recovery of large
carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519.
Gaynor, K. M., C. E. Hojnowski, N. H. Carter, and J. S. Brashares. 2018. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife
nocturnality. Science 360:1232–1235.
Gonzalez, E. G., J. C. Blanco, F. Ballesteros, L. Alcaraz, G. Palomero, and I. Doadrio. 2016. Genetic and demographic recov-
ery of an isolated population of brown bear Ursus arctos L., 1758. PeerJ 4:e1928.
Higashide, D., S. Miura, and H. Miguchi. 2012. Are chest marks unique to Asiatic black bear individuals? Journal of Zoology
288:199–206.
Penteriani, V., J. V. López-Bao, C. Bettega, F. Dalerum, M. del M. Delgado, K. Jerina, I. Kojola, et al. 2017. Consequences of
brown bear viewing tourism: A review. Biological Conservation 206:169–180.
Ruiz-Villar, H., A. Morales-González, G. Bombieri, A. Zarzo-Arias, and V. Penteriani. Submitted. Characterization of a brown
bear aggregation during the hyperphagia period in the Cantabrian Mountains, NW Spain.
Smith, T. S., S. Herrero, and T. D. DeBruyn. 2005. Alaskan brown bears, humans, and habituation. Ursus 16:1–10.
Støen, O. G., A. Ordiz, A. L. Evans, T. G. Laske, J. Kindberg, O. Fröbert, J. E. Swenson, et al. 2015. Physiological evidence
for a human-induced landscape of fear in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Physiology and Behavior
152:244–248.
Zarzo-Arias, A., M. M. Delgado, A. Ordiz, J. Díaz García, D. Cañedo, M. A. González, C. Romo, et al. n.d.-a.
Submitted. Brown bear behaviour in human-modified landscapes: the case of the endangered
Cantabrian population, NW Spain.
Zarzo-Arias, A., V. Penteriani, M. M. Delgado, P. Peón Torre, R. García Gonzalez, M. C. Mateo-Sánchez, P.
Vázquez García, et al. n.d.-b. Submitted. Identifying potential areas of expansion for the endangered
brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain).

Communication is Key for Human–bear Coexistence: the Experience
of Trentino (Italian Alps)
Marta Gandolfi
Autonomous Province of Trento, Forests and Wildlife Department
MUSE – Science Museum of Trento, Vertebrate Zoology Research Section, Trento, Italy
E-mail: marta.gandolfi@muse.it
Claudio Groff
Member: European Brown Bear Expert Team and Human–Bear Conflicts Expert Team IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Autonomous Province of Trento, Forests and Wildlife Department, Trento, Italy
Email: claudio.groff@provincia.tn.it
Paolo Pedrini
MUSE – Science Museum of Trento, Vertebrate Zoology Research Section, Trento, Italy
Brown bears (Ursus arctos) have always been present in the Alps, but in the late 1990s only few free-ranging individuals
remained in Trentino (Northern Italy, Central-Eastern Alps). Thus, in the early 2000s, 10 bears were reintroduced, within a LIFE
Project, from Slovenia. Since then, the brown bear population has grown to about 60 individuals, inhabiting the western part
of Trentino and coexisting with people and human activities. This successful establishment of a new bear population has
required an efficient and effective communication strategy, which the Autonomous Province of Trento has worked on since
the beginning of the reintroduction project, trying to constantly improve it during the years, with new activities and tools.
Communication about large carnivores is essential for their conservation worldwide. People often have an exaggerated
sense of fear and alarmism about large carnivores, which is harmful to conservation efforts that rely on acceptance of their
coexistence in human-populated areas. An efficient communication strategy has to deal with this misinformation, trying to
minimize its occurrence and its impact.
Attempts to adapt and improve communication while the Trentino bear population grew have occurred in 3 phases over
the past 20 years.
First phase
During 2002–2009, the first few years after the brown bear reintroduction, communication efforts were directed at inform-
ing people about bears and the newly bolstered population in the territory. This phase focused on the dissemination of facts
and information about the ecology, distribution and history of the species.
In 2003, the first communication project was called “Let’s know the brown bear!”. It included activities and initiatives to
inform the community (young and adult) about the brown bear, its biology and main characteristics. It included didactic
activities, laboratories for schools, and informative materials targeted at different groups. The same year we created a dedi-
cated web site (www.grandicarnivori.tn.it) on large carnivores in Trentino, with many pages devoted to brown bear ecology,
conservation and management.
In 2004, the first “Protocol of communication in critical situations” was launched. The purpose was to spread information
related to certain critical situations (e.g., bear attacks on humans, accidents with problematic bears, etc.). This was intended to
counter false alarmism, which was expected to occur.
Second phase
During this phase (2010–2015), we addressed the issues associated with a rapidly growing bear population. This neces-
sitated direct information channels with local authorities and local public. It began with the publication of the PACOBACE
(Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown bear in the Central-Eastern Alps), with the aim of informing people about the
management aspects expected with the brown bears in Trentino. We also focused on fact-checking and creating relation-
ships and dialogue with the local journalists.
In 2011, a “Round Table with Breeders, Beekeepers and Farmers” was created, from which we organized public meetings
with these important stakeholders. Then a “Round Table of Participation and Information”, was established to meet all the
stakeholders (private associations, parks, mountain clubs, touristic agencies, others) working for bear conservation. Last, a
“Round Table for the Communication on Brown Bear” was created, gathering all the local institutions working to communi-
cate about brown bears. The 3 Round Tables continue to meet several times each year.

Third phase
Since 2016 our communication efforts have been based on a new “Brown Bear Communication Plan” aiming at a wider
scale. It contains a comprehensive information strategy including innovative actions planned at many different levels.
The new Communication Plan (technically started in 2017), involves the Press Office and the Forest and Wildlife Depart-
ment of the Autonomous Province of Trento, the Science Museum of Trento, and Adamello Brenta Natural Park, and aims to
enhance social acceptance of the bear. The plan provides information deeper into the community with more attention to
some critical aspects, such as the best human responses in case of bear encounters and how to act when frequenting bear
territory. Some improvements have already been made, such a revision of the web site, with upgrades and new sections,
including a “true or false news?” page for fact checking and a “map of females with cubs” (https://grandicarnivori.provincia.
tn.it/Orse-con-piccoli). It also includes specific training courses for journalists, teachers, environmental guides, touristic
operators; new informative signs in the field telling people they are entering into a bear area; new educational activities
(“large carnivores at school” laboratories) and more. Moreover, we keep networking and sharing ideas with all the institu-
tions working on brown bear conservation in Trentino and also abroad, together with continuing local Round Tables. The
public events (which began in the 1980s, well before the reintroductions) will start to be organized differently for different
stakeholders. New actions are planned, such as the creation of a new logo, new concept and coordinated theme and many
other new project ideas which will be implemented in the near future.
Creating a new, thriving brown bear population in Europe was relatively easy insofar as moving bears into the area and
letting them do their thing, but managing the human responses has been a challenge that has required continual effort,
innovation, and adaptation.
Scheme of the communication tools adopted in Trentino (I)
Acknowledgements
The Forest and Wildlife Department works with many local institutions (MUSE – Science Museum of Trento, Adamello
Brenta Natural Park, SAT (Alpine Club), WWF Trentino, Trentino Marketing, Trentino Hunters Association, FEM – Edmund
Mach Foundation), volunteers and other people interested in brown bear conservation, which, according with their aims
and at different levels, help to inform the community about brown bears. This network has proven to be very important for
the effectiveness of the Communication Strategy. Our thanks go to all of them.
To read more about brown bear in Trentino (Large Carnivore Report 2017):
https://grandicarnivori.provincia.tn.it/content/download/14245/248974/file/Rapporto_Grandi_
carnivori_20171_ENG.pdf

Use of Geospatial Techniques to Target Water Sources for
Sloth Bears, Aimed at Alleviating Conflicts with People
Arzoo Malik Michael Proctor
Wildlife and Conservation Biology Research Lab Birchdale Ecological
Department of Life Sciences, Hemchandrachrya North Kaslo,BC, Canada
Gujarat University, Patan (Gujarat)-India 384265 Email mproctor@netidea.com
Email: arzoomalik8.am@gmail.com
Nishith Dharaiya
Wildlife and Conservation Biology Research Lab
Department of Life Sciences, Hemchandrachrya North
Gujarat University, Patan (Gujarat)-India 384265
Email: nadharaiya@gmail.com
In Gujarat, India, sloth bears are mainly found

in five protected areas with highly fragmented
tropical dry deciduous forests. Habitat degrada-
tion is one of the major threats to sloth bears
in the region; the other important threats are
human-bear conflict, change in land use and
lack of community participation in bear con-
servation (Dharaiya et al. 2016). Loss of habitat
results in bears moving into areas inhabited
by humans leading to increased encounters,
conflicts, human injury, and sometimes retalia-
tory killing (Garcia et al. 2015). Previous studies
revealed two main reasons for increasing
conflicts: sharing forest resources, including
Study area showing Jessore Sloth Bear Sanctuary in Gujarat, India.
movement of sloth bears into villages and
humans entering forested bear habitat (Dharaiya and Ratnayeke 2009). Sloth bear movements into human areas are driven
primarily by their need to access food and water. Sloth bears are generalists, therefore food may be less of an issue, however,
in summer, water becomes a limiting resource which pushes bears outside of their typical habitat in search of it. Studies
have revealed regular sightings of sloth bears near water sources and villages after dark in summer (Sultana et al. 2015), but
also, within 500 m of water sources irrespective of the season (Bargali et al. 2012). Also, the number of attacks in Gujarat
has increased over the past decade when more than 300 were reported, primarily in the hot dry summer. These patterns
support the fact that water is a major factor in driving the sloth bears into human settled areas where conflicts and attacks
occur.
To address the importance of water resources within typical sloth bear habitat, we carried out an experiment in Jessore
wildlife sanctuary, an important sloth bear sanctuary in Gujarat which contains the highest sloth bear density in the state
(https://forests.gujarat.gov.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/Wildlife-Population-Estimation1.pdf ).
In GIS, human-bear conflict locations were overlaid on to land use lay-
ers to assess patterns of conflicts and attacks relative to settlements and
water bodies in the sanctuary. We found that 71 % (5 out of 7) conflicts
during 2016 were within 1000 m of water sources. Also, water close to
settlements increased the probability of an encounter with a sloth bear.
Our main objective was to target water resources within sloth bear
habitat in Jessore sanctuary using GIS to help identify areas where water
could accumulate naturally if a containment structure was built. By iden-
tifying such areas, water could be provided throughout the year for bears
and other wildlife, removing the need for bears to leave the sanctuary
for water and ultimately reduce human-bear conflicts, human injury, and
Number of sloth bear signs recorded retaliatory killing.
within the distance of 1000m. To reach our objective, we created a drainage map of Jessore sanctu-

ary using 3 algorithms within Arc GIS® (i.e., Fill Sinks, Flow Direction, and Flow Accumulation). First, using a digital elevation
model (DEM, from Indian Space Research Organisation) as an input raster, we ran the Fill Sinks tool to create a depressionless
DEM layer. To identify flow direction we needed to remove imperfections in the DEM by “filling” sinks. This prevents water
from being virtually “trapped” in higher elevation cells. To do this, Flow Direction was then used to determine the flow path
of water, where each cell in the raster has a unique value determining the flow from higher to lower elevation. This output
was then used as an input raster for the Flow Accumulation tool that calculated the flow from upstream cells to downstream
Results of hydrological drainage modelling. (top) Sloth bear attack locations and settlement areas. (center) Locations of
Sloth bear attack in the study area with reference to the natural water
bodies. (bottom) Proposed sites to build water accumulation structures
to keep bears in the sanctuary and away from human conflict.

cells based on terrain. After determining the drainage pattern for the sanctuary, 12 probable water accumulation points
were identified and confirmed through ground surveys. To validate our proposed water accumulation points, we digitized
all nearby bear sign to assess bear presence within a 2000 m buffer. Fifty-seven percent of sloth bear sign was within 1000
meters of our proposed water accumulation points.
We propose to build water containment structures, and the Forest Department has agreed to do this, where water can be
stored during the monsoon and be available to bears in the dry season when most conflicts occur. The local Forest Depart-
ment has constructed artificial water holes in the sanctuary to overcome the water scarcity but they require constant filling
by water trucks and are expensive to maintain. In contrast, our proposed water accumulating points are designed to fill with
natural runoff during the monsoon and may therefore help in reducing this extra cost for filling up the water holes. The
Forest department has agreed to build these containment structures. Also our water points are inside the sanctuary at the
higher elevation where it is difficult for water trucks to reach but easier for bears to find. This study suggests that hydro-
logical modelling can be an effective and advanced tool for managing bear habitat and alleviating encounters between
humans and bears, promoting coexistence. The first author has received R & C Grants from the IBA to continue this study
for further monitoring of these water containment points through camera traps and field surveys. This will help determine
utilisation of these points by bears and also see if our new water holes reduce movement of bears outside their habitat into
human settled areas, and ultimately reduce human bear conflicts.
Literature cited:
Bargai, H.S., Akhtar, N., and Chauhan, N.P.S. 2012. The sloth bear activity and movement in highly fragmented and
disturbed habitat in Central India. World Journal of Zoology 7 (4):312-319.
Dharaiya, N., Bargali, H. S., and Sharp, T. 2016. Melursus ursinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016.
Dharaiya, N., and Ratnayake, S. 2009. Escalating human- sloth bear conflict in north Gujarat: a though time to encourage
support for bear conservation. International Bear News 18: 12–14.
Garcia, K., Joshi, H., and Dharaiya, N. 2015. Assessment of human–sloth bear conflicts in North Gujarat, India. Ursus 27 (1):
5-10
Garshelis, D.L., Joshi, A.R., Smith, J.L.D., and Rice, C.G. 1999. Sloth bear conservation action plan. In: C. Servheen, S.
Herrero, and B. Peyton (eds), Bears: status survey and conservation action plan, pp. 225-240. IUCN/SSC Bear and
Polar Bear Specialist Groups, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.
Sultana, F., Khan, S., and Nabi, G. 2015. Occupancy and habitat use of sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) in Mukundara Hills
Tiger reserve, Rajasthan, India. Flora and Fauna Vol.21. pp. 203208.

New Project: The Ecology of Brown Bear Damage at Large Scales
Carlos Bautista Javier Naves
Member: Human-Bear Conflict Expert Team, IUCN Bear Doñana Biological Station (EBD-CSIC)
Specialist Group Spanish National Research Council, Seville, Spain
Institute of Nature Conservation Email: jnaves@ebd.csic.es
Polish Academy of Science, Krakow, Poland
Email: carlosbautistaleon@gmail.com Nuria Selva
Member: European Brown Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear
Eloy Revilla Specialist Group
Doñana Biological Station (EBD-CSIC) Institute of Nature Conservation
Spanish National Research Council, Seville, Spain Polish Academy of Science, rakow, Poland
Email: revilla@ebd.csic.es Email: nuriaselva@gmail.com
Food matters
It matters to you, to the sparrow sitting on the park bench, and to the bear roaming the forest. Those of us living close to
supermarkets do not worry much about how many nuts the forest produced. However, times of feast and famine are not
rare in nature and fluctuations in primary production greatly affect consumers’ communities and their interaction across
trophic levels (Ostfeld and Keesing 2000). For instance, a year of low seed production is followed by a decrease in the abun-
dance of mice and other seed consumers which, in turn, affects the density of generalist predators eating rodents (Ostfeld
and Keesing 2000, McShea 2008). Yet, many species of animals are adaptive. In human-dominated landscapes they may
compensate for shortages of natural food by utilizing human-derived products, such as crops or livestock (Woodroffe et al.
2005). As a result, the temporal lack of natural food may increase human-wildlife interactions, and cause conflict situations
(e.g., Artelle et al. 2016).
Why is food important?

