It's simple math, says a scientist - more roads equal fewer grizzly bears.

[DeepJeep]

I know its like beating a dead horse but found a Journal from University of Alberta's PHD Canadidate, stressing the point that higher road density leads to lower grizzly bear density.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180109090239.htm

It's simple math, says scientist Clayton Lamb. The closer grizzly bears are to humans, the more ways there are for the bears to die. Put more simply, more roads equal fewer grizzly bears.


In a recent study examining a long-term DNA dataset of grizzly bear activity in British Columbia, Lamb and his colleagues conclusively determined what scientists have long suspected: higher road density leads to lower grizzly bear density, a critical problem for a species still rebounding from a long period of human persecution.


"The problem with grizzly bears and roads is a North American-wide issue. This is the first time that strongly links roads to decreased grizzly bear density," said Lamb, currently completing his PhD with University of Alberta conservation biologist Stan Boutin. "Not only do bears die near roads, bears also avoid these areas, making many habitats with roads through them less effective. By closing roads, we can reduce the negative impact of roads in a lot of ways. We can't turn roads back into forest tomorrow, so the best thing we can do right now is to close them. The effects are immediate."


Lamb and his colleagues studied a threatened population of grizzlies in the Monashee Mountains, just east of the Okanagan, the leading edge of bear recovery efforts in British Columbia. Lamb described the population as low but recovering, with the bears slowly recolonizing the Okanagan where they used to roam but are currently extirpated.


"Grizzly bears are recovering in a lot of areas, but habitat loss and human-bear conflict remain huge problems that can compromise recovery," said Lamb.


Following the December, 2017 closure of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Lamb commented, "It is more important than ever that the public recognize the continuing threats to bear populations. Current road densities in British Columbia represent a problem for bear conservation. We are losing wilderness in the province, and there are fewer grizzly bears where road densities are high. We're taking it another step further and advising that closing roads will do a lot to improve bear populations."


Lamb said the findings can be applied to other habitats throughout North America. Along with a new scientific paper, Lamb and his colleagues, conservation scientists with the BC government, have produced a land management guide focused on maintaining the spatial integrity of the landscape to bolster grizzly bear density.


The BC-born Lamb -- a Vanier scholar -- said wildlife conservation is rooted in his veins. "I grew up in the outdoors. I developed an increasing appreciation for wild places and conserving them. I realized that science was an outlet to protect these places and the species that inhabit them."


Thanks to Lamb's work, roads closures are already in the works for the Monashee Mountain area.

Journal Reference:


Clayton T. Lamb et al. The effect of habitat quality and access management on the density of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13056

__________________________________________________ _____________

And found another article mentioning the same :http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13056/full

[Ourea]

Clay has hunted with me, he is an extremely intelligent human being and passionate hunter.
Still respect him for waiting out in a blind for a target WT, for five days tape to tape, until he closed.

Many are of the opinion that regulation trumps habitat impact when it comes to game numbers and viability.
Yet here is a rising star in field research, who is a hunter, who flat out states the data speaks loudly.......road density is directly linked to game populations (grizzlies).

[Husky7mm]

Too bad it wasnt the same for wolves.

[J_T]

Clay has hunted with me, he is an extremely intelligent human being and passionate hunter.
Still respect him for waiting out in a blind for a target WT, for five days tape to tape, until he closed.

Many are of the opinion that regulation trumps habitat impact when it comes to game numbers and viability.
Yet here is a rising star in field research, who is a hunter, who flat out states the data speaks loudly.......road density is directly linked to game populations (grizzlies).
Although it's less about the frequency and density of roads and more about users on the roads. The ORV and bush closures this past summer made that perfectly clear.

[Ourea]

Although it's less about the frequency and density of roads and more about users on the roads. The ORV and bush closures this past summer made that perfectly clear.

Less about the density?
This flies in the face of every game bio and field researcher I speak with.

[Ourea]

J-T, if you are saying that some are exempt to law and regulation for public safety, ....just say it.

[J_T]

J-T, if you are saying that some are exempt to law and regulation for public safety, ....just say it. Um, I'm not saying that at all. Nope.

[J_T]

Less about the density?
This flies in the face of every game bio and field researcher I speak with.Flies in the face of? I wasn't trying to challenge a bio. I was making an observation and Clayton reflects that in his article. A gun isn't dangerous by itself. Only when in the hands of a person. A grizzly can't get run over by a vehicle, if there are no vehicles on the road. My point is, this past year, we saw first hand, when we allow the bush to be calm, animals relax and go about more natural activities. Less guarded. Roads are not places of danger and tracts to stay away from if they are not in use.

[Ourea]

Flies in the face of? I wasn't trying to challenge a bio. I was making an observation and Clayton reflects that in his article. A gun isn't dangerous by itself. Only when in the hands of a person. A grizzly can't get run over by a vehicle, if there are no vehicles on the road. My point is, this past year, we saw first hand, when we allow the bush to be calm, animals relax and go about more natural activities. Less guarded. Roads are not places of danger and tracts to stay away from if they are not in use.