Because conflicts arising from wildlife damage to crops and livestock may impose considerable costs for humans and ani-
mals, the affected persons can suffer significant economic and sentimental losses, and in response, some retaliate against
wildlife. In order to prevent these losses and to protect wildlife, managers and researchers make big efforts to understand
how, when, where, and why these damages occur. Some studies have observed correlates with damage occurrence, such
as the density of wildlife and humans, husbandry practices, and strategies to manage wildlife and damage (Woodroffe et
al. 2005). Lately, some studies have started to investigate the role of landscape features and the availability of natural and
anthropogenic food resources (e.g., Suryawanshi et al. 2013). However, the connection between availability of food resourc-
es and damage seems to be inconclusive: while some studies have found lower damage at times of more food (Suryawanshi
et al. 2013), others suggest that greater resource availability may lead to increased occurrence of wildlife-caused damage
(Treves et al. 2004, Karanth et al. 2013).
Does food influence conflict situations, and if so, how much?

To answer these questions, we started a project aimed at quantifying the influence of the availability of natural food re-
sources on the occurrence of wildlife-caused damage. Specifically, we use the brown bear (Ursus arctos) as a model species
and focus on food habits and damage across different brown bear populations. The project is entitled “Does food matter?
(left) Brown bear scat full of beechnuts (Fagus sylvatica) in the Polish Carpathians. (center & right) Beehives damaged by brown bear in
the Polish Carpathians (note outline of pawprint on box). Bears presumably turn to these human-related food sources, which can be
rich but risky, when natural foods are less plentiful. Photo credits: Carpathian Brown Bear Project.

Assessing the role of pulses in resource availability as a driver of temporal variation in brown bear damage occurrence” and
is based on an international cooperation between the Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences
(IOP PAN) and the Doñana Biological Station of the Spanish National Research Council (EBD-CSIC). The project is funded by
the National Science Centre in Poland (UMO-2017/25/N/NZ8/02861) and will be conducted in 2018-2021.
We aim to assess the relationship between the temporal variation in bear dietary composition and occurrence of bear-
caused damage. It has been shown that scat analysis can capture differences in the relative availability of food resources
(e.g., Ciucci et al. 2014). We hypothesize that variation in the consumption of different natural foods across years is a good
predictor of bear-caused damage. For instance, in temperate Europe, hard mast (acorns and beechnuts) is a critical food
resource for brown bears before hibernation (Naves et al. 2006, Ciucci et al. 2014). Accordingly, we expect that during
hyperphagia, poor hard mast crops may prompt bears to shift their diet and raid fruit plantations and apiaries.
The big picture

We plan to look for dietary data on bear populations located in the temperate regions of Asia, Europe and North America.
To capture the variation in the proportion of foods consumed by bears, we will seek data that span a minimum of 4 years.
Additionally, we will also search for data on reported and verified bear damage matching the same data period and area. We
will add the data obtained from other areas to our main dataset with already 3000 scats and over 5000 verified damages in
the Cantabrian and Carpathian populations.
Specifically, we will model the number of verified damages as a response of the average frequency of different food
categories at seasonal and annual scales. We will divide the bear damages in 3 categories (livestock, apiaries, crops) and
analyze them as separate response variables (see Bautista et al. 2017). To explore the influence of different ingested foods,
we will calculate the frequency of 5 categories of natural foods (green vegetation, fleshy fruits, hard mast, invertebrates
and vertebrates) and analyze each category as a separate explanatory variable. Finally, we aim to include in all the models
other potential sources of temporal variation, such as density of bears and humans, livestock and apiary abundance, and the
economic effort invested in prevention. This will allow us to quantify the relative importance of resource consumption by
bears on the amount of damage they cause.
Contact us! If you are interested in our study and think you can contribute with suitable data and/or you would like
further details about our project, we kindly invite you to contact us. We really hope that together we can try to understand a
bit better the factors underlying bear damages and, thus, improve coexistence between humans and bears.
Literature Cited
Artelle, K.A., S.C. Anderson, J.D. Reynolds, A.B. Cooper, P.C. Paquet, and C.T. Darimont. 2016. Ecology of conflict: marine
food supply affects human-wildlife interactions on land. Scientific Reports 6: 25936.
Bautista, C., J. Naves, E. Revilla, N. Fernández, J. Albrecht, A.K. Scharf, R. Rigg, A.A. Karamanlidis, K. Jerina, D. Huber, S.
Palazón, R. Kont, P. Ciucci, C. Groff, A. Dutsov, J. Seijas, P.I. Quenette, A. Olszańska, M. Shkvyria, M. Adamec, J. Ozolins,
M. Jonozovič, and N. Selva. 2017. Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear damage on a continental scale.
Journal of Applied Ecology 54:282–292.
Ciucci, P., E. Tosoni, G. Di Domenico, F. Quattrociocchi and L. Boitani. 2014. Seasonal and annual variation in the food
habits of Apennine brown bears, central Italy. Journal of Mammalogy 95:572–586.
Karanth, K.K., A.M. Gopalaswamy, P.K. Prasad, and S. Dasgupta. 2013. Patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensa-
tion: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biological Conservation 166:175–185.
McShea, W.J. 2008. The Influence of Acorn Crops on Annual Variation in Rodent and Bird Populations. Ecology
81:228–238.
Naves, J., A.Fernández-Gil, C. Rodríguez, and M. Delibes. 2006. Brown bear food habits at the border of its range: a long-
term study. Journal of Mammalogy 87:899–908.
Ostfeld, R.S. and F. Keesing. 2000. Pulsed resources and community dyamics of consumers in terrrestrial ecosystems.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:232–237.
Suryawanshi, K.R., Y.V. Bhatnagar, S. Redpath, and C. Mishra. 2013. People, predators and perceptions: Patterns of livestock
depredation by snow leopards and wolves. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:550–560.
Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, E.K. Harper, D.J. Mladenoff, R.A. Rose, T.A. Sickley, and A.P.
Wydeven. 2004. Predicting Human-Carnivore Conflict: A Spatial Model Derived from 25
Years of Data on Wolf Predation on Livestock. Conservation Biology 18:114–125.
Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood and A. Rabinowitz. 2005. Poeple and wildlife: Conflict or coexis-
tence. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Biological Research
What is it About the Terai of Nepal that Favors Sloth Bears
over Asiatic Black Bears?
Karine Pigeon Pooja Basnet
Member: Sloth Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Kathmandu Forestry College, Kathmandu, Nepal
SheLeads Wildlife Research, Edmonton, Canada
Email: karine.pigeon@gmail.com Kiran Timalsina
Green Governance Nepal, Kathmnandu, Nepal
Bhupendra Prasad Yadav
Member: Sloth Bear Expert Team, IUCN Bear Specialist Group Dave Garshelis
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Co-chair IUCN Bear Specialist Group
Kathmandu, Nepal Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Grand Rapids, MN, USA 55744
Few studies have examined the coexistence of bear species and whether interspecies competition can cause one species
to decline or even disappear from an area (Mattson et al. 2005; Steinmetz et al. 2011, 2013). The case of Asiatic black bears
(Ursus thibetanus) and sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) is particularly interesting because within the Terai Arc Landscape — a
lowland strip along the foothills of the Himalayas — there are areas where these 2 species overlap (Uttarakhand, India), and
areas that appear similar, where they do not (Nepal with almost exclusively sloth bears; Bhutan with exclusively Asiatic black
bears). To date, we know little about ecological requirements that could explain why sloth bears and Asiatic black bears ap-
pear to coexist in some areas but not others. A recent report of a photo of an Asiatic (Himalayan) black bear within the Terai
of Nepal, the first such evidence of this species in this region of Nepal (Yadav et al. 2017), focused our interest in this area.
Was this bear a lone individual wandering in from a higher elevation area, or did black bears exist in low density, undetected
until now? Or was something changing in terms of the habitat that might lead to colonization of the area by black bears?
For this study, we had a unique opportunity to make use of by-catch data acquired from motion-detecting cameras set-
up in protected areas
of Nepal as part of an
ongoing monitoring
effort for the National
tiger (Panthera tigris)
population surveys
(Dhakal et al. 2014). We
were provided photos
of bears obtained
from the camera
traps set out in 2013
by the Department
of National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation,
Nepal. We conducted
field investigations at
these sites aiming to
assess species-specific
habitat preferences and
understand the occur-
rence and persistence of
Asiatic black bears and
sloth bears in a gradient
of environments along
the Terai.
In late January 2018,
we set-out to Bardia and Location of sampling sites associated with camera locations and opportunistic plots surveyed within Bardia
adjacent Banke National and Banke National Parks in an attempt to discern habitat characteristics associated with presence of sloth
Parks in southwestern bears and Asiatic black bears. Also shown are communities adjacent to the parks (buffer zone communities).

Biological Research
Number of sampled sites where we recorded evidence of
claw marks on trees, diggings, or scats from a sloth bear,
Asiatic black bear, or unknown bear species in Bardia and
Banke National Parks, Nepal, during January–March 2018.
%Lowland is the percentage of species-specific signs
observed in lowland plots over the total number of plots
where we observed signs of that species. At some plots,
more than 1 type of sign was found (e.g., claw marks and
digging). We considered all digging into termite mounds
to be from sloth bears and classified other types of ground
Birendra Adikari
digging as “unknown” bear species.

Bear Species Claw Marks Digging Scat %Lowland
Sloth 16 17 4 80%
Asiatic Black 6 NA NA 17%
The Nepal Terai field team, from left to right: Birendra Adikari
(Bardia National Park staff ), Karine Pigeon (research biologist), Unknown 2 4 2 20%
Ram Shahi (ornithologist), Manbir Kami (retired park staff ), Total 24 21 6 NA
and Pooja Basnet (forestry graduate).
Nepal (both with 1–2 recent records, but no historic records of Asiatic black bears) to measure habitat characteristics and
food availability for sloth bears and Asiatic black bears in the lowlands and Siwalik hills (i.e., steep rugged forested hills).
Climate in the region dictates the seasonality of food availability and varies between the subtropical monsoon (June to
October), the dry season (October to February), and the hot season (March to June; Bhuju et al. 2007). Lowlands are com-
posed of Sal (Shorea robusta) forests, Khair-sissoo (Acacia catechu, Dalbergia sissoo) / riverine forests, and grasslands (each
in distinct patches), while the Siwaliks are composed of riverine forests, tropical deciduous forests / hill Sal, and tropical
evergreen forests (i.e., Chir pine, Pinus roxburghii) at higher elevation (Dinerstein 1979, Bhuju et al. 2007). Elevation ranges
from 100 to 1450 m above sea level.
From January through March, we measured concealment cover, canopy cover, stand composition and structure, and
food availability at 51 camera sites and 17 opportunistic sites, including 79 line transects. At each camera site (i.e., plot), we
sampled 3 subplots (30 x 30 m) and 2 line transects (100 m length each), while only 1 subplot was sampled at opportunistic
sites. We sampled a total of 168 subplots associated with 25 camera sites that produced photos of sloth bears (n=22 sites)
or Asiatic black bears (n=3 sites), 26 cameras with pseudo-absences (i.e., no recorded photos of either bear species), and at
17 opportunistic sites where we found presence of sloth bears or Asiatic black bears (based on sign). We surveyed a total
of 9.6 ha within transects (9600 m total length x 10 m-wide) in the lowlands and Siwalik hills to assess the presence and
abundance of tree markings, ground digs, termite mound diggings, and the density of termite mounds and ant hills within
each landscape. We knew from previous work of others that sloth bears, but not black bears, feed largely on termites and
ants, and that their digging into mounds is distinctly characteristic. We also distinguished the sign of these species based
on characteristics of their claw marks on trees. We recorded the presence of fresh and old bear signs at camera sites, along
Karine Pigeon
Ram Shahi
(left) Karine holding a cover board used to quantify horizontal concealment at habitat plots. (right) Birendra (on
the left) and Manbir (on the right) recording data associated with sloth bear markings on a mature ‘kainjalo’ tree
(Bishcofia javanica). The long sliding marks are characteristics of sloth bear climbing.

Biological Research
transects, and at opportunistic sites while we were going to or coming from camera sites.
Including camera sites and opportunistic sites, we observed evidence of activity from sloth bears at 28 sites, Asiatic black
bears at 6 sites, and at 8 sites the bear sign could not be distinguished to species. The average density of termite mounds
was highest in lowland Sal forests (8.5 mounds/ha), and averaged less than half that in other lowland habitats (3.8/ha),
upland Sal forests (3.6 mounds/ha), and other upland habitats (2.3/ha).
We are now using the information gathered during our field survey to investigate the relationships among food availabil-
ity (presence of fruiting tree species and densities of termite mounds and ant mounds), habitat characteristics, and habitat
use by sloth bears and Asiatic black bears in the region. Moving forward, we hope to continue fine-scale and broad-scale
investigations within Nepal and India that will allow for a better understanding of 1) specific ecological characteristics
associated with potential competition between these 2 species, possibly including exclusion of 1 over the other, and 2) how
habitat degradation at the boundaries of protected areas might change the dynamic of these 2 species.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Bardia National Park, and Banke National Park
for granting research permits to conduct this research. We would like to thank Green Governance Nepal (GGN) for official
arrangements, field coordination, and support. A special thanks to members of the “Unstoppable Team Bhalu”: Manbir Kami,
Ram Shahi, Birendra Adikari, and Pooja Basnet, as well as Durga Paudel and Bardia Tiger Resort (BTR) for help with prepara-
tions and field logistic. We also thank the IBA Research & Conservation Grant for making this project possible.
Literature Cited
Bhuju, R.B., P.R. Shakya, T.B. Basnet, and S. Shrestha. 2007. Nepal Biodiversity Resource Book. Ministry of Environment,
Science and Technology, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dhakal, M., K. Madhuri, J. Shant et al. 2014. Status of tigers and prey in Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dinerstein, E. 1979. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia wildlife reserve, Nepal. Part II: Habitat/animal interac-
tions. Biological Conservation 16:265–300.
Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, and T. Merrill. 2005. Are black bears a factor in the restoration of North American grizzly bear
populations? Ursus 16: 11–30.
Steinmetz, R., D.L. Garshelis, W. Chutipong, and N. Seuaturien. 2011. The shared preference niche of sympatric Asiatic
black bears and sun bears in a tropical forest mosaic. PloSONE 6(1), e14509.
Steinmetz, R., D.L. Garshelis, W. Chutipong, and N. Seuaturien. 2013. Foraging ecology and coexistence of Asiatic black
bears and sun bears in a seasonal tropical forest in Southeast Asia. Journal of Mammalogy 94:1–18.
Yadav, S.K., B. R. Lamichhane, N. Subedi, M. Dhakal, R. K. Thapa, and L. Poudyal. 2017. Himalayan black bear discovered in
Babai Valley of Bardia National Park, Nepal, co-occurring with sloth bears. International Bear News 26(3):23–25.

Biological Research
Characterizing Grizzly Bear Habitat using Vegetation Structure in
Alberta, Canada
Brandon Prehn Scott Nielsen
MSc Student, Department of Forest Resources Management Alberta Biodiversity Conservation Chair
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada Department of Renewable Resources
Email: bprehn219@gmail.com University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Nicholas Coops Cole Burton

Canada Research Chair in Remote Sensing Terrestrial Mammal Conservation Chair
Department of Forest Resources Management Department of Forest Resources Management
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada
Gordon Stenhouse
IBA Councillor
fRI Research, Hinton, AB, Canada
Many studies have examined the role of anthropogenic features such as roads and seismic lines on grizzly bear (Ursus
arctos) home range size, movement patterns, and mortality. However, the impact of forest structure on movement of
individual grizzly bears is less well understood, principally due to difficulties undertaking extensive field sampling of
vegetation structure over immense areas, or the use of poor surrogates of structure such as passive multispectral remote
sensing datasets like landcover class or NDVI (Ciarniello et al. 2007; Munro et al. 2006; Nielsen et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2003).
These passive forms of remote sensing limits interpretation and quantification of vegetation structure due to problems
with spectral reflectance of different tree species, illumination angle effects, and shade (Koukoulas & Blackburn, 2004). Light
detecting and ranging (Lidar) is an active remote sensing tool developed to provide highly detailed, three-dimensional
representations of a scanned landscape through a combination laser-rangefinder and highly accurate, GPS-enabled inertial
measurement unit (IMU) (Lim et al., 2003). The Lidar instrument records the relative arrangement signals as what’s called a
“point cloud,” which has been shown to be related to the distribution of vegetation in the stand (Thomas et al., 2006). In the
case of airborne Lidar, an aircraft typically flies at altitudes of between 500 and 3000 m (Hilker et al. 2010) and depending on
the beam divergence parameters of the Lidar system, the laser footprint at the ground typically ranges between 0.2 - 0.9 m.
Vegetation that intersects the beam scatters energy back to the sensor and the relative location of returns is recorded (Lim
et al. 2003).
In this study we investigated the role of vegetation structure in determining habitat selection at the fine-scale 4th order
of selection (Johnson 1980) through the use of a matched case-control logistic regression as part of an integrated step-
selection analysis (iSSA; Avgar et al. 2016). Specifically we asked 2 questions. First, what is the role of canopy cover in interior
forest stands on habitat selection? Second, do resources in interior forest stands modify the selection for forest edges
commonly seen with grizzly bears? We hypothesized that the interaction between vegetation height and overstory cover
could best explain habitat selection: we understand that habitat selection by bears is heavily influenced by forest structure,
especially in the case of continental interior bears, and we expect that when combined with information about watershed
topographic moisture regime, solar radiation, and bears’ natural preference for edge habitat (i.e., a core model), addition of
height of dominant vegetation and overstory cover would improve model predictions.
We used Lidar to characterize landcover height and percent cover using data acquired by the Government of Alberta
during leaf-on conditions between 2007 and 2008. The point density was on average 1.2 returns/m2 and covered the eastern
21000 km2 of the Bear Management Area. Data were processed using tools from FUSION and LAStools using an area-based
approach as prescribed in the best practices guide by White et al. (2013). We used 75th percentile height and the percentage
of all returns above 2 meters. To minimize the chance of over-specification of the model, we limited contextual variables to
those well linked to vegetation characteristics: elevation, solar radiation, terrain wetness index, and a measure of distance to
forest edge. We defined forest edge using our Lidar dataset. Because previous work in this area has shown that grizzly bears
use roads with little regard for traffic volume (Roever et al. 2010) and the vegetation structure of roadsides can be summa-
rized with Lidar height and cover metrics, we omitted roads from our model.
The iSSA compares consecutive relocations (referred to as used steps) with some number of “control” relocations (also
known as available steps) that are generated randomly from empirical or theoretical step length and turning angle distri-
butions (Thurfjel et al. 2014). After sampling used and available locations, we fit a conditional logistic regression to each
individual collar-year and used AIC tally to select the best model. We binned separate models corresponding to hypophagia

Biological Research
(den emergence – 15 June), early
hyperphagia (16 June -15 August), and
late hyperphagia (16 August – den
entry). Additionally, we binned indi-
vidual models according to sex and
reproductive class (male, female, and
females with cubs older than 1 year).
We compared the AIC tally of the core
model alone, as well as the core model
added to each Lidar metric individually.
Finally we considered the core model
plus height, cover, and the interaction
between them. Our results indicate
that canopy cover and height interact
to explain habitat selection at the fine
scale in most cases. AIC tally was gen-
erally concordant for males throughout
the year, though there was much more
variability in the AIC tally for females
and females with cubs. There was
moderate support for the core model
plus height alone in females with cubs.
Further discussion of the analysis and
results is pending submission/review of Horizontal-perspective view of a point cloud in two different forest
this work. stand classes. The y-axis is height above ground in meters.
Literature Cited
Avgar, T., J.R. Potts, M.A. Lewis and M.S. Boyce. 2016. Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between
resource selection and animal movement. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(5): 619–630.
Ciarniello, L. M., M.S. Boyce, D. R. Seip and D. C.Heard. 2007. Grizzly bear habitat selection is scale dependent. Ecological
Applications 17(5): 1424–1440.
Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology.
Koukoulas, S. and G.A. Blackburn. 2004. Quantifying the spatial properties of forest canopy gaps using LiDAR imagery
and GIS. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25(15): 3049–3072.
Lim, K., P. Treitz, M. Wulder, B. St-Onge, and M. Flood. 2003. LiDAR remote sensing of forest structure. Progress in Physical
Geography 27(1): 88–106.
Munro, R. H. M., S.E. Nielsen, M.H. Price, G.B. Stenhouse and M.S. Boyce. 2006. Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear
diet and activity in west-central Alberta. Journal of Mammalogy 87(6): 1112–1121.
Nielsen, S.E., M.S. Boyce, G.B. Stenhouse and R.H.M. Munro. 2003. Development and testing of phenologically driven
grizzly bear habitat models. Écoscience 10(1): 1–10.
Nielsen, S.E., S. Herrero, M.S. Boyce, R.D. Mace, B. Benn, M.L. Gibeau, and S. Jevons. 2004. Modelling the spatial distribu-
tion of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies ecosystem of Canada. Biological Conservation
120(1): 101–113.
Roever, C.L., M.S. Boyce, and G.B, Stenhouse. 2010. Grizzly bear movements relative to roads: application of step selection
functions. Ecography.
Thomas, V., P. Treitz, J.H. McCaughey, and I. Morrison. 2006. Mapping stand-level forest biophysical variables for a mixed-
wood boreal forest using lidar: an examination of scanning density. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
Thurfjell, H., S. Ciuti, and M.S. Boyce. 2014. Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Move-
ment Ecology 2(1): 4.
White, J. C., M. a Wulder, A. Varhola, M. Vastaranta, N.C. Coops, B.D. Cook, D. Pitt, and M. Woods. 2013. A
best practices guide for generating forest inventory attributes from airborne laser scanning data
using an area-based approach Forestry Chronicle 89(6): 722-723.

Biological Research
Identifying Seasonal Corridors for Brown Bears: an Integrated
Modeling Approach
Daniele De Angelis
PhD Student
Department of Biology and Biotechnology “Charles Darwin”,
Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università 32, Rome 00185, Italy
Email: daniele.deangelis@uniroma1.it
Habitat loss and fragmentation are amongst the major causes of species extinction being often associated with critical
reduction in landscape connectivity (Haddad et al., 2015). Lack of connectivity can severely hamper animal ability to under-
take long-distance movements (e.g., migration, dispersal), impeding both gene flow and access to critical habitat (Tucker
et al., 2018). In some bear (Ursus spp.) populations, the need for increasing pre-wintering food intake (i.e., hyperphagia) can
lead to individual migration-like movement patterns, with animals completing seasonal long-distance round trips between
summer and fall home ranges (Cozzi et al., 2016; Noyce & Garshelis, 2011). Recently developed analytical tools allow research-
ers to disentangle animal movement patterns, and to model landscape connectivity based on empirical animal movement
data, accounting for behavioural states (Maiorano, Boitani, Chiaverini, & Ciucci, 2017; Zeller, McGarigal, & Whiteley, 2012).
In the study that we presented at the 26th IBA conference, held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, we illustrated an integrated
modelling approach to determine potential seasonal corridors using Global Positioning System (GPS) relocations collected
from 11 brown bears (U. arctos) in Croatia (De Angelis et al. 2018). We first studied bear seasonal movement patterns using
Net Squared Displacement (NSD, Bunnefeld et al., 2011), revealing that some individuals performed partial and facultative
General location of the study area in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina (A); trajectory of a brown
bear equipped with GPS collar showing seasonal displacement between summer (green star) and
fall (orange star) home ranges (B); individual Net Squared Displacement profiles of migrant (red
lines) and non-migrant (black lines) bears (C).

Biological Research
summer-fall migrations, as has
already been reported for other
bear populations (Cozzi et al.,
2016; Noyce & Garshelis, 2011).
We then attempted to model
potential seasonal corridors
connecting habitat patches
preferred by bears prior to (i.e.,
summer) and after (i.e., fall)
migratory events. We integrated
the use of Resource Selection
Functions (RSFs, Manly et al.
2002) and Step Selection Func-
tions (SSFs, Fortin et al. 2005)
to identify suitable summer
and fall patches and to study
bear habitat selection along
their movement trajectories,
investigating the effects of both
natural (e.g., slope, elevation,
land cover) and anthropogenic
(e.g., railways, highways, roads)
factors. To model potential cor-
ridors between suitable summer
and fall habitat patches, we used
a recently developed algorithm,
the randomized shortest
path (RSP), in the attempt to
increase the biological realism
of simulated bear paths. In fact,
rather than assuming totally
random or totally optimal animal
movements, as in more clas-
sical approaches (e.g., current
models, McRae et al. 2008, or
least-cost paths, Pinto and Keitt
2009), RSP allows to evaluate
different strategies adopted by
animals navigating through the
landscape (for more details, see
Panzacchi et al., 2016) (Fig. 2D).
The resulted connectivity
maps that we obtained illus-
trated the estimated probability
of bear passage during seasonal
movements within our study
area. According to our findings,
Illustrative workflow followed to model potential bear seasonal corridors for Dinaric bears in Croatia.
bears can successfully travel
1. Distinction between bear GPS relocations linked to non-movement (i.e. clusters of bear reloca-
across sub-optimal patches tions) and movement (bear steps between clusters). 2. Pre-migration (i.e. summer) and post-migra-
to reach suitable habitat in tion (i.e. fall) spatial-explicit suitability models based on non-movement GPS relocations, estimated
fall, although the presence of through resource selection functions (RSFs). 3. Spatial-explicit permeability model based on bear
anthropogenic structures such movement steps, estimated through step selection functions (SSFs). 4. Prediction of bear seasonal
as highways, main paved roads paths using randomised shortest pat (RSP), testing various strategies adopted by animals during
and railways strongly decreased movements, from random ( = 0, equivalent to current models) to optimal ( = 0.1, approximating
the probability of bear travel- least cost path). 5. Evaluation of the correlation between predicted corridors and the frequency of
bear road-kills.

Biological Research
ing. At the current state, one of the major weaknesses of our study is the lack of data on fine-scale forest productivity in
our study area, which we expect could improve our capability to identify natural areas being potentially highly attractive
to bears during hyperphagia. Currently, we are working on refining our models, evaluating how well they fit with known
locations of bear highway crossing events, and with the frequency of road-killed bears. Given our preliminary results, we
are confident that our approach could reveal useful information for informing management actions aimed at preserving
landscape permeability, by indicating areas where implementation (or improvement) of mitigation measures should be
evaluated.
I am truly grateful for the great opportunity offered by the IBA travel grant for presenting our study at the last Interna-
tional Bear Conference, and I am honoured the scientific committee considered this study worthy the Best Student Poster
Presentation Award. This study has been possible thanks to the cooperation of a fantastic group of researchers that I had the
chance to work with during the years of my PhD: Paolo Ciucci, Josip Kusak, Djuro Huber, Slaven Reljić, Manuela Panzacchi,
Bram Van Moorter, Luigi Maiorano, Matteo Falco, Goran Gužvica, and Lidija Šver. The results of this study will be published
soon on a peer-reviewed journal.
Literature Cited
Bunnefeld, N., Börger, L., Van Moorter, B., Rolandsen, C. M., Dettki, H., Solberg, E. J., & Ericsson, G. (2011). A model-driven
approach to quantify migration patterns: individual, regional and yearly differences. Journal of Animal Ecology,
80(2), 466–476.
Cozzi, G., Chynoweth, M., Kusak, J., Çoban, E., Çoban, A., Ozgul, A., & Şekercioğlu, H. (2016). Anthropogenic food resources
foster the coexistence of distinct life history strategies: year-round sedentary and migratory brown bears. Journal of
Zoology, 300(2), 142–150.
De Angelis, D., D. Huber, J. Kusak, S. Reljić, G. Gužvica, L. Šver, B. Van Moorter, M. Panzacchi, P. Ciucci (2018). Identifying
seasonal corridors for brown bears: an integrated modeling approach. Poster presentation at the 26th International
Conference on Bear Research and Management, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 16-21 September.
Fortin, D., Beyer, H. L., Boyce, M. S., Smith, D. W., Duchesne, T., & Mao, J. S. (2005). Wolves influence elk movement: behav-
iour shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology, 86(5), 1320–1330.
Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., … Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmen-
tation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Applied Ecology, (March), 1–9. Maiorano, L., Boitani, L.,
Chiaverini, L., & Ciucci, P. (2017). Uncertainties in the identification of potential dispersal corridors: the importance of
behaviour, sex, and algorithm. Basic and Applied Ecology, 21, 66–75.
Manly, B. F. J. J., Mcdonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., Erickson, W. P., McDonald, T. L., & Erickson, W. P. (2002). Resource selection
by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
McRae, B. H., Dickson, B. G., Keitt, T. H., & Shah, V. B. (2008). Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolu-
tion and conservation, 88(1), 36–59.
Noyce, K. V., & Garshelis, D. L. (2011). Seasonal migrations of black bears (Ursus americanus): causes and consequences.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(4), 823–835.
Panzacchi, M., Van Moorter, B., Strand, O., Saerens, M., Kivimäki, I., St. Clair, C. C., … Boitani, L. (2016). Predicting the
continuum between corridors and barriers to animal movements using Step Selection Functions and Randomized
Shortest Paths. Journal of Animal Ecology, 85(1), 32–42.
Pinto, N., & Keitt, T. H. (2009). Beyond the least-cost path: Evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic ap-
proach. Landscape Ecology, 24(2), 253–266.
Tucker, M. A., Böhning-Gaese, K., Fagan, W. F., Fryxell, J. M., Van Moorter, B., Alberts, S. C., … Mueller, T. (2018). Moving in
the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science.
Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K., & Whiteley, A. R. (2012). Estimating landscape resistance to movement: A review. Landscape
Ecology, 27(6), 777–797.