No roads = no access.
Less density of roads = less impact.

[J_T]

No roads = no access.
Less density of roads = less impact. Not quite.
No roads = no people/traffic/harassment
No People = less impact.

It isn't always the presence of roads. Its the human factor.

[Brez]

No roads = no access.
Less density of roads = less impact.

BINGO!!
I cannot believe that this is news...and for most of the species that we like to hunt.

"Too bad it wasnt the same for wolves."
I think it works the opposite for wolves which is a double whammy aganst our ungulates. That's MHO.

Actually, I'd like to amend that as I have seen and encountered more grizzlies now that there are lots more roads in my area but way less ungulates and exponentially more wolves. So, way more Griz encounters for me (on or very near roads) but now I can access those prime grizzly areas so much easier.

[Ltbullken]

Not quite.
No roads = no people/traffic/harassment
No People = less impact.

It isn't always the presence of roads. Its the human factor.

Did the author actually state this or is it an assumption/assertion on your part? Roads have habitat impact and can change animal behaviour by the simple fact of the road's presence. It is not necessarily the humans on the road and the human's actions that are directly attributable to the bear's demise. Please clarify.

[Ourea]

To sum it up....
The more interface we create with GB .....they suffer.
Bullets are so far down the list of challenges.

[J_T]

Did the author actually state this or is it an assumption/assertion on your part? Roads have habitat impact and can change animal behaviour by the simple fact of the road's presence. It is not necessarily the humans on the road and the human's actions that are directly attributable to the bear's demise. Please clarify.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3953808/grizzly-bear-population-backcountry-roads-alberta-bc/

[VFX_man]

So a road thought . . . This mamma and her youngins did not give a hoot about me taking their photos while I was sitting on Highway 97. If you look close at the images. They were more concerned about [what I assume] was a Male Grizzly that was shadowing them. Mamma did not go to the salon for that hairdo -- and one of the cubs had been involved in the fray based on the constant look-back and the slobber on their coat.

Mamma's wound was not from a road or hunter!

Location: North East BC near the Yukon border

https://i.imgur.com/jGqB1kT.jpg

[Dannybuoy]

Ourea : did you read that article ? sounds like a leaf licking , bunny hugging moron to me ...

[guest]

Ourea : did you read that article ? sounds like a leaf licking , bunny hugging moron to me ...

heres another example of a real piece of work . Way to go DB

[HighCountryBC]

Ourea : did you read that article ? sounds like a leaf licking , bunny hugging moron to me ...

Pretty classless response.

If that's what you take out of the article then I just shake my head.

[Dannybuoy]

heres another example of a real piece of work . Way to go DB
Hey we need to call it as we see it ... friggin bio's eh ?

[Dannybuoy]

Pretty classless response.

If that's what you take out of the article then I just shake my head.

Eh ? It was an article written with the agenda of closing the back country to all users other than bears ..... I say screw that !

[VFX_man]

Eh ? It was an article written with the agenda of closing the back country to all users other than bears ..... I say screw that !

Hence the above photo post, those grizzlies were walking the highway shoulder to stay safe. So with any study, there is two sides. When I heard the radio report about this today, my first reaction was "Great, they want to close the backcountry". Kind of like the envros in the USA that wanted to ban any human from the woods to save the spotted owls.

[Pemby_mess]

Eh ? It was an article written with the agenda of closing the back country to all users other than bears ..... I say screw that !

so you dont like it, ergo its not true?

[guest]

Eh ? It was an article written with the agenda of closing the back country to all users other than bears ..... I say screw that !

wow! Is all I can say ...........

[Dannybuoy]

so you dont like it, ergo its not true?

if that's what you got from that , I have to shake my head ....

[Walking Buffalo]

Here in Alberta the vast majority of Grizzly range is high road density areas.

Populations have exploded over the last twenty years, except in a few areas, mostly the high mountain parks like Banff.

We sure DO NOT see a correlation between high road density and lower bear populations. Our road density is skyrocketing right along with bear populations.

The variable between the previous and current bear populations seems to be human caused mortality other than by licensed hunting.

For much of the range these roads may actually be providing high quality habitat, may actually contribute to an Increasing bear reproductive rates.


Bears are doing fantastic out here in high human population rural setting too.
The eastern foothills are now loaded with grizzly bears despite lots of roads and human occupation.
The area surrounding Calgary with a Very high human population is swarming with Grizzlies,
The Waterton area full of tourists, roads, off road vehicles and ranching is now has one of the highest bear densities in North America.
All that has changed in the last twenty years is people are not killing them, well except for the government....


I'll suggest that grizzly bear survival is less about road density and more about human tolerance.



Sure, there likely is a tipping point for roads and bears.
We should relocate a bunch to Victoria and see how that works out.

[Dannybuoy]

Here in Alberta the vast majority of Grizzly range is high road density areas.

Populations have exploded over the last twenty years, except in a few areas, mostly the high mountain parks like Banff.

We sure DO NOT see a correlation between high road density and lower bear populations. Our road density is skyrocketing right along with bear populations.