Biological Research
Does Rebecca, a Seasoned Andean Bear Mother, Show Seasonal
Birthing Patterns?
Armando Castellanos Melchor Ascanta
President, biologist Field Assistant
Andean Bear Foundation Andean Bear Foundation
Email: iznachi@gmail.com
David Jackson
Executive director, biologist
Andean Bear Foundation
Email: andeanbears@gmail.com
Very little is known of Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) maternal behavior due to the remote and inhospitable terrain in
which they live, the elusive, shy nature of the species, and the precarious positioning of maternal dens that make it very dif-
ficult to study mother-cub interactions (Jackson et al, 2017). Over the past 10 years we have been studying an Andean bear
named Rebecca and her offspring, making multiple behavioral observations in order to ascertain species’ maternal behavior
patterns. Individuals were tracked using GPS telemetry equipment and were identified by their unique facial markings. Ages
of bears were mostly calculated using data on the time of copulation and birthing events, though in the absence of this
information, age was estimated using size difference between mother and cubs.
Our study took place in the “La Virgen” sector of the Cayambe Coca National Park (PNCC), situated on the eastern pe-
riphery of the Andean continental divide of central Ecuador, from 3900 - 4100 m above sea level. Rebecca was observed for
the first time in late 2008 with 2 young approx. 14 - 16 months old, and was seen again in 2010 with young between 8 - 10
months old, crossing the inter-oceanic highway.
In March 2015, Rebecca was photographed and filmed with 2 cubs approx. 9 - 10 months old, yet on 6 August 2015, pho-
tographer Mario Pillajo confirmed that Rebecca was accompanied by a single cub, leading us to believe the other was dead.
Feral dogs have become a serious threat to the local fauna in the “La Virgen” sector of the PNCC (Zapata-Rios and Branch
2016). As such, a possible hypothesis for the separation of mother and cub is that they were attacked by dogs, and were sub-
sequently unable to find each other. However, in December 2016 Victor Quinchimbla photographed the lost individual, now
a subadult bear that was seemingly suffering from a severe visual problem, which supports the feral dog attack hypothesis.
After the separation event, on 3 September 2015 Rebecca and the remaining male cub was captured in an Iznachi trap
(Castellanos 2002). Rebecca and her young were anaesthetized, blood samples were collected, and an Iridium / GPS collar
was deployed on the mother bear. It was decided to not deploy a collar on the sub-adult male bear as he was still develop-
ing and not yet of adult size. Rebecca was observed to have remained with the single cub for approximately 2 more months
before separation, and subsequently gave birth to 2 new cubs in April 2016. Using the only wild Andean bear estimation of
gestation period of 125 days recorded for another Andean bear that lives in the PNCC called Delia, we estimated Rebecca´s
copulation date to be somewhere around the beginning of December 2016. This suggests that after separating from her
previous cub, it was only a matter of weeks before she was in heat and mating again.
The data from Rebecca´s Iridium/ GPS collar allowed us to locate her maternal nest and we identified that the new cubs
were a mixed-sex litter, naming them “Sunfo” and “Tamia”.
Rebecca stayed within a few meters of her “maternal nest” for
12 weeks, only foraging in the nest vicinity at night to eat the
soft bases of Kunth (Cortaderia nitida) plants. Rebecca became
very malnourished during this time, hydrating herself by merely
licking rainwater off surrounding leaves. Periodic starvation in
ausinus; Garshelis 2009). At 14 weeks, the cubs were moved ap-
proximately 20 meters to a transient “nest”, which was used for
2 days before moving on to several “satellite nests”. At 15 weeks
the family completely abandoned the nest area and relocated
300 meters away to an upper montane forest.
In July 2017, feral dogs were observed attacking Rebecca’s
cubs. To avoid the dogs’ attack, the cubs sought refuge in rocky
crevices and Rebecca remained close to protect them. Once
the threat was over, Rebecca reunited with her cubs using Rebecca crosses a highway with her cubs.

Biological Research
typical vocalizations. In this case, the “tuuuuct” sound (Castellanos 2010), to
which the cubs responded with the sound “auuauuauu”. In June 2017, Andrés
Holguín filmed Sunfo and Tamia still suckling their mother at an age of approx.
14 months of age, equal to that reported for sloth bears (Garshelis 2009), thus
contradicting the belief that Andean bears suckle for only 1 year (García-Rangel
2012). However, we were unable to identify the exact age of weaning. At 18
months, Rebecca separated from Sunfo and Tamia, although they remained
close. Based on previous observations (García-Rangel 2012), we suspect that
they accompanied her for almost 2 years. Four weeks after they had separated
from their mother the 2 siblings remained together, which is similar to reports
on brown bears (Blanco et al. 2016) and sloth bears (Garshelis 2009).
Rebecca’s son. In August 2018, Rebecca and 2 new cubs of about 4 months old were pho-
tographed by Marcelo Quipo. From the first sighting of Rebecca in 2008 until
present, she has given birth at least 5 times and has raised at least 10 cubs, giving birth approx. once every 2 years. Based on
data from Rebecca’s previous births, she appears to have synchronized her birthing to the month of April, leaving the “ma-
ternal nest” in August, which coincides with the height of the rainy season. This could be a strategy to reduce the chances of
being poached or preyed upon, and to synchronize fundamental periods of birth preparation with annual fructification pat-
terns of important food sources. The synchronization of breeding with local climatic characteristics and phenology of plants
foodstuffs has been reported in Colombia (Rodríguez, 1991), Peru (Peyton 1980) and Venezuela (Torres et al., 1995). However,
a clearly defined seasonality is questionable, as mother and cubs have been observed in the same region simultaneously,
yet at different stages of development.
Acknowledgments
Our thanks to the National Geographic Society, Zoo Conservation Outreach Group, Termas Papallacta, and Ecological
Project International for supporting our project; to the technicians and park rangers of the Cotopaxi and Cayambe Coca
National Parks and to the Pichincha Ministry of the Environment for providing us with research permits. Also to Denis Torres
for his edition and accurate comments on this manuscript.
Literature cited
Blanco, J., F., Ballesteros y G. Palomero. 2016. Rehabilitación de osos huérfanos, heridos, abandonados. Integrando
conservación del oso y bienestar animal. Documento Técnico Fundación Oso Pardo.
Castellanos, A. 2002. Captura de osos andinos (Tremarctos ornatus) con “Trampa Iznachi” en Ecuador. Ukuku, Boletín
Informativo sobre la conservación del oso andino Año 4, N° 4 en: http://ukuku.cjb.net
Castellanos, A. 2010. Guía para la rehabilitación, liberación y seguimiento de osos Andinos. 2010. Imprenta Anyma. Quito-
Ecuador. 1-29 pp.
Castellanos, A. 2015. Maternal behavior of a female Andean bear in the Paramo of Cayambe Coca National Park, Ecuador.
International Bear News Spring 24 (1): 32-33.
Jackson, D., A. Castellanos and D. Vasquez. 2017. Kinship relations in a multi-generational Andean Bear (Tremarctos
ornatus) family in north Ecuador. International Bear News Spring. 26 (1): 24.
García-Rangel, S. 2012. Andean bear Tremarctos ornatus natural history and conservation. Mammal Review 42:85–119
Garshelis, D. 2009. “Family Ursidae (Bears)”. In Wilson, Don; Mittermeier, Russell (eds). Handbook of the Mammals of the
World. Volume 1: Carnivores. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. ISBN 978-84-96553-49-1.
Peyton, B. 1980. Ecology, distribution and food habits of spectacled bears, Tremarctos ornatus, in Peru. Journal of
Mammalogy 61: 639–652.
Rodríguez D, Cuesta F, Goldstein I, Bracho AE, Naranjo L, Hernandez O. 2003. Estrategia ecorregional para la conservación
del oso Andino en los Andes del Norte. Comunicaciones WWF Colombia, Cali, Colombia.
Rodríguez, D 1991. Evaluación y uso del hábitat natural del oso andino Tremarctos ornatus (F. Cuvier, 1825) y un diag-
nóstico actual de la subpoblación del parque nacional natural Las Orquídeas, Antioquia, Colombia. Tesis de Grado.
Univ. Nac. Bogotá, Colombia. 132 pp.
Torres, D., A. Lobo, R. Ascanio & G. Lobo. 1995. Monitoring the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus)
populations in the watershed of the Capaz river, Mérida, Venezuela. Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales
La Salle 143: 25-40.
Zapata-Ríos, G. and Branch, L. 2016. Altered activity patterns and reduced abundance of native mammals
in sites with feral dogs in the high Andes. Biological Conservation 193, pp. 9–16.

Biological Research
Observations of a Sloth Bear Feeding on a Honeycomb in a Tree in
Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, India
Om Gosatkar Nisha Singh
Member, Youth for Nature Conservation Organization Project Leader
Amravati, Maharashtra, India Wildlife and Conservation Biology Research Lab,
Email: gosatkarom@gmail.com HNG University, Patan (Gujarat), India 384265
Email: nishanicky1210@gmail.com
Sunil Rathod
Round Officer
Maharashtra Forest Department
Chikhaldara, Maharashtra, India
Email: sunildevrathod1@ gmail.com
Hot summer days in central India drive animals to shrinking water holes, which provide excellent opportunities for view-
ing. On one such day we rode through Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, to view wildlife, especially hoping to see a sloth
bear (Melursus ursinus).
For the past 7 years, I (OM) have been associated with Youth for Nature Conservation Organization (YNCO). I am interested
in mammal ecology, wildlife conservation, human–bear conflict, and am involved in awareness programs for school children
and villagers and training programs for Maharashtra forest department staffs. YNCO is a non-government organization from
Amaravati, Maharashtra, working on wildlife issues under the guidance of Dr. Swapnil Sonone, member of the IUCN/SSC
Sloth Bear Expert Team. The organization works on issues about conflicts with sloth bears, developing mitigation measures
in and around Melghat Tiger Reserve.
“Melghat” refers to a land where several mountains adjoin. It is hilly terrain of the Satpuda mountain range, with a dry
deciduous forest dominated by teak (Tectona grandis; locally known as Sinpa) trees. Melghat is well known for its wilderness
and great landscapes, providing good habitat for sloth bears and other wildlife. Project Tiger has made it a heaven for wild-
life enthusiasts. We often visit Melghat, and have seen sloth bears many times during our field work. But this trip provided us
with a chance to witness an event and behavior that we had not previously seen, and which has rarely been described in the
literature.
It was about 11:00 in the morning of May 22, 2018, when I started off into the field accompanied by a forest guard and
other forest laborers. We drove 40–60 km on a track in the forest by safari vehicle. We came across a number of dholes (Cuon
alpinus), sambar (Rusa unicolor), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak), Indian gaur (Bos gaurus), and many bird species. As
evening fell (17:30–18:00), we decided to return to the base station. Just then, I glimpsed some movement in the branch of
Arjun tree (Terminalia arjuna), 15–18 m above the ground. Looking closer, it was a sloth bear, or bana (as called by the local
tribe). The bear was moving towards a honeycomb hanging from the underside of a branch.
We were quietly observing the bear’s activities from 60–70 m away when we noticed 2 cubs on the ground playing in the
dry stream bed under the tree. They seemed to be waiting for the mother to dislodge and drop some pieces of the honey-
comb. But our vehicle scared them, and they ran off, while the mother remained intent at getting to the honeycomb. She
seemed unaware of us.
Sloth bears climb trees, but they are not as adept at tree
climbing as some other bear species. Their long rather straight
front claws, which are adapted for digging into termite or ant
colonies, are not perfected for climbing. They can often ap-
pear awkward. In this case, the bear worked its way out on the
branch and spent 6–7 minutes trying to break off the honey-
comb, using her paws and snout, while trying to balance on
the branch by wedging her hind limbs in a crotch. Meanwhile,
she was contending with bees swarming and stinging her
Om Gosatkar
snout, which she occasionally brushed away with a free paw.

Finally she was successful in breaking off a few pieces. She
also sucked out the honey periodically. This honey feeding
event was recorded and posted on YouTube (https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=sKEvicMlzYg&feature=youtu.be). The scenic beauty of Melghat Tiger Reserve with
The diet of sloth bears is known to vary seasonally and rugged habitat in Maharashtra, India

Biological Research
(left & center) Persistent efforts made by the mother sloth bear to break off honeycomb on the tree while being stung by swarming bees.
(right) Sloth bear retreating from tree after noticing our presence. She quickly slid down the tree leaving characteristic sliding marks.
Photo credits: Om Gosatkar.
geographically, sometimes being mainly insects and sometimes mainly fruits (Laurie and Seidensticker 1977, Baskaran et
al. 1997, Joshi et al. 1997, Seidensticker et al. 2011, Sukhadiya et al. 2013). Melghat is filled with fruiting species as Madhuca
indica, Zizyphus mauritiana, Miliusa tomentosa, Murraya koenigii, Carissa carandas, Cordia dichotoma, Emblica officinalis,
Ficus religiosa, F. benghalensis, Cassia fistula, Syzygium cumini and Mangifera indica although most of these fruits are avail-
able for a limited period of months (May–August or December–February).
It is also often reported that sloth bears are especially fond of honey and honeycombs, which are found typically in trees.
In a memorable scene in the movie The Jungle Book (2016), the sloth bear “Baloo” convinces the human boy Mowgli, who is
an adept climber, to retrieve a honeycomb for him far up a cliff face (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLlsrug1NQE).
We have found traces of honeycomb in sloth bear scats many times but because this substance is well digested, it is
difficult to assess how important it is in the diet. This was our first instance of seeing a sloth bear feeding on a honeycomb.
Claw marks of bears on M. indica, T. tomentosa, S. cumini, F. benghalensis and Bombax ceiba were often seen as high as
20–25 m in honey-bearing or fruit-bear trees during our field surveys. In all cases, we observed long marks on the trees, from
the bear sliding backwards as it came down. This was described from direct observations by Laurie and Sedensticker (1977).
We observed and recorded that behaviour in this instance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVT7qwAVDnA&feature=yo
utu.be). We do not know, though, if her retreat down the tree was hastened by her seeing us.
Within seconds, she was on the ground, looked in our direction, and quickly left without consuming the pieces of honey-
comb on the ground. Leaving an indelible mark our memories, we were fortunate to see another sloth bear in the road, 2–3
km away, on our way back.
Although others have observed sloth bears feeding on honeycombs in trees, I wanted to write about it because the
experience so impressed me. One often hears of single incidents that shape people’s life, and for me, this was certainly one,
increasing my desire to learn more about this species.
Literature Cited
Baskaran, N., N. Sivaganesan, and J. Krishnamoorthy. 1997. Food habits of sloth bear in Mudumalai wildlife Sanctuary,
Tamil Nadu, Southern India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 94:1–9.
Joshi, A.R., D.L. Garshelis, and J.L.D. Smith. 1997. Seasonal and habitat-related diets of sloth bears in Nepal. Journal of
Mammalogy 78:584–597.
Laurie, A. and J. Sedensticker. 1977. Behavioural ecology of the Sloth bear (Melursus ursinus). Journal of Zoology (London)
182:187–204.
Seidensticker, J., K. Yoganand, and A.J.T. Johnsingh. 2011. Sloth bears living in seasonally dry tropical and moist broadleaf
forests and their conservation. Pages 217–236 in W.J. McShea, S.J. Davies, and N. Bhump-
akphan, editors. The ecology and conservation of seasonally dry forests in Asia. Dry
forests of Asia: conservation and ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Sukhadiya, D., J.U. Joshi, and N. Dharaiya. 2013. Feeding Ecology and Habitat Use of Sloth Bear
(Melursus ursinus) in Jassore Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. Indian Ecological Society.
40(1):14-18.

Manager’s Corner
SEAFWA BearWise Program Launches Website
Biologists and Managers Collaborate on Landmark Regional Bear
Education Program
Dan Gibbs,
Wildlife Management/Bear Program Leader
Chairman, SEAFWA Large Carnivore Working Group BearWise Committee
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 3030 Wildlife Way, Morristown, TN 37814
Email: dan.gibbs@tn.gov ; phone: 423-587-7037
After more than 2 years of research and development, the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(SEAFWA) has introduced the BearWise program and the companion website, www.bearwise.org , dedicated to helping
people live more responsibly with black bears and providing resources for both bear managers and the public.
The BearWise program was pioneered by the bear biologists from SEAFWA’s 15 member states, where about 70,000 black
bears are trying to share space with more than 124 million people. Growing populations of both bears and humans are lead-
ing to a rising number of human-bear encounters and conflicts.
The BearWise program offers consistent, science-based information and smart, proven and practical ways to prevent
conflicts, resolve problems, and develop BearWise communities to keep bears wild. Participating member states include
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The dedicated BearWise Committee, which is a part of SEAFWA’s Large
Carnivore Working Group, is co-chaired by Dan Gibbs, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Maria Davidson, Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The committee of bear biologists also includes Colleen Olfenbuttel, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission and David Telesco, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
The BearWise website features an informative home
page that explains the BearWise mission, and a wealth
of information can be found in the 4 main sections: the 6
BearWise Basics; Bear Safety Tips for encounters, outdoor
recreation and farming and raising livestock; guidelines
and success stories for BearWise communities; and
general information about black bears.
Extensive resources are available now at www.bear-
wise.org, including a printable PDF of the Six BearWise
Basics, examples of conflict prevention programs and
materials from throughout the southeast, instructional
and informational videos, examples of legislation and
community ordinances and much more. A library of
materials and a password-protected section for wildlife
professionals is under development.
As the BearWise program continues to grow and
develop, more resources will be added to the website
for bear managers and professionals as well as members
of the public, including homeowner associations and
municipalities.
BearWise, Helping People Live Responsibly with Black

Bears, A Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agen-
cies Program
Visit www.bearwise.org to subscribe to
email updates.

Workshop Announcements
24th Eastern Black Bear Workshop
April 22 – 25, 2019. Potosi, Missouri
Laura Conlee
Resource Scientist – Furbearer Biologist
Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, USA
Email: laura.conlee@mdc.mo.gov
The Missouri Department of Conservation is excited to host the 24th Eastern Black Bear
Workshop 22–25 April, 2019 at the YMCA of the Ozarks Trout Lodge in Potosi, MO: http://
www.ymcaoftheozarks.org.
The purpose of the Eastern Black Bear Workshop (EBBW) is to bring together state/provincial biologists, federal biologists,
and university researchers with responsibilities for managing black bear (Ursus americanus) populations in the eastern USA
and Canada to discuss issues important to the management, conservation, and perpetuation of those black bear popula-
tions. EBBWs are inherently different from general conferences. Whereas conferences have the purpose of sharing informa-
tion through the presentation of
research and management papers,
EBBWs are designed not only
to share information, but more
specifically to discuss and find
solutions to problems of managing
Missouri Department of Conservation

bear populations at the regional
level.
Visit www.easternblackbear-
workshop.org for lodging, registra-
tion, agenda items, and poster
submissions. Registration will open
by January 7, 2019.
Contact: Laura Conlee: laura.

conlee@mdc.mo.gov or 573-815-
7900 ext. 2903.
Trail camera footage of Bear 1428 and her yearlings exiting their den on a warm
March day in southern Missouri.
Truman Listserv and Facebook Page

• Discussions pertaining to bear biology, management, or study design challenges
• Assistance with proposals and study design through IBA professionals
• Job searches, announcements, information regarding the IBA and student membership
• Planning for IBA student activities and meetings
• IBA membership is encouraged, but not required, for initial sign-up
Listserv Signup Instructions

- Visit: https://www.bearbiology.org/membership/students/
- Follow the links to request an invitation
- If you’re a new member, please submit a paragraph
about your project and include your contact inform-
ation so we can all get to know you.
Facebook Signup Instructions

- Visit: https://facebook.com/groups/IBA.Conference/

Publications
Recent Bear Literature
Marion Schneider
Email: mfschneider@gmx.de
If you have an article recently published please email the citation for inclusion in the next issue of Recent Bear Literature.
The deadlines for the next issues are:
• Spring Issue: 5 February: Agnieszka Sergiel: agasergiel@gmail.com
• Summer Issue: 12 July: Agnes Pelletier: asg.pelletier@gmail.com
• Fall Issue: 5 October: Marion Schneider: mfschneider@gmx.de
For easy access to articles, we are including the DOI citation, as well as the email contact of one coauthor if available. To
open articles from their DOI, enter the DOI citation in the text box provided at the following website: http://dx.doi.org
Allen, M.L., A.S. Norton, G. Stauffer, N.M. Roberts, Y. Luo, Q. Li, D. MacFarland and T.R. Van Deelen. 2018. A bayesian state-space
model using age-at-harvest data for estimating the population of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Wisconsin. Sci Rep, 8(1):
12440. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30988-4.
Ambarlı, H., D. Mengüllüoğlu, J. Fickel and D.W. Förster. 2018. Population genetics of the main population of brown bears in
Southwest Asia. PeerJ, 6: e5660. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5660. Email: huseyinambarli@gmail.com.
Amin, R., H.S. Baral, B.R. Lamichhane, L.P. Poudyal, S. Lee, S.R. Jnawali, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Upadhyaya, M.B. Pandey and R. Shrestha.
2018. The status of nepal’s mammals. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 10(3): 11361-11378. DOI: 10.11609/jott.3712.10.3.11361-11378.
Email: raj.amin@zsl.org.
Arinell, K., S. Blanc, K.G. Welinder, O.G. Støen, A.L. Evans and O. Fröbert. 2018. Physical inactivity and platelet function in humans
and brown bears: A comparative study. Platelets, 29(1): 87-90. DOI: 10.1080/09537104.2017.1336530. Email: karin.arinell@liv.se.
Arnemo, J.M., B. Ytrehus, K. Madslien, J. Malmsten, S. Brunberg, P. Segerström, A.L. Evans and J.E. Swenson. 2018. Long-term safety
of intraperitoneal radio transmitter implants in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5(252). DOI: 10.3389/
fvets.2018.00252. Email: jon.arnemo@inn.no.
Arun, A.S., P.M. Sidharth, V.P. Rashamol, V. Sejian and R. Bhatta. 2018. Comparative study on the rhythmic changes in haematologi-
cal parameters between captive and free ranging wild sloth bear (Melursus ursinus). Biological Rhythm Research: 1-18. DOI:
10.1080/09291016.2018.1498231. Email: arun4wildlife@gmail.com.
Ashrafzadeh, M.-R., R. Khosravi, M. Ahmadi and M. Kaboli. 2018. Landscape heterogeneity and ecological niche isolation shape the
distribution of spatial genetic variation in iranian brown bears, Ursus arctos (carnivora: Ursidae). Mammalian Biology, 93: 64-75.
DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2018.08.007. Email: mkaboli@ut.ac.ir.
Bai, W., T. Connor, J. Zhang, H. Yang, X. Dong, X. Gu and C. Zhou. 2018. Long-term distribution and habitat changes of protected
wildlife: Giant pandas in Wolong Nature Reserve, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(12): 11400-11408.
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-1407-6. Email: zhangjd224@163.com, drcqzhou1@163.com.
Bando, M.K.H., O.L. Nelson, N. Webster, J.D. Ramsay, H.J. Bacon and R. Sellon. 2018. Aortic aneurysm, dissection, and rupture in six
bile-farmed bears. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 49(3): 738-747. DOI: 10.1638/2018-0018.1. Email: monica.bando@wsu.
edu.
Barber, J. 2018. Effects of food distribution and external factors on the activity budgets of captive sun bears (Helarctos malayanus).
Department of Biology, Sonoma State University.
Barlow, A., J.A. Cahill, S. Hartmann, C. Theunert, G. Xenikoudakis, G.G. Fortes, J.L.A. Paijmans, G. Rabeder, C. Frischauf, A. Grandal-
d’Anglade, A. García-Vázquez, M. Murtskhvaladze, U. Saarma, P. Anijalg, T. Skrbinšek, G. Bertorelle, B. Gasparian, G. Bar-Oz, R.
Pinhasi, M. Slatkin, L. Dalén, B. Shapiro and M. Hofreiter. 2018. Partial genomic survival of cave bears in living brown bears.
Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(10): 1563-1570. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0654-8.
Bista, M., S. Panthi and S.R. Weiskopf. 2018. Habitat overlap between asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus and red panda Ailurus
fulgens in Himalaya. PLOS ONE, 13(9): e0203697. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203697. Email: mountsaroj@gmail.com.
Bombieri, G., V. Nanni, M.d.M. Delgado, J.M. Fedriani, J.V. López-Bao, P. Pedrini and V. Penteriani. 2018. Content analysis of media
reports on predator attacks on humans: Toward an understanding of human risk perception and predator acceptance. BioSci-
ence, 68(8): 577-584. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy072. Email: giulipan91@gmail.com.
Burton, A.C., J.T. Fisher, P. Adriaens, J. Treweek, D. Paetkau, M. Wikstrom, A. Callender, R. Vardanyan and A. Stepanyan. 2018. Density
and distribution of a brown bear (Ursus arctos) population within the caucasus biodiversity hotspot. Journal of Mammalogy,
99(5): 1249-1260. DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyy081. Email: cole.burton@ubc.ca.
Cahill, J.A., P.D. Heintzman, K. Harris, M.D. Teasdale, J. Kapp, A.E.R. Soares, I. Stirling, D. Bradley, C.J. Edwards, K. Graim, A.A. Kisleika,
A.V. Malev, N. Monaghan, R.E. Green and B. Shapiro. 2018. Genomic evidence of widespread admixture from polar bears into
brown bears during the last ice age. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35(5): 1120-1129. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msy018. Email:
jamecahill@gmail.com.

Publications
Chanon, S., B. Chazarin, B. Toubhans, C. Durand, I. Chery, M. Robert, A. Vieille-Marchiset, J.E. Swenson, A. Zedrosser, A.L. Evans, S.
Brunberg, J.M. Arnemo, G. Gauquelin-Koch, K.B. Storey, C. Simon, S. Blanc, F. Bertile and E. Lefai. 2018. Proteolysis inhibition by
hibernating bear serum leads to increased protein content in human muscle cells. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 5525. DOI: 10.1038/
s41598-018-23891-5.
Charlton, B.D., M.A. Owen, J.L. Keating, M.S. Martin-Wintle, H. Zhang and R.R. Swaisgood,. 2018. Sound transmission in a bamboo
forest and its implications for information transfer in giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) bleats. Scientific reports, 8(1): 12754.
Email: bencharlton829@gmail.com.
Chen, D., C. Li, L. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, G. Cheng, D. Li, G. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Chen, M. Feng, C. Wang, H. Wu, L. Deng, H.
Ming and X. Yang. 2018. Analysis of the influence of living environment and age on vaginal fungal microbiome in giant pan-
das (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) by high throughput sequencing. Microbial Pathogenesis, 115: 280-286. DOI: 10.1016/j.mic-
path.2017.12.067. Email: yangxin0822@163.com.
Chen, Y.-p., Q. Liu, Q.-y. Ma, L. Maltby, A.M. Ellison and Y. Zhao. 2018. Environmental toxicants impair liver and kidney function and
sperm quality of captive pandas. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 162: 218-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.07.008. Email:
chenyp@ieecas.cn.
Cheng Huang, X.-Y.L., Liu-Jun Shi, Xue-Long Jiang. 2018. Patterns of human-wildlife conflict and compensation practices around
Daxueshan Nature Reserve, China. Zoological Research, 39(6): 406-412. DOI: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2018.056. Email: jiangxl@
mail.kiz.ac.cn.
Chirichella, R., A. Mustoni, F. Zibordi, M. Armanini, A. Caliari and M. Apollonio. 2018. Rent a room in the alps: Winter den site prefer-
ences of native and reintroduced brown bears. Mammal Research: 1-10. DOI: 10.1007/s13364-018-0402-0. Email: rchirichella@
uniss.it.
Chouksey, S., S. Singh, R. Pandey and V.S. Tomer. 2018. Monitoring the status of human-wildlife conflict and its impact on com-
munity based conservation in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 10(2):
710-715. DOI: 10.31018/jans.v10i2.1771.
Coogan, S.C.P., N.C. Coops, D.M. Janz, M.R.L. Cattet, S.P. Kearney, G.B. Stenhouse and S.E. Nielsen. 2018. Towards grizzly bear popula-
tion recovery in a modern landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13259. Email: sean.c.p.coogan@
gmail.com.
Coogan, S.C.P., D. Raubenheimer, G.B. Stenhouse, N.C. Coops and S.E. Nielsen. 2018. Functional macronutritional generalism in a
large omnivore, the brown bear. Ecology and Evolution, 8(4): 2365-2376. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3867. Email: scoogan@ualberta.ca.
Crudge, B., T. Nguyen and T.T. Cao. 2018. The challenges and conservation implications of bear bile farming in Viet Nam. Oryx: 1-8.
DOI: 10.1017/S0030605317001752. Email: briancrudge@gmail.com.
Daugaard-Petersen, T., R. Langebæk, F.F. Rigét, M. Dyck, R.J. Letcher, L. Hyldstrup, J.-E.B. Jensen, R. Dietz and C. Sonne. 2018. Persis-
tent organic pollutants and penile bone mineral density in east greenland and canadian polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during
1996–2015. Environment International, 114: 212-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.022. Email: cs@bios.au.dk.
Davoli, F., M. Cozzo, F. Angeli, C. Groff and E. Randi. 2018. Infanticide in brown bear: A case-study in the Italian alps–genetic
identification of perpetrator and implications in small populations. Nature Conservation, 25: 55. DOI: 10.3897/natureconserva-
tion.25.23776. Email: francesca.davoli@isprambiente.it.
Deacy, W.W., J.A. Erlenbach, W.B. Leacock, J.A. Stanford, C.T. Robbins and J.B. Armstrong. 2018. Phenological tracking associated
with increased salmon consumption by brown bears. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 11008. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29425-3.
Dietz, R., J.-P. Desforges, K. Gustavson, F.F. Rigét, E.W. Born, R.J. Letcher and C. Sonne. 2018. Immunologic, reproductive, and car-
cinogenic risk assessment from pop exposure in east greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during 1983–2013. Environment
International, 118: 169-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.020. Email: rdi@bios.au.dk.
Ditmer, M.A., S.J. Rettler, J.R. Fieberg, P.A. Iaizzo, T.G. Laske, K.V. Noyce and D.L. Garshelis. 2018. American black bears perceive the
risks of crossing roads. Behavioral Ecology, 29(3): 667-675. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary020. Email: ditme004@umn.edu.
Dorji, S., R. Rajaratnam, L. Falconi, S.E. Williams, P. Sinha and K. Vernes. 2018. Identifying conservation priorities for threatened
eastern himalayan mammals. Conservation Biology, 32(5): 1162-1173. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13115. Email: sangayd@moaf.gov.bt.
Du, X., F. Dai, F. Yao, M. Tan and Q. Pan, 2018. Genome Sequence of Weissella cibaria M2, a Potential Probiotic Strain Isolated from
the Feces of a Giant Panda. Microbiology Resource Announcements, 7(11). DOI: 10.1128/mra.01121-18.
Eriksen, A., P. Wabakken, E. Maartmann and B. Zimmermann. 2018. Den site selection by male brown bears at the population’s
expansion front. PLOS ONE, 13(8): e0202653. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202653. Email: ane.eriksen@inn.no.
Fahimi, H., A.T. Qashqaei, M. Chalani, Z. Asadi, S. Broomand, N. Ahmadi and G.H. Yusefi. 2018. Evidence of seed germination in
scats of the asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus in Iran (mammalia: Carnivora). Zoology in the Middle East, 64(2): 182-184. DOI:
10.1080/09397140.2018.1444573. Email: qashqaei@gmail.com.
Fawzi, N., V. Husna and J. Helms. 2018. Measuring deforestation using remote sensing and its implication for conservation in
Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP
Publishing: pp: 012038.
Finďo, S., M. Skuban, M. Kajba, J. Chalmers and M. Kalaš. 2018. Identifying attributes associated with brown bear (Ursus arctos) road-
crossing and road-kill sites. Canadian Journal of Zoology. DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2018-0088.
Flanders, J.A., R.F. Wack, N. Pusterla, S.M. Mapes, D. Collins and K.C. Gamble. 2018. Survey for equine herpesviruses in polar bears