The variable between the previous and current bear populations seems to be human caused mortality other than by licensed hunting.

For much of the range these roads may actually be providing high quality habitat, may actually contribute to an Increasing bear reproductive rates.


Bears are doing fantastic out here in high human population rural setting too.
The eastern foothills are now loaded with grizzly bears despite lots of roads and human occupation.
The area surrounding Calgary with a Very high human population is swarming with Grizzlies,
The Waterton area full of tourists, roads, off road vehicles and ranching is now has one of the highest bear densities in North America.
All that has changed in the last twenty years is people are not killing them, well except for the government....


I'll suggest that grizzly bear survival is less about road density and more about human tolerance.



Sure, there likely is a tipping point for roads and bears.
We should relocate a bunch to Victoria and see how that works out.
Where is the Like button ?

[Dannybuoy]

so you dont like it, ergo its not true?

I choose to believe the article posted by Walking Buffalo over the one written by the anti- How's that ?

[Pemby_mess]

I choose to believe the article posted by Walking Buffalo over the one written by the anti- How's that ?

because you like it better; or because the conclusions are more or less concrete?

[DeepJeep]

Guys, we are all going to differ a little bit. Let's accept that and be courteous to each other, understanding that we have a common goal = conservation.


And the purpose of me bringing this up was to just provide another example of a SCIENCE journal mentioning part of the problem being road access. It's not the only cause for decline in wildlife and we all know that. And that's not the point either. Perhaps, I'll use this journal as an example when I have a conversation with my non-hunter friends in Vancouver who have no idea about the wildlife, yet are by default anti-hunting. We need to start having conversations with people who are by default against hunting and pro banning of such activities. We NEED more people by our side.


There are stages to every issue and people working under with it: storming, norming, and then performing.


The first conversation u will have with an anti-hunter is going to be a storm. They won't like it. Out of 10 conversations, maybe 2 people will listen. Some will say "I will never do it, but I get why you do it". We then have "normal" (morning) conversations with people who "get it" and hopefully get the conservation piece across them. And then we perform with the goal of them understanding what we are truly about. I know it sounds theoretical but that's truly how humans behave. We need more people by our side and having difficult conversations is the only way to do. 100,000 BC hunters is not going to cut it.


We need more support and the understanding of why we hunt and how stopping a grizzly bear hunt is not helpful. This journal is just another tool we can bring up in our conversations.

[bownut]

Hey I know, we should have a Wildlife Tax on all Starbucks Coffee and put the funds toward more of the science so we can come up with the same results.

[Husky7mm]

Not quite.
No roads = no people/traffic/harassment
No People = less impact.

It isn't always the presence of roads. Its the human factor.

I concur, here now in northern Alberta every logging road but the very main road is deactivated in an impassable fashion. Even better, and more to the thread many oil and gas access roads are gated and closed to non industry vehicles,( save atvs in the afternoon). Grizzlies are regularly seen all over the place in these closeures. Sometimes not even leaving when you show up. Many of these closeures have been put in way too late but in the future these zones have potential to be honey holes. There is great habitat due to disturbance. Too bad the wolves use these roads too, and they are great at it.
If there were less roads, there indeed would be more game, but part of it is what kind of killer is using the road. Also disturbance is needed of somekind, a sea of conifer is not ideal habitat of ungulates.

[Red_Mist]

Kinda beating a dead horse here. Lots of roads secondary to our natural resource industries. G bear population in BC is fine, growing in fact.

[Brez]

Kinda beating a dead horse here. Lots of roads secondary to our natural resource industries. G bear population in BC is fine, growing in fact.
Yes, the G bears are fine. It's the other species that need help.

[Husky7mm]

[QUOTE=Walking Buffalo;1971860]Here in Alberta the vast majority of Grizzly range is high road density areas.

Populations have exploded over the last twenty years, except in a few areas, mostly the high mountain parks like Banff.

We sure DO NOT see a correlation between high road density and lower bear populations. Our road density is skyrocketing right along with bear populations.

The variable between the previous and current bear populations seems to be human caused mortality other than by licensed hunting.

For much of the range these roads may actually be providing high quality habitat, may actually contribute to an Increasing bear reproductive rates.


Bears are doing fantastic out here in high human population rural setting too.
The eastern foothills are now loaded with grizzly bears despite lots of roads and human occupation.
The area surrounding Calgary with a Very high human population is swarming with Grizzlies,
The Waterton area full of tourists, roads, off road vehicles and ranching is now has one of the highest bear densities in North America.
All that has changed in the last twenty years is people are not killing them, well except for the government....


I'll suggest that grizzly bear survival is less about road density and more about human tolerance.



Sure, there likely is a tipping point for roads and bears.
We should relocate a bunch to Victoria and see how that works out.[/QUOTEi]

Amen, send them a few 24 packs of wolves too!

[DeepJeep]

The point was that griz HUNTING ban was put in place to "protect" them. Whereas this science journal is yet another example that hunting has nothing to do with their population.