Publications
(Ursus maritimus) and exotic equids housed in US AZA institutions. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 49(3): 599-608. DOI:
10.1638/2016-0189.1.Email: jafdvm11@yahoo.com.
Fujiki, D. 2018. Can frequent occurrence of asiatic black bears around residential areas be predicted by a model-based mast produc-
tion in multiple fagaceae species? Journal of Forest Research, 23(5): 260-269. DOI: 10.1080/13416979.2018.1488653. Email: fujiki@
wmi-hyogo.jp.
García Marín, J.F., L.J. Royo, A. Oleaga, E. Gayo, O. Alarcia, D. Pinto, I.Z. Martínez, P. González, R. Balsera, J.L. Marcos and A. Balseiro.
2018. Canine adenovirus type 1 (cadv-1) in free-ranging European brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos): A threat for cantabrian
population? Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13013. Email: abalseiro@serida.org.
Gervasi, V. and P. Ciucci. 2018. Demographic projections of the Apennine brown bear population Ursus arctos marsicanus
(mammalia: Ursidae) under alternative management scenarios. The European Zoological Journal, 85(1): 243-253. DOI:
10.1080/24750263.2018.1478003. Email: paolo.ciucci@uniroma1.it.
Giroud, S., A.L. Evans, I. Chery, F. Bertile, G. Tascher, J. Bertrand-Michel, G. Gauquelin-Koch, J.M. Arnemo, J.E. Swenson, E. Lefai, S.
Blanc and C. Simon. 2018. Seasonal changes in eicosanoid metabolism in the brown bear. The Science of Nature, 105(9): 58. DOI:
10.1007/s00114-018-1583-8. Email: sylvain.giroud@vetmeduni.ac.at.
Gocinski, B.L., K.K. Knott, B.M. Roberts, J.L. Brown, C.K. Vance and A.J. Kouba. 2018. Changes in urinary androgen concentration
indicate that male giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) respond to impending female oestrus during and outside the typical
spring breeding season. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(2): 399-408. DOI: 10.1071/RD16345. Email: bencharl-
ton829@gmail.com.
Gomez, L. and C.R. Shepherd. 2018. Trade in bears in Lao PDR with observations from market surveys and seizure data. Global Ecol-
ogy and Conservation, 15: e00415. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00415. Email: lalita.gomez@trafﬁc.org.
Guharajan, R., T.W. Arnold, G. Bolongon, G.H. Dibden, N.K. Abram, S.W. Teoh, M.A. Magguna, B. Goossens, S. Te Wong and S.K.
Nathan. 2018. Survival strategies of a frugivore, the sun bear, in a forest-oil palm landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation: 1-21.
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-018-1619-6. Email: roshang88@gmail.com.
Guskov, V.Y., I.N. Sheremetyeva, I.V. Seryodkin and O.Y. Tyutenkov. 2018. Cranometric variability in brown bears of the Russian far
east. Biology Bulletin, 45(4): 368-375. DOI: 10.1134/s1062359018040064. Email: valguskov@gmail.com.
Han, F.-R., X.-M. Guang, Q.-H. Wan and S.-G. Fang. 2018. Deep sequencing of fosmid clones indicates gene conversion in the
male-specific region of the giant panda Y chromosome. Genome Biol Evol, 10(9): 2168-2177. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evy174. Email:
sgfanglab@zju.edu.cn.
He, K., J. Qing, Z. Zhang, B. Yang, K. Zhang, F. Huang, Z. Yang, Q. Dai, X. Gu, X. Yang, Y. Huang, D. Li and H. Zhang. 2018. Assessing the
reproductive status of a breeding, translocated female giant panda using data from GPS collar. Folia Zoologica, 67(1): 54-60. DOI:
10.25225/fozo.v67.i1.a5.2018. Email: heke0611@163.com.
Hilderbrand, G.V., D.D. Gustine, B.A. Mangipane, K. Joly, W. Leacock, L.S. Mangipane, J. Erlenbach, M.S. Sorum, M.D. Cameron, J.L.
Belant and T. Cambier. 2018. Body size and lean mass of brown bears across and within four diverse ecosystems. Journal of Zool-
ogy, 305(1): 53-62. DOI: 10.1111/jzo.12536. Email: ghilderbrand@usgs.gov.
Hu, Y., H. Pang, S. Ling, R. Wei, Y. Zhu, H. Zhang, D. Li, D. Li and C. Wang. 2018. Sequence analysis of the ATP synthase of subunits
(ATP8 and ATP6) genes of mitochondrial DNA genome from Ailuropoda melanoleuca. Mitochondrial DNA Part B, 3(2): 1092-1093.
DOI: 10.1080/23802359.2018.1424574. Email: 525692787@qq.com.
Huang, Q., C.H. Fleming, B. Robb, A. Lothspeich and M. Songer. 2018. How different are species distribution model predictions?—
Application of a new measure of dissimilarity and level of significance to giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca. Ecological
Informatics, 46: 114-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.06.004. Email: huangq@si.edu.
Huang, Q., J. Kraus and M. Songer. 2018. Qinling mountains, china: The relationships between bamboo mineral content and giant
panda habitat selection during migration. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 41(2): 195-208.
Ivanov, E., I. Mordvintsev, N. Platonov, S. Naidenko, A. Tiunov and V. Rozhnov. 2018. Isotopic composition of blood of polar bears
(Ursus maritimus) of the Kara–Barents sea population. In: Doklady Biological Sciences. Springer: pp: 93-96.
Jamhuri, J., L.D. Samantha, S.L. Tee, N. Kamarudin, A. Ashton-Butt, A. Zubaid, A.M. Lechner and B. Azhar. 2018. Selective logging
causes the decline of large-sized mammals including those in unlogged patches surrounded by logged and agricultural areas.
Biological Conservation, 227: 40-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.004. Email: b_azhar@upm.edu.my.
Jati, A.S., H. Samejima, S. Fujiki, Y. Kurniawan, R. Aoyagi and K. Kitayama. 2018. Effects of logging on wildlife communities in
certified tropical rainforests in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management, 427: 124-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.
foreco.2018.05.054. Email: agussudibyojati@yahoo.co.id.
Jiangzuo, Q., J. Wagner, J. Chen, C. Dong, J. Wei, J. Ning and J. Liu. 2018. Presence of the middle pleistocene cave bears in China
confirmed – Evidence from Zhoukoudian area. Quaternary Science Reviews, 199: 1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.09.012. Email:
liujinyi@ivpp.ac.cn.
Johnson, H.E., D.L. Lewis, T.L. Verzuh, C.F. Wallace, R.M. Much, L.K. Willmarth and S.W. Breck. 2018. Human development and climate
affect hibernation in a large carnivore with implications for human–carnivore conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(2): 663-
672. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13021. Email: heatherjohnson@usgs.gov.
Kennedy, J.R., L. Rogers and F.A. Kaestle. 2018. Ancient DNA evidence for the regional trade of bear paws by Chinese diaspora com-
munities in 19th-century Western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science, 99: 135-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2018.09.005.

Publications
Email: ryanzooarch@gmail.com.
Kristensen, T.V., E.E. Puckett, E.L. Landguth, J.L. Belant, J.T. Hast, C. Carpenter, J.L. Sajecki, J. Beringer, M. Means, J.J. Cox, L.S. Eggert,
D. White and K.G. Smith. 2018. Spatial genetic structure in American black bears (Ursus americanus): Female philopatry is vari-
able and related to population history. Heredity, 120(4): 329-341. DOI: 10.1038/s41437-017-0019-0.
Ladle, A., T. Avgar, M. Wheatley, G.B. Stenhouse, S.E. Nielsen and M.S. Boyce. 2018. Grizzly bear response to spatio-temporal vari-
ability in human recreational activity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13277. Email: ladle@ualberta.ca.
Ladyfandela, N., W. Novarino and J. Nurdin. 2018. Jenis-jenis carnivora di kawasan suaka alam malampah, sumatera barat, indone-
sia. JURNAL BIOLOGI UNAND, 6(2): 90-97. DOI: (ISSN : 2303-2162). Email: nindyladyfandela.1210423041@gmail.com.
Lara-Díaz, N.E., H. Coronel-Arellano, C.A. López-González, G. Sánchez-Rojas and J.E. Martínez-Gómez. 2018. Activity and resource
selection of a threatened carnivore: The case of black bears in Northwestern Mexico. Ecosphere, 9(1): e01923. DOI: 10.1002/
ecs2.1923. Email: cats4mex@gmail.com.
Laske, T.G., A.L. Evans, J.M. Arnemo, T.L. Iles, M.A. Ditmer, O. Fröbert, D.L. Garshelis and P.A. Iaizzo. 2018. Development and utiliza-
tion of implantable cardiac monitors in free-ranging American black and Eurasian brown bears: System evolution and lessons
learned. Animal Biotelemetry, 6(1): 13. DOI: 10.1186/s40317-018-0157-z. Email: g.laske@medtronic.com.
Laufenberg, J.S., H.E. Johnson, P.F. Doherty and S.W. Breck. 2018. Compounding effects of human development and a natural food
shortage on a black bear population along a human development-wildland interface. Biological Conservation, 224: 188-198. DOI:
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.004. Email: jared_laufenberg@fws.gov.
Lillie, K.M., E.M. Gese, T.C. Atwood and S.A. Sonsthagen. 2018. Development of on-shore behavior among polar bears (Ursus
maritimus) in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Inherited or learned? Ecology and Evolution, 8(16): 7790-7799. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4233.
Email: katemlillie@gmail.com.
Lincoln, A.E. and T.P. Quinn. 2018. Optimal foraging or surplus killing: Selective consumption and discarding of salmon by brown
bears. Behavioral Ecology: ary139-ary139. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary139. Email: alinc2@uw.edu.
Ling, L.S., N.M. Maseri, K. Hambali and A. Amir. 2018. A preliminary camera traps assessment of terrestrial vertebrates at different
elevation gradients in Gunung Stong State Park, Kelantan, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal, 70(1): 3-11. Email: kamarul@umk.
edu.my.
Lischka, S.A., T.L. Teel, H.E. Johnson, S.E. Reed, S. Breck, A. Don Carlos and K.R. Crooks. 2018. A conceptual model for the integra-
tion of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions. Biological Conservation, 225: 80-87. DOI:
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.020. Email: slischka@wcs.org.
Livingstone, E., L. Gomez and J. Bouhuys, 2018. A review of bear farming and bear trade in Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
Global Ecology and Conservation, 13: e00380. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00380. Email: lalita.gomez@traffic.org.
Lone, K., K.M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, M. Fedak, M. Andersen, P. Lovell and J. Aars. 2018. Aquatic behaviour of polar bears (Ursus
maritimus) in an increasingly ice-free arctic. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 9677. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-27947-4.
Ma, B., S. Lei, Q. Qing and Y. Wen, 2018. Should the endangered status of the giant panda really be reduced? The case of giant
panda conservation in Sichuan, China. Animals, 8(5): 69. DOI: 10.3390/ani8050069.
Ma, T., Y. Hu, I.-R.M. Russo, Y. Nie, T. Yang, L. Xiong, S. Ma, T. Meng, H. Han, X. Zhang, M.W. Bruford and F. Wei. 2018. Walking in a
heterogeneous landscape: Dispersal, gene flow and conservation implications for the giant panda in the qinling mountains.
Evolutionary Applications, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/eva.12686. Email: weifw@ioz.ac.cn.
Mangipane, L.S., J.L. Belant, D.D. Gustine, G.V. Hilderbrand and B.A. Mangipane. 2018. Sex-specific variation in denning by brown
bears. Mammalian Biology, 93: 38-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2018.08.001. Email: lindsey.a.stutzman@gmail.com.
McFadden-Hiller, J.E. and J.L. Belant. 2018. Spatiotemporal shifts in distribution of a recolonizing black bear population. Ecosphere,
9(9): e02375. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2375. Email: jamie.mcfadden@mt.gov.
McKenney, E.A., M. Maslanka, A. Rodrigo and A.D. Yoder. 2018. Bamboo specialists from two mammalian orders (primates, car-
nivora) share a high number of low-abundance gut microbes. Microbial ecology, 76(1): 272-284. DOI: 10.1007/s00248-017-1114-8.
Email: erinamck@gmail.com.
McLellan, B.N., G. Mowat and C.T. Lamb. 2018. Estimating unrecorded human-caused mortalities of grizzly bears in the flathead
valley, British Columbia, Canada. PeerJ, 6: e5781. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5781. Email: brucenmclellan@gmail.com.
Miller, L.J., J.A. Ivy, G.A. Vicino and I.G. Schork. 2018. Impacts of natural history and exhibit factors on carnivore welfare. Journal of
Applied Animal Welfare Science: 1-9. DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1455582. Email: lance.miller@czs.org.
Min-Shan Ko, A., Y. Zhang, M.A. Yang, Y. Hu, P. Cao, X. Feng, L. Zhang, F. Wei and Q. Fu. 2018. Mitochondrial genome of a
22,000-year-old giant panda from Southern China reveals a new panda lineage. Current Biology, 28(12): R693-R694. DOI:
10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.008. Email: fuqiaomei@ivpp.ac.cn.
Miranda, E.B.P., 2018. Reintroducing apex predators: The perils of muddling guilds and taxocenoses. Royal Society Open Science,
5(7). DOI: 10.1098/rsos.180567. Email: mirandaebp@gmail.com.
Moen, G.K., A. Ordiz, J. Kindberg, J.E. Swenson, J. Sundell and O.-G. Støen. 2018. Behavioral reactions of brown bears to approaching
humans in Fennoscandia. Écoscience: 1-11. DOI: 10.1080/11956860.2018.1513387. Email: gro.moen@nmbu.no.
Mohd-Azlan, J., H. Nurul-Asna, T.S. Jailan, A.A. Tuen, L. Engkamat, D.N. Abdillah, R. Zainudin and J.F. Brodie. 2018. Camera trapping
of terrestrial animals in Tanjung Datu National Park, Sarawak, Borneo. RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY, 66: 587-594. Email:
azlan@unimas.my.