And yes, it's like beating a dead horse but is another science journal that goes against an urban person's conception about consequences of hunting. I agree that G bear population is growing, yet we still got the hunting ban. Why? Because most non hunters "assume" hunting = killing bears= population down. I have started having conversations with my non-hunter friends and family about the importance of hunting in conservation and some of them get it. This journal is just a tool to support that hunting is not the reason for any species' decline in population.

[Rob Chipman]

Dannybouy:

You're incorrect with your comments and I think you're probably uninformed about Clayton Lamb. I know you're calling them like you see them. Do a bit more homework before you get yourself tied up with a bigger plate of crow.

[Husky7mm]

When grizzly have been closed for 5+ yrs they will be walking down all those roads acting like they own the place, and they kind of will.
Imo, prey are affected by access more than predators. Bear in mind a grizzly is prey on a legal hunt.

[Ourea]

Ok, had to take a bit to digest some of the comments on this thread.

I must admit I just read some of the dumbest opinionated oriented statements ever made on this site. Well done HBC members.

One of the top and up and coming GB field researchers is being called a leaf licker.
One of the hardest backpack hunters I ever shared a trail with.
He has packed out book sheep and elk from the deepest backcountry and shit holes you could ever imagine.
(leaf licker....what an idiot comment)


Dannyboy, your ignorance and opinion is mind blowing.

Cut and paste means f*ck all when you have people in the field risking their lives snaring bears, collecting data, going to endless seminars, meeting with the top GB experts of north America....their work is highly respected.
Some HBC clown calls their work as being a leaf licker.

I seldom ever take an issue with people on this site as it is a waste of time.
Tonight is my exception.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I choose to believe the article posted by Walking Buffalo over the one written by the anti- How's that ?

An anti? This grizz biologist definitely supports grizzly hunting where populations can sustain it.

[Dannybuoy]

An anti? This grizz biologist definitely supports grizzly hunting where populations can sustain it. Oh ? Eh tu ? ..... Does this mean you are on the poor endangered g-bear band-wagon ??

[Elkhound]

Guys. Debate all you want. But keep civil please. Nasty comments are not needed at all

[.264winmag]

Don't have as much experience in the woods as some, but in my short 30 some odd years I've been paying attention to game I can count on my hands the number of Grizz sightings on or remotely close to a road. Away from the road sighting numbers are, well I'm not smart so can't count that high. First sheep trip there was 14, albeit the same bruin was definitely spotted more than once over the course of ten days. The most we seen at one time out and about was 7. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to punch the numbers in and come up with a rational pattern.

I also know a very experinced grizz bio, dedicated his life to it. Tagging is done by helicopter, not driving around roads. Some comments here honestly make me feel embarrassed for the commentators. It's also quite an insult IMO. These fellas work extremely hard and come up with unbiased scientific facts, all the while supporting hunting, even grizz where population #ers permit. Living in a cabin in the middle of nowhere for every minute them bears are awake, doing a pile of behind the scenes work most have no idea what's entailed. These guys would hike and work circles around you keyboard biologists.

If it wasn't for their hard work to be able to prove a sustainable harvest I wouldn't doubt the grizz hunt would not have continued as long as it did? But they can only put the facts out there, no competition when the government ultimately decides while ignoring the facts.

Just started cruising around here again and I'm already wondering why?

[f350ps]

^^Well said 264, exactly my sentiments!! When I read shit like that I have to sit back and remind myself to consider the source! K

[gutpile]

How many grizzlys do we need in this province ????

[Dannybuoy]

^^Well said 264, exactly my sentiments!! When I read shit like that I have to sit back and remind myself to consider the source! K Exactly .... These bio's for hire should be held accountable for their mis-leading and basically false reports . So Sad when being politically correct trumps all .

[.264winmag]

Exactly .... These bio's for hire should be held accountable for their mis-leading and basically false reports . So Sad when being politically correct trumps all .

What are your thoughts on the fact that major highways have fragmented the the Grizzly habitat, which iirc is a big reason for the monashee grizz # decline. A Hwy is a road, no?

Although the odd grizz is seen near civilization, most avoid it like the plague. That's my experience living up in the Monashee's for 20 yrs. there are a few roads I would enjoy seeing closed to motorized vehicles. Once a yuppy finds out their Razor makes it up the cat skiing trail etc. and into the alpine the game sightings and hunting just doesn't seem to be as successful. And they tear the landscape up quite a bit, not something I enjoy in a pristine hiking area.

But I could just be another treehugger;)

[.264winmag]

How many grizzlys do we need in this province ????

Populations are good and rising in many areas. The areas suggested for road closures are where pops aren't as good. I'm pretty sure the suggestion is NOT to just close every backroad in the province?

[Longbranch]

I like that suggestion!

Here in Alberta the vast majority of Grizzly range is high road density areas.

Populations have exploded over the last twenty years, except in a few areas, mostly the high mountain parks like Banff.

We sure DO NOT see a correlation between high road density and lower bear populations. Our road density is skyrocketing right along with bear populations.