Publications
Mynbayeva, B., N. Voronova, A. Tanybayeva, K. Musdybayeva, G. Yerubayeva and B. Amirasheva. 2018. New records of the tian shan
(or Himalayan) brown bear Ursus arctos isabellinus horsfield, 1826 (carnivora: Ursidae) in Zailiyskiy Alatau mts., Kazakhstan. ACTA
ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA, 70(2): 185-188. Email: bmynbayeva@gmail.com.
Nakajima, A., S. Koike, K. Yamazaki, C. Kozakai, Y. Nemoto, T. Masaki and K. Kaji. 2018. Feeding habits of Asian black bears (Ursus
thibetanus) in relation to the abundance and timing of fruiting in 13 tree species. Mammal Study, 43(3): 167-178. DOI: 10.3106/
ms2017-0032. Email: nimh42@hotmail.com.
Nemoto, Y., R. Saito and H. Oomachi. 2018. Seasonal variation of cesium-137 concentration in Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus)
and wild boar (Sus scrofa) in fukushima prefecture, japan. PLOS ONE, 13(7): e0200797. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200797. Email:
nemoto_yui_01@pref.fukushima.lg.jp.
Niedziałkowska, M., M.W. Hayward, T. Borowik, W. Jędrzejewski and B. Jędrzejewska. 2018. A meta-analysis of ungulate preda-
tion and prey selection by the brown bear Ursus arctos in Eurasia. Mammal Research. DOI: 10.1007/s13364-018-0396-7. Email:
mniedz@ibs.bialowieza.pl.
Norton, D.C., J.L. Belant, J.G. Bruggink, D.E. Beyer, Jr., N.J. Svoboda and T.R. Petroelje. 2018. Female American black bears do not
alter space use or movements to reduce infanticide risk. PLOS ONE, 13(9): e0203651. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203651. Email:
nortonc3@michigan.gov, jbelant@esf.edu.
O’Regan, H.J. 2018. The presence of the brown bear Ursus arctos in Holocene Britain: A review of the evidence. Mammal Review,
48(4): 229-244. DOI: 10.1111/mam.12127. Email: Hannah.oregan@nottingham.ac.uk.
Oshima, T., M. Ohtani and S. Mimasaka. 2018. Injury patterns of fatal bear attacks in Japan: A description of seven cases. Forensic
Science International, 286: e14-e19. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.02.021. Email: tooshima@med.akita-u.ac.jp.
Pagano, A.M., A.M. Carnahan, C.T. Robbins, M.A. Owen, T. Batson, N. Wagner, A. Cutting, N. Nicassio-Hiskey, A. Hash and T.M. Wil-
liams. 2018. Energetic costs of locomotion in bears: Is plantigrade locomotion energetically economical? Journal of Experimental
Biology, 221(12): jeb175372. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.175372. Email: apagano@usgs.gov.
Pappa, S., D.C. Schreve and F. Rivals. 2018. The bear necessities: A new dental microwear database for the interpretation of palaeo-
diet in fossil ursidae. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.10.015. Email: Spyridoula.
Pappa@nhm.ac.uk.
Penteriani, V., A. Zarzo-Arias, G. Bombieri, D. Cañedo, J. Díaz García, M.M. Delgado, P. Peón Torre, M. Fernández Otero, P. Vázquez
García, V.M. Vázquez and T. Sánchez Corominas. 2018. Density and reproductive characteristics of female brown bears in the
Cantabrian mountains, NW Spain. The European Zoological Journal, 85(1): 313-321. DOI: 10.1080/24750263.2018.1499826. Email:
penteriani@ipe.csic.es.
Pérez-Ramos, A., K. Kupczik, A.H. Van Heteren, G. Rabeder, A. Grandal-D’Anglade, F.J. Pastor, F.J. Serrano and B. Figueirido. 2018. A
three-dimensional analysis of tooth-root morphology in living bears and implications for feeding behaviour in the extinct cave
bear. Historical Biology: 1-13. DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2018.1525366. Email: frafigcas@uma.es.
Ran, M.-X., Y. Li, Y. Zhang, K. Liang, Y.-N. Ren, M. Zhang, G.-B. Zhou, Y.-M. Zhou, K. Wu and C.-D. Wang. 2018. Transcriptome sequenc-
ing reveals the differentially expressed lncrnas and mrnas involved in cryoinjuries in frozen-thawed giant panda (Ailuropoda
melanoleuca) sperm. International journal of molecular sciences, 19(10): 3066. DOI: 10.3390/ijms19103066.
Ratnayeke, S., F.T. van Manen, G.R. Clements, N.A.M. Kulaimi and S.P. Sharp. 2018. Carnivore hotspots in peninsular Malaysia and
their landscape attributes. PLOS ONE, 13(4): e0194217. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194217. Email: shyamalar@sunway.edu.my.
Riley, D.A., J.M.V. Dyke, V. Vogel, B.D. Curry, J.L.W. Bain, R. Schuett, D.L. Costill, T. Trappe, K. Minchev and S. Trappe. 2018. Soleus
muscle stability in wild hibernating black bears. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative
Physiology, 315(2): R369-R379. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00060.2018. dariley@mcw.edu.
Robbins, C.T., N.L. Woodford, G. Goolsby Clyde, C. Minor, O.L. Nelson, M.M. Brewer, P.H. Khalife and J.R. Hawley. 2018. Salmon
poisoning disease in grizzly bears with population recovery implications. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(7): 1396-1402.
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21502. Email: ctrobbins@wsu.edu.
Roberts, B.M., J.L. Brown, D.C. Kersey, R.J. Snyder, B.S. Durrant and A.J. Kouba. 2018. Use of urinary 13,14, dihydro-15-keto-prosta-
glandin f2α (pgfm) concentrations to diagnose pregnancy and predict parturition in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanolecua).
PLOS ONE, 13(5): e0195599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195599. Email: broberts@memphiszoo.org, bethroberts1313@gmail.com.
Rode, K.D., J.K. Fortin-Noreus, D. Garshelis, M. Dyck, V. Sahanatien, T. Atwood, S. Belikov, K.L. Laidre, S. Miller, M.E. Obbard, D.
Vongraven, J. Ware and J. Wilder. 2018. Survey-based assessment of the frequency and potential impacts of recreation on polar
bears. Biological Conservation, 227: 121-132. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.008. Email: krode@usgs.gov.
Romagnoli, N., G. Pagnanelli, C. Lambertini, E. Drayton, A. Buonacucina and A. Peli. 2018. Cardiorespiratory effects of medetomidine
and dexmedetomidine combined with tiletamine-zolazepam for the immobilization of Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus)
under isoflurane general anesthesia. PLOS ONE, 13(7): e0200833. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200833. Email: carlotta.lamber-
tini2@unibo.it.
Sanyal, A., K.A. Rawat, S. Das, S. Dvivedi, M. Rajan and R. Zaidi. 2018. Are humans encroaching too much? Man versus bear. Interna-
tional Surgery Journal, 5(3): 917-922. DOI: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20180803. Email: hod.plastic@srhu.edu.in.
Sasi, R. and H.N. Kumara. 2018. Conservation status of large mammals in Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, India. In: Indian
hotspots. Springer: pp: 287-296.

Publications
Sasmal, I., N.P. Gould, K.L. Schuler, Y.-F. Chang, A. Thachil, J. Strules, C. Olfenbuttel, S. Datta and C.S. DePerno. 2018. Leptospirosis in
urban and suburban American black bears in Western North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.7589/2017-10-
263. Email: npgould@ncsu.edu.
Servin, J., D. Carreón-González, A. Huerta-García, F. Castro-Campos and L.F. González-Saravia. 2018. Record of American black bear
(Ursus americanus) in Durango, México. THERYA, 9(3): 261. DOI: 10.12933/therya-18-580 ISSN 2007-3364. Email: jservin@correo.
xoc.uam.mx.
Sethy, J. and N.P. Chauhan. 2018. Dietary preference of Malayan sun bear Helarctos malayanus in Namdapha Tiger Reserve,
Arunachal Pradesh, India. Wildlife Biology, 2018: wlb. 00351. DOI: 10.2981/wlb.00351. Email: jsethy@amity.edu.
Shakeri, Y.N., K.S. White and T. Levi. 2018. Salmon-supported bears, seed dispersal, and extensive resource subsidies to granivores.
Ecosphere, 9(6): e02297. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2297. Email: yasaman.shakeri@alaska.gov.
Shan, L., Q. Wu, L. Wang, L. Zhang and F. Wie. 2018. Lineage-specific evolution of bitter taste receptor genes in the giant and red
pandas implies dietary adaptation. Integrative Zoology, 13(2): 152-159. DOI: 10.1111/1749-4877.12291. Email: weifw@ioz.ac.cn.
Shirane, Y., M. Shimozuru, M. Yamanaka, H. Tsuruga, S. Hirano, N. Nagano, J. Moriwaki, M. Nakanishi, T. Ishinazaka and T. Nose. 2018.
Sex-biased natal dispersal in Hokkaido brown bears revealed through mitochondrial DNA analysis. Eur J Wildl Res, 64(6): 65. DOI:
10.1007/s10344-018-1222-x. Email: shimozuru@vetmed.hokudai.ac.jp.
Siddappa, C.M., S. Nair, R. Gupta, K. Mathesh, I. Selvaraj, A.A. Shanmugam and A.K. Sharma. 2018. Biochemical reference intervals
for semi-captive sloth bears (Melursus ursinus ursinus) in India. International Journal of Livestock Research, 8(4): 311-315.
Srivastava, A., V. Sarsani, I. Fiddes, S. Sheehan, R. Seger, M. Barter, S. Neptune-Bear, C. Lindqvist and R. Korstanje. 2018. Genome
assembly and gene expression in the american black bear provides new insights into the renal response to hibernation. bioRxiv.
DOI: 10.1101/316596. Email: ron.korstanje@jax.org.
Steffen, M.L. and T.L. Fulton. 2018. On the association of giant short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) in
late pleistocene North America. Geobios, 51(1): 61-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.geobios.2017.12.001. Email: martinasemail@gmail.com.
Stynder, D.D., L.R. DeSantis, S.L. Donohue, B.W. Schubert and P.S. Ungar. 2018. A dental microwear texture analysis of the early plio-
cene African ursid Agriotherium africanum (mammalia, carnivora, ursidae). Journal of Mammalian Evolution: 1-11. DOI: 10.1007/
s10914-018-9436-y. Email: Deano.Stynder@uct.ac.za.
Swaisgood, R.R., M.S. Martin-Wintle, M.A. Owen, X. Zhou and H. Zhang. 2018. Developmental stability of foraging behavior:
Evaluating suitability of captive giant pandas for translocation. Animal Conservation, 0(0). DOI: 10.1111/acv.12418. rswaisgood@
sandiegozoo.org.
Swaisgood, R.R., D. Wang and F. Wei. 2018. Panda downlisted but not out of the woods. Conservation Letters, 11(1): e12355. DOI:
10.1111/conl.12355. rswaisgood@sandiegozoo.org.
Thakur, M., E.W. Schättin and W.J. McShea. 2018. Globally common, locally rare: Revisiting disregarded genetic diversity for conser-
vation planning of widespread species. Biodiversity and Conservation: 1-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-018-1579-x. Email: thamukesh@
gmail.com.
Tochigi, K., T. Masaki, A. Nakajima, K. Yamazaki, A. Inagaki and S. Koike. 2018. Detection of arboreal feeding signs by Asiatic black
bears: Effects of hard mast production at individual tree and regional scales. Journal of Zoology, 305(4): 223-231. DOI: 10.1111/
jzo.12564. Email: k.koro722@gmail.com.
Tomiyasu, J., D. Kondoh, H. Sakamoto, N. Matsumoto, S. Haneda and M. Matsui. 2018. Lectin histochemical studies on the olfac-
tory gland and two types of gland in vomeronasal organ of the brown bear. Acta Histochemica, 120(6): 566-571. DOI: 10.1016/j.
acthis.2018.07.003. Email: kondoh-d@obihiro.ac.jp.
Torres, D.F., E.S. Oliveira and R.R.N. Alves. 2018. Chapter 22 - understanding human–wildlife conflicts and their implications. In:
Ethnozoology, R. R. Nóbrega Alves and U. P. Albuquerque, (Eds.). Academic Press: pp: 421-445.
Tosoni, E., M. Mei and P. Ciucci. 2018. Ants as food for apennine brown bears. The European Zoological Journal, 85(1): 343-349. DOI:
10.1080/24750263.2018.1511762. Email: elisabettatosoni75@gmail.com.
Van de Walle, J., G. Pigeon, A. Zedrosser, J.E. Swenson and F. Pelletier. 2018. Hunting regulation favors slow life histories in a large
carnivore. Nature Communications, 9(1): 1100. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03506-3.
van Heteren, A.H., M. Arlegi, E. Santos, J.-L. Arsuaga and A. Gómez-Olivencia. 2018. Cranial and mandibular morphology
of middle pleistocene cave bears (Ursus deningeri): Implications for diet and evolution. Historical Biology: 1-15. DOI:
10.1080/08912963.2018.1487965. Email: vanHeteren@zsm.mwn.de.
Veeraselvam, M., R. Sridhar, M. Jayathanagaraj, V. Ramakrishnan, P. Perumal and N. Rajesh. 2018. Molecular detection of leptospiro-
sis in captive sloth bears (Melursus ursinus).
Viengkone, M., A.E. Derocher, E.S. Richardson, M.E. Obbard, M.G. Dyck, N.J. Lunn, V. Sahanatien, B.G. Robinson and C.S. Davis. 2018.
Assessing spatial discreteness of Hudson Bay polar bear populations using telemetry and genetics. Ecosphere, 9(7): e02364. DOI:
10.1002/ecs2.2364. Email: derocher@ualberta.ca.
Vitásková, E., L. Molnár, I. Holko, P. Supuka, L. Černíková, E. Bártová and K. Sedlák. 2018. Serologic survey of selected viral pathogens
in free-ranging Eurasian brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos) from Slovakia. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.7589/2017-11-
290. Email: bartovae@vfu.cz.
Vongraven, D., A.E. Derocher and A.M. Bohart. 2018. Polar bear research: Has science helped management and conservation?
Environmental Reviews: 1-11. DOI: 10.1139/er-2018-0021.