The variable between the previous and current bear populations seems to be human caused mortality other than by licensed hunting.

For much of the range these roads may actually be providing high quality habitat, may actually contribute to an Increasing bear reproductive rates.


Bears are doing fantastic out here in high human population rural setting too.
The eastern foothills are now loaded with grizzly bears despite lots of roads and human occupation.
The area surrounding Calgary with a Very high human population is swarming with Grizzlies,
The Waterton area full of tourists, roads, off road vehicles and ranching is now has one of the highest bear densities in North America.
All that has changed in the last twenty years is people are not killing them, well except for the government....


I'll suggest that grizzly bear survival is less about road density and more about human tolerance.



Sure, there likely is a tipping point for roads and bears.
We should relocate a bunch to Victoria and see how that works out.

[guest]

Exactly .... These bio's for hire should be held accountable for their mis-leading and basically false reports . So Sad when being politically correct trumps all .


Well you you obviously don't have a clue who your speaking of ....... Blinders D B blinders ........ Self servering ?

Armchair bio now that knows all about GBears ....... Incredible.

care to share your thoughts on the reproduction habits of the Pussy Cat Swallowtail in relation to the common Crow?

[Husky7mm]

Well someone must have not told the g bears in northern Alberta this simple math cause there are access roads and pipelines everywhere and the grizzly are everywhere too. Its not uncommon to a few sows a day with triplets walking right down the roads. To be clear they have been closed to hunting for over 10 yrs now and in some areas their populations are scary high. Most sighted in one day by a member of my hunting group was 10, all in roaded areas. Maybe the study was not done in an area that was closed to hunting? For sure you see them thriving in road less areas too, as long as its got the right groceries.

[Squire]

I watched a Nature of Things program several years back that discussed the fragmenting of moose habitat by resource roads throughout the Boreal Forest. The Suzukiologist on that program went on to state that moose numbers would decline because moose bedding and feeding areas were on one side of the road and their breeding areas were on the other; moose had to decide between feeding and breeding because the road prevented them from doing both.

I am not a biologist but unlike the majority of urban viewers I simply couldn't take this 'fact' at face value. I have witnessed more than one moose cross the road in my life so in this instance I pick my personal experience over the expert opinion. If the 'expert' had said that more roads bring more people and more hunting pressure I could have bought into that.

Although Dannybuoy could use some improvement in his delivery, his and JT's point is valid. The road itself is benign; the amount and type of traffic would no doubt affect the impact of the road on Grizzly Bears and other wildlife. It has been my experience that Grizzlies will actually use roads to travel and this fact produced one very close encounter with my son and I in a side-by-side that had the potential of turning out very bad.

My avatar kind of makes my point.:smile:

[Pemby_mess]

Well someone must have not told the g bears in northern Alberta this simple math cause there are access roads and pipelines everywhere and the grizzly are everywhere too. Its not uncommon to a few sows a day with triplets walking right down the roads. To be clear they have been closed to hunting for over 10 yrs now and in some areas their populations are scary high. Most sighted in one day by a member of my hunting group was 10, all in roaded areas. Maybe the study was not done in an area that was closed to hunting? For sure you see them thriving in road less areas too, as long as its got the right groceries.

it seems like many are making the cardinal scientific sin of equating grizzly sightings with a reliable population estimate. The average lay person actually knows the difference, so the average hunter should too, especially if and when they're trying to make a case contrary to highly trained people, that study this stuff for a living.

[Pemby_mess]

I watched a Nature of Things program several years back that discussed the fragmenting of moose habitat by resource roads throughout the Boreal Forest. The Suzukiologist on that program went on to state that moose numbers would decline because moose bedding and feeding areas were on one side of the road and their breeding areas were on the other; moose had to decide between feeding and breeding because the road prevented them from doing both.

I am not a biologist but unlike the majority of urban viewers I simply couldn't take this 'fact' at face value. I have witnessed more than one moose cross the road in my life so in this instance I pick my personal experience over the expert opinion. If the 'expert' had said that more roads bring more people and more hunting pressure I could have bought into that.

Although Dannybuoy could use some improvement in his delivery, his and JT's point is valid. The road itself is benign; the amount and type of traffic would no doubt affect the impact of the road on Grizzly Bears and other wildlife. It has been my experience that Grizzlies will actually use roads to travel and this fact produced one very close encounter with my son and I in a side-by-side that had the potential of turning out very bad.

My avatar kind of makes my point.:smile:

my anecdotal experience tells me animal behaviour is a lot more complex than you're trying to make it in your simple anecdotal thought experiment.

because you've seen animals on roads, they don't effect their survival habits, like the formal studies show?

bringing more people and hunters into the backcountry is probably way down the list of direct consequences created as a result of road construction and use. The animals use them too.

[Pemby_mess]

Exactly .... These bio's for hire should be held accountable for their mis-leading and basically false reports . So Sad when being politically correct trumps all .

Ok, so I assume you have evidence of what say above is true, namely that professional biologists are attempting to mislead, deliberately or otherwise, and producing false wildlife intelligence for the purpose of being vaguely "politically correct".

where's your countervailing theory that shows this to be true? Do you have any real evidence to show that wildlife populations thrive in the presence of high density road networks? Because it seems like that's what you're trying to say.

[Husky7mm]

it seems like many are making the cardinal scientific sin of equating grizzly sightings with a reliable population estimate. The average lay person actually knows the difference, so the average hunter should too, especially if and when they're trying to make a case contrary to highly trained people, that study this stuff for a living.

Hahahaha, I work way off in the bush in the areas I am speaking of 300 days a year and most of the other days were spent hunting. I DO do this stuff for a living. Its true cause I along with those I work and hunt with see it every day.

I am not disagreeing with part of what the Bio said, get way back in roadless areas and see more grizzlies, ya been there seen that.
What Im saying is I have seen them put a bunch of roads and and disturbance way back in to where they are and if they are not hunted they seem to be doing great.

In the future Ill continue to not make assumptions about you and I suggest you do the same.

[Pemby_mess]

Hahahaha, I work way off in the bush in the areas I am speaking of 300 days a year and most of the other days were spent hunting. I DO do this stuff for a living. Its true cause I along with those I work and hunt with see it every day.

I am not disagreeing with part of what the Bio said, get way back in roadless areas and see more grizzlies, ya been there seen that.
What Im saying is I have seen them put a bunch of roads and and disturbance way back in to where they are and if they are not hunted they seem to be doing great.

In the future Ill continue to not make assumptions about you and I suggest you do the same.

that you were equating your anecdotal observations to standardized, specific population estimates, was not an assumption; it is exactly what you did. If you have competing scientific observations that suggest a different conclusion than that made by the scientists, I would certainly weigh those in kind.

In your response above, you attempt to assign further value and credibility to your anecdotal experience. I am not disputing that your experience does indeed have credibility and value, just questioning whether or not it can be used as a counterpoint to actual scientific research. So unless you engage in the former for a living, your experience only produces scientific questions, not answers of the same; until it's scientifically verified.

"doing great" is highly relative.

[Squire]

my anecdotal experience tells me animal behaviour is a lot more complex than you're trying to make it in your simple anecdotal thought experiment.

because you've seen animals on roads, they don't effect their survival habits, like the formal studies show?

bringing more people and hunters into the backcountry is probably way down the list of direct consequences created as a result of road construction and use. The animals use them too.

My 'simple anecdotal thought experiment' ironically was meant to observe that the impacts of a road are far more complex than the author of the study suggests. I believe 'the math is simple' was attributed to the author? What is it PM? Complex or simple?

Your condescension certainly isn't validated by your simple anecdotal thought experiment highlighted above.

[Pemby_mess]

My 'simple anecdotal thought experiment' ironically was meant to observe that the impacts of a road are far more complex than the author of the study suggests. I believe 'the math is simple' was attributed to the author? What is it PM? Complex or simple?

Your condescension certainly isn't validated by your simple anecdotal thought experiment highlighted above.

OK, you're dancing all over, but I'll try to pin you down.

are we talking about the study in the OP, or the related story on "the nature of things"? Because the latter was what I addressing in your post.

If the latter;

you appeared to be claiming that your experience of seeing moose cross roads, refutes the conclusions put forward in "the nature of things"; that roads interfere with the basic behaviours of moose, necessary for their long term survival. Your stated view of a road's impact, betrays an overly simplistic understanding of wildlife adaptation and behaviour. Which is why I claimed to see it being more complex than you were trying to make it, in the specific example you were using.

With regard to the study in the OP;

settling on the title of an article slated for public consumption is quite tricky. There's lots of simple people out there, that like simple conclusions. Their interest in complex variable interaction can not be presumed if you intend to reach them. So, yes, the authors are probably correct in that there is a tight correlation toward higher road densities and lower grizzly population numbers. The correlation is simple math - which does not equate to a simple underlying reason for the existence of the correlation.

In the specific context of grizzly bear population density, I'm inclined to agree, that it's probably more a function of the type of use the roads receive, rather than the road's existence alone. That doesn't mean the simple existence of roads don't have profound impacts to the holistic integrity of ecological systems and the wildlife using them.

[Husky7mm]

that you were equating your anecdotal observations to standardized, specific population estimates, was not an assumption; it is exactly what you did. If you have competing scientific observations that suggest a different conclusion than that made by the scientists, I would certainly weigh those in kind.

In your response above, you attempt to assign further value and credibility to your anecdotal experience. I am not disputing that your experience does indeed have credibility and value, just questioning whether or not it can be used as a counterpoint to actual scientific research. So unless you engage in the former for a living, your experience only produces scientific questions, not answers of the same; until it's scientifically verified.

"doing great" is highly relative.

Doing great as in possibly tripling in 10yrs. JT and walking buffalo are well informed and educated people, Based on spending almost 365 days per yr in the bush in the area I live and speak of I have no choice but to agree with them, and I have a right to do so. Sorry I dont use a big bunch of fancy words to try and sound quailfied to have and opinion. I suggest less time on the computer and more time in the woods would do many an outdoors person some good.