Publications
Wang, F., Q. Zhao, W.J. McShea, M. Songer, Q. Huang, X. Zhang and L. Zhou. 2018. Incorporating biotic interactions reveals potential
climate tolerance of giant pandas. Conservation Letters, 0(0): e12592. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12592. Email: Wangfang.vic@gmail.com.
Wang, T., Y. Xie, Y. Zheng, C. Wang, D. Li, A.V. Koehler and R.B. Gasser, 2018. Chapter one - parasites of the giant panda: A risk factor
in the conservation of a species. In: Advances in parasitology, D. Rollinson and J. R. Stothard, (Eds.). Academic Press: pp: 1-33.
Wauters, J., K.S. Wilson, T. Bouts, I. Valentine, K. Vanderschueren, C. Ververs, A.F. Howie, M.T. Rae, A. Van Soom, R. Li, D. Li, H. Zhang
and L. Vanhaecke. 2018. Urinary specific gravity as an alternative for the normalisation of endocrine metabolite concentrations in
giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) reproductive monitoring. PLOS ONE, 13(7): e0201420. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201420.
Email: Jella.wauters@ugent.be.
Wei, F., R. Costanza, Q. Dai, N. Stoeckl, X. Gu, S. Farber, Y. Nie, I. Kubiszewski, Y. Hu, R. Swaisgood, X. Yang, M. Bruford, Y. Chen, A.
Voinov, D. Qi, M. Owen, L. Yan, D.C. Kenny, Z. Zhang, R. Hou, S. Jiang, H. Liu, X. Zhan, L. Zhang, B. Yang, L. Zhao, X. Zheng, W. Zhou,
Y. Wen, H. Gao and W. Zhang. 2018. The value of ecosystem services from giant panda reserves. Current Biology, 28(13): 2174-
2180.e2177. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.046. Email: weifw@ioz.ac.cn.
Wei, W., R.R. Swaisgood, Q. Dai, Z. Yang, S. Yuan, M.A. Owen, N.W. Pilfold, X. Yang, X. Gu, H. Zhou, H. Han, J. Zhang, M. Hong and Z.
Zhang. 2018. Giant panda distributional and habitat-use shifts in a changing landscape. Conservation Letters, 0(0): e12575. DOI:
10.1111/conl.12575. Email: zhangzejun66@163.co.
Whiteman, J., H. Harlow, G. Durner, E. Regehr, S. Amstrup and M. Ben-David. 2018. Heightened immune system function in polar
bears using terrestrial habitats. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology. DOI: 10.1086/698996. Email: jwhiteman@unm.edu.
Wick, M.V. and B. Hashem. 2018. Treatment of sarcoptic mange in an American black bear (Ursus americanus) with a single oral dose
of fluralaner. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI: 10.7589/2017-12-310. pvanwick@wildlifecenter.org.
Wilson, A.E., D.L. Sparks, K.K. Knott, A.J. Kouba, S. Willard and A. Brown. 2018. Behavioral, semiochemical and androgen responses
by male giant pandas to the olfactory sexual receptivity cues of females. Theriogenology, 114: 330-337. DOI: 10.1016/j.therio-
genology.2018.04.011. Email: dsparks@bch.msstate.edu.
Wirsing, A.J., T.P. Quinn, C.J. Cunningham, J.R. Adams, A.D. Craig and L.P. Waits. 2018. Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos) aggregate
and display fidelity to foraging neighborhoods while preying on pacific salmon along small streams. Ecology and Evolution,
8(17): 9048-9061. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4431. Email: wirsinga@uw.edu.
Wolfe, L.L., M.E. Wood, M.C. Fisher and M.A. Sirochman. 2018. Evaluation of chemical immobilization in captive black bears (Ursus
americanus) receiving a combination of nalbuphine, medetomidine, and azaperone. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 0(0). DOI:
10.7589/2018-03-079. lisa.wolfe@state.co.us.
Wynn-Grant, R., J.R. Ginsberg, C.W. Lackey, E.J. Sterling and J.P. Beckmann. 2018. Risky business: Modeling mortality risk near the
urban-wildland interface for a large carnivore. Global Ecology and Conservation, 16: e00443. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00443.
Email: rwynn-grant@amnh.org.
Yang, S., X. Gao, J. Meng, A. Zhang, Y. Zhou, M. Long, B. Li, W. Deng, L. Jin, S. Zhao, D. Wu, Y. He, C. Li, S. Liu, Y. Huang, H. Zhang and
L. Zou. 2018. Metagenomic analysis of bacteria, fungi, bacteriophages, and helminths in the gut of giant pandas. Frontiers in
Microbiology, 9(1717). DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01717.
Yu, B.E. 2018. First recorded case of female brown bear (Ursus arctos: Ursidae) with five second year cubs. Nature Conservation
Research. Заповедная наука, 3(2).
Yu, L., Y. Nie, L. Yan, Y. Hu and F. Wei. 2018. No evidence for MHC-based mate choice in wild giant pandas. Ecology and Evolution,
8(17): 8642-8651. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4419. Email: ybhu@ioz.ac.cn.
Zhang, J., W. Xu, L. Kong, V. Hull, Y. Xiao, Y. Xiao and Z. Ouyang. 2018. Strengthening protected areas for giant panda habitat and
ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 227: 1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.016. Email: xuweihua@rcees.ac.cn.
Zhang, Y., P.D. Mathewson, Q. Zhang, W.P. Porter and J. Ran. 2018. An ecophysiological perspective on likely giant panda habitat
responses to climate change. Global Change Biology, 24(4): 1804-1816. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14022. Email: rjhong-01@163.com.
Zhang, Z.-Y., H.-M. Zhang, D.-S. Li, T.-Y. Xiong and S.-G. Fang. 2018. Characterization of the β-defensin genes in giant panda. Scien-
tific Reports, 8(1): 12308. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29898-2.
Zhu, L., Z. Yang, R. Yao, L. Xu, H. Chen, X. Gu, T. Wu and X. Yang. 2018. Potential mechanism of detoxification of cyanide compounds
by gut microbiomes of bamboo-eating pandas. mSphere, 3(3). DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00229-18.

IBA Officers & Council
Council Members
President, Andreas Zedrosser (Norway) Councillor, Nishith Dharaiya (India)
University of Southeast Norway HNG University Department of Life Sciences
+47.3595.2765 andreas.zedrosser@usn.no +91.999.898.1560 nadharaiya@gmail.com
Term Ends: 09.January.2020 Term Ends: 09.January.2020
Vice President Americas, Marty Obbard (Canada) Councillor, Yoshikazu Sato (Japan)
Ontario of Natural Resources Rakuno Gakuen University
+1.705.755.1549 martynobbard@gmail.com +81.113.88.4602 yoshikazu.sato2010@gmail.com
Vice President Eurasia, Mei-Hsui Hwang (Taiwan) Councillor, Gordon Stenhouse (Canada)
National Pingtung University of Science & Technology fRI Research
+886.8.7740416 hwangmh@mail.npust.edu.tw +1.780.865.8388 gstenhouse@friresearch.ca
Past-President, Karen Noyce (United States) Councillor, Shyamala Ratnayeke (Malaysia)

Retired-Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Sunway University Department of Biological Sciences
+1.218.259.6686 karen.v.noyce@gmail.com +60.3.7491.8622 Ext: 7177 shyamalar@sunway.edu.my
Secretary, Jennapher Teunissen van Manen (United States) Councillor, Marta DeBarba (France)
International Association for Bear Research and Management Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine (LECA)
+1.530.379.5476 jennapher.teunissenvanmanen@outlook. +33.778574551 marta.debarba@gmail.com
com Term Ends: 09.January.2021
Term Ends: 09.January.2021
Councillor, Agnieszka Sergiel (Poland)
Treasurer, Jennifer Fortin-Noreus (United States) Institute of Nature Conservation Polish Academy of Sciences
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service +48.12.370.35.64 sergiel@iop.krakow.pl
+1.406.243.4994 jennifer.fortin-noreus@mso.umt.edu Term Ends: 09.January.2021
Term Ends: 09.January.2020
Ex-Officio Members
Ursus Editor, Jon Swenson (Norway) IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-chair, Dave Garshelis (United
Norwegian University of Life Sciences States)
Email: jon.swenson@nmbu.no Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1-218-328-8874 dave.garshelis@state.mn.us
Bear Conservation Fund Chair, Julia Bevins (United States)
Anchorage AK 99508 USA IUCN Bear Specialist Group Co-chair, Rob Steinmetz (Thailand)
1-907-223-3483 juliabevins@hotmail.com WWF-Thailand
+66-2-942-7691 robtyn@hotmail.com
IBN Editor, Mark Edwards (Canada)
Royal Alberta Museum IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dag Vongraven (Norway)
1-780-453-9125 mark.edwards@gov.ab.ca Norwegian Polar Institute
+47-7-775-0638 dag.vongraven@npolar.no
Student Representative, Amy Macleod (Canada)
University of Alberta
acmacleod@gmail.com
Webmaster, Nadine Bechstein (Germany)

bechsteinnadine@gmail.com

BSG Expert Team Chairs
BSG Co-Chairs
Dave Garshelis
Rob Steinmetz
Email: robtyn@hotmail.com
BSG Deputy Chair (new position)

Michael Proctor
Email: mproctor@netidea.com
Red List Authority Focal Point

Bruce McLellan
Email: bruce.mclellan@gov.bc.ca
European Brown Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Giant Panda Expert Team Co-chairs
Djuro Huber Ron Swaisgood
Email: huber@vef.hr Email: rswaisgood@sandiegozoo.org
Jon Swenson Dajun Wang
Email: jon.swenson@nmbu.no Email: djwang@pku.edu.cn
Asian Brown Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Andean Bear Expert Team Co-chairs
Stefan Michel Ximena Velez-Liendo
Email: stefan.michel.de@gmail.com Email: x.velezliendo@gmail.com
Bruce McLellan Russ Van Horn

Email: rvanhorn@sandiegozoo.org
Email: bruce.mclellan@gov.bc.ca
Michael Proctor
Email: mproctor@netidea.com
Human-Bear Conflicts Expert Team Co-chairs
Lana Ciarniello
Email: aklak@telus.net
Asiatic Black Bear Expert Team Co-chairs
Dave Garshelis Patti Sowka
Email: psowka15@gmail.com
Matt Hunt
Email: matt@freethebears.org
Captive Bears Expert Team Co-chairs
Lydia Kolter
Email: LKSTrixie@t-online.de
Sun Bear Expert Team Co-chairs Nicola Field
Gabriella Fredriksson Email: nfield@animalsasia.org
Email: gabriella.fredriksson@gmail.com
Rob Steinmetz
Email: robtyn@hotmail.com
Sloth Bear Expert Team Co-chairs

Harendra Bargali
Email: bearconservation@gmail.com
Nishith Dharaiya
Email: nadharaiya@gmail.com

International Bear News Distribution
907 Jessie Way
Bozeman, MT 59715
USA
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Update Your Contact Information at:
www.bearbiology.org
About the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA)
The International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) is a non-profit tax-exempt organization open to profes-
sional biologists, wildlife managers, and others dedicated to the conservation of all bear species. The organization has approxmi-
ately 500 members from over 50 countries. It supports the scientific management of bears through research and distribution of
information. The IBA sponsors international conferences on all aspects of bear biology, ecology, and management. The proceed-
ings are published as peer-reviewed scientific papers in the journal Ursus.
IBA Mission Statement
Goal: The goal of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) is to promote the conservation and
restoration of the world’s bears through science-based research, management, and education.
Objectives: In support of this goal, IBA’s objectives are to:
1. Promote and foster well-designed research of the highest professional standards.
2. Develop and promote sound stewardship of the world’s bears through scientifically based population and habitat
management.
3. Publish and distribute, through its conferences and publications, peer-reviewed scientific and technical information of high
quality addressing broad issues of ecology, conservation, and management.
4. Encourage communication and collaboration across scientific disciplines and among bear researchers and managers
through conferences, workshops, and newsletters.
5. Increase public awareness and understanding of bear ecology, conservation, and management by encouraging the transla-
tion of technical information into popular literature and other media, as well as through other educational forums.
6. Encourage the professional growth and development of our members.
7. Provide professional counsel and advice on issues of natural resource policy related to bear management and conservation.
8. Maintain the highest standards of professional ethics and scientific integrity.
9. Encourage full international participation in the IBA through the siting of conferences, active recruitment of international
members and officers, and through financial support for international research, travel to meetings, memberships, and
journal subscriptions.
10. Through its integrated relationship with the Bear Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)/Species Survival
Commission, identify priorities in bear research and management and recruit project proposals to the IBA Grants Program
that address these priorities.
11. Build an endowment and a future funding base to provide ongoing support for IBA core functions and for the IBA Grants
Program.
12. Support innovative solutions to bear conservation dilemmas that involve local communities as well as national or regional
governments and, to the extent possible, address their needs without compromising bear conservation, recognizing that
conservation is most successful where human communities are stable and can see the benefits of conservation efforts.
13. Form partnerships with other institutions to achieve conservation goals, where partnerships could provide additional fund-
ing, knowledge of geographical areas, or expertise in scientific or non-scientific sectors.
Deadline for the Spring 2019 issue is 26 February 2019

IBA News Letter 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IBA News Letter 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Bear News

Tri-Annual Newsletter of the

IBA website: www.bearbiology.org

IBA President /IUCN BSG Co-Chairs

Conference Reports Biological Research

Illegal Trade Student Forum

2 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

For Membership Information and Publication Ordering

International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3 3

IBA 2.0 – prepping for the future

4 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

IBA Distinguished Service Award for Stephen Herrero

Stephen Herrero with one of his many publications.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 5

6 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 7

8 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

The 2018 IBA Distinguished Service Award (DSA)

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 9

This session covered a diversity of topics related to the challenges

10 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 11

Session: Bears and Society

12 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

Session: Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology I

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 13

Session: Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology II

14 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

Session (Speed Talks): Bear Ecology, Behavior and Physiology III

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 15

Session: Bears and Climate Change

16 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

BSG Session: What Would Have Been Without Us?

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 17

brown bears across Europe (340 bears in 95 institutions): namely as ambassadors

Session: Spatial Requirement and Demographic Characteristics of Bear Populations I

18 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 19

20 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

Session: Molecular genetics in bear conservation and management

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 21

Monitoring Bears in Southeast Asia: Debrief of a Workshop in Ljubljana

22 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

E. Davis, San Diego Zoo Global

Student Activities at the Quito Conference

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 23

Daniele DeAngelis: Best Student Poster Presentation Winner

24 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 25

26 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

Map of Basha and Braldu valleys of CKNP.

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 27

Status of brown bears by sightings of local people

Status of Brown bears by camera traps

28 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

Conclusion and recommendations

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 29

Map of place of release and mobility monitoring.

30 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

International Bear News Fall 2018 vol. 27 no. 3 31

There are 84 communities between the Sierra Nevada and

32 International Bear News Fall 2018, vol. 27 no. 3

Caroline Lees Dave Garshelis