[Husky7mm]

To most grizzlies up here a road IS just another piece of their habitat. They where born with them there, a road is as normal as a mountain, a river, a lake, a cut block, a pipeline.......

[Squire]

[QUOTE=Pemby_mess;1972081]OK, you're dancing all over, but I'll try to pin you down.

are we talking about the study in the OP, or the related story on "the nature of things"? Because the latter was what I addressing in your post.

If the latter;

you appeared to be claiming that your experience of seeing moose cross roads, refutes the conclusions put forward in "the nature of things"; that roads interfere with the basic behaviours of moose, necessary for their long term survival. The biologist in the program didn't state that roads interfered with the basic behaviours of moose; the specific statement I took issue with was the inability of a moose to cross a road. The biologist claimed that moose had to choose between feeding and breeding because the areas used for each respective activity were on opposite sides of a road. Your stated view of a road's impact, betrays an overly simplistic understanding of wildlife adaptation and behaviour. Rubbish; I stated that it was more complex than the simple existence of the road. My views and experience come from decades of forests management which includes collaboration with the local wildlife biologist. Impacts vary from site to site based on too many variables to elaborate on in a few sentences. Which is why I claimed to see it being more complex than you were trying to make it, in the specific example you were using.

With regard to the study in the OP;

settling on the title of an article slated for public consumption is quite tricky. There's lots of simple people out there, that like simple conclusions. Their interest in complex variable interaction can not be presumed if you intend to reach them. So, yes, the authors are probably correct in that there is a tight correlation toward higher road densities and lower grizzly population numbers. The correlation is simple math - which does not equate to a simple underlying reason for the existence of the correlation.

In the specific context of grizzly bear population density, I'm inclined to agree, that it's probably more a function of the type of use the roads receive, rather than the road's existence alone. We're on the same page. That doesn't mean the simple existence of roads don't have profound impacts to the holistic integrity of ecological systems and the wildlife using them. This is a blanket statement that over generalizes impacts and is where we fundamentally (and from my part at least, respectfully) disagree.

[Rob Chipman]

Husky 7mm:
"Its not uncommon to a few sows a day with triplets walking right down the roads. "

There's indications (including in a post earlier in this thread) that grizzly sows understand the threat posed by boars on cubs. There seems to be lots of indications that sows with cubs modify behaviour and spend time closer to humans as a strategy to avoid turning cubs into boar food. It certainly seems clear that they do that in national parks.

"What I'm saying is I have seen them put a bunch of roads and and disturbance way back in to where they are and if they are not hunted they seem to be doing great". I think he addresses this in the actual study, and I know he's addressed it in conversation and it's pretty easily explained. Populations are subject to upward and downward pressures - note the plural: it's not just one upward pressure and one downward pressure. High road/rail density is downward pressure, as is bad habitat, loss of habitat to urbanization, ag, industry, and hunting. Give the bears good habitat, take away hunting and agricultural habitat removal and the upward pressures may outweigh the downward, leading to still increasing populations. Control for road density and you could still prove that the increase would have been more without roads, so the claim that roads depress populations is still valid. (FWIW, Clayton Lamb has also pointed out that grizz pops will start recolonizing areas in the Okanagan from which they've been extirpated. For someone to think Clayton is saying something different requires that person to not read or listen).

"To most grizzlies up here a road IS just another piece of their habitat." Agreed. But let's not forget, all of us humans live in an artificially manipulated world that is nothing like what we evolved to survive in (the speed of our technological innovations has outstripped our ability to evolve). Driving down a resource road in the snow may be something you do regularly. We can say, truthfully, that a snow covered resource road on the side of a cliff is just part of you habitat. It's normal. But....that doesn't mean that driving it doesn't increase your chances of dying compared to your brother-in-law who sells insurance from behind a desk.

The other thing is, roads vary from a two track dirt road way, way back all the way to a 4 lane highway or a train track. The mortality increase comes from lots of potential sources: vehicle impact, legal hunting, illegal hunting, increased bear on bear predation success.

Jumping to the conclusion that the writer wants access to the backcountry restricted, or that he's an anti-hunter, or that he wants all roads torn up is just that: a jump. What if he says "Biggest bang for buck would be a wide overpass on HWY 3 and overpasses across train lines? (I know he's a fan of overpasses, fwiw).

Squire:

"The road itself is benign; the amount and type of traffic would no doubt affect the impact of the road on Grizzly Bears and other wildlife."

What kind of traffic? I'm not great at interpreting all the graphs, but I think there's an indication in the study that as road density increases sub-adult male grizzlies get killed more, and more quickly than adult males, adult females and sub-adult females. Again, I could be reading it wrong, but that graph made me wonder: do roads give better sightlines/travel lines allowing big boars (a kind of traffic) a better chance of smoking a sub-adult male (another type of traffic)?

I think we're (and by "we" I mean all hunter/conservationsits who think about animal behaviour), also coming to the conclusion that, for example, not only does wolf travel on roads hurt prey because wolves can travel fast and cut tracks, but also because prey species utilize roads for ease of travel, with the price being that prey spend more time in areas frequented by predators, meaning increased chances of encounters, and increased chances of becoming a meal.

The article quotes Lamb as saying:

"It's simple math, says scientist Clayton Lamb. The closer grizzly bears are to humans, the more ways there are for the bears to die. Put more simply, more roads equal fewer grizzly bears."

That's pretty tough to dispute. I think most of us agreed with it before Lamb said "Now we have the proof of what we all suspected". I think people are taking issue with Lamb and his finding on the basis of unsubstantiated critiques made by....Dannybouy, rather than on the actual findings, which most people I think respond to with "Tell me something that isn't obvious" (and again, Lamb's just saying "we've now got the proof").

[Rob Chipman]

Squire:

"This is a blanket statement that over generalizes impacts and is where we fundamentally (and from my part at least, respectfully) disagree. "

You've got a point. It'd be nice to get proof of what we might suspect: a two track dirt 4x4 road may not be as fatal as a four lane highway. I think we know what we need to determine that. Science and funding. Almost 50% of HBC respondents don't want to pay more for wildlife, and some on here want to drop kick scientists. We're probably going to want to re-evaluate that.

[Red_Mist]

I gotta agree with Squire and Husky7mm. We had a "recovering" G bear population and in the past 2 decades its nearly tripled. Again, as another member asked how many bears do we really need? We already know hunting has ZERO impact on bear populations. Everything very clearly shows ungulates of every species are on a steep decline. I'm just not sure what this research adds to my conversation with an anti hunter ... roads are bad. Further what does science add to my conversation with government, which completely dismisses science and chooses "social emotional decision making" for policy? Does anyone see the irony of the phony Dr. Weaver ignoring science? If they had their way ALL hunting would be banned and maybe instead of doing new research we could collectively simply look at history as its pretty good indicator of what happens with all these social experiments. Kenya banned all hunting in 1976 and since has seen a decline of 70% of all its animal species, thats a super job anti hunters have done at devastating wildlife.

[Squire]

Squire:

"The road itself is benign; the amount and type of traffic would no doubt affect the impact of the road on Grizzly Bears and other wildlife."

What kind of traffic? I'm not great at interpreting all the graphs, but I think there's an indication in the study that as road density increases sub-adult male grizzlies get killed more, and more quickly than adult males, adult females and sub-adult females. Again, I could be reading it wrong, but that graph made me wonder: do roads give better sightlines/travel lines allowing big boars (a kind of traffic) a better chance of smoking a sub-adult male (another type of traffic)?

I think we're (and by "we" I mean all hunter/conservationsits who think about animal behaviour), also coming to the conclusion that, for example, not only does wolf travel on roads hurt prey because wolves can travel fast and cut tracks, but also because prey species utilize roads for ease of travel, with the price being that prey spend more time in areas frequented by predators, meaning increased chances of encounters, and increased chances of becoming a meal.

The article quotes Lamb as saying:

"It's simple math, says scientist Clayton Lamb. The closer grizzly bears are to humans, the more ways there are for the bears to die. Put more simply, more roads equal fewer grizzly bears."

That's pretty tough to dispute. I think most of us agreed with it before Lamb said "Now we have the proof of what we all suspected". I think people are taking issue with Lamb and his finding on the basis of unsubstantiated critiques made by....Dannybouy, rather than on the actual findings, which most people I think respond to with "Tell me something that isn't obvious" (and again, Lamb's just saying "we've now got the proof").

Does this very statement not suggest that human populations are impacting G-Bears the most? To assert by extension that 'more people = more roads = roads are the problem' may just be another example of erroneously attributing cause to a correlation. Drawing from his data and observations he could have just as easily come to the conclusion that 'proximity to humans = more bear deaths = humans are the problem' could he not?

I agree with most of your points/observations above. I only chimed in to make the point that there is nothing simple about the issue and IMHO the 'simplified' conclusion of the author isn't necessarily supported by his own observations and data which I don't challenge.

Don't misinterpret my comments as a blanket dismissal of scientists and their field work. I gave the example of the Nature of Things program to provide another example of poor conclusions based on what may even be valid observations. We are all aware of the Observer Effect in science. Maybe the moose wouldn't cross the road because of the smell of the scientist that had been in the bush for days?:)

I don't think anyone would disagree that in general you will find more animal tracks on the roads with the least vehicle traffic. What would you conclude from this observation?

[Wild one]

It’s a theory based on one mans findings does not make him an anti nor does it make him right or wrong. People on this forum need to understand the difference between theories and facts. Not every scientific theory is correct they are merely opinions based on facts.

personally I would say the access and people using it are the issue not the roads them selves. Grizzly make use of these roads for travel and food regularly if the road is in grizzly habitat. Seen it many times first hand

I have also come to the conclusion grizzlies often avoid high traffic areas.

I may not be a bio collecting data but I am a man in the field paying attention to grizzly habits do to hunting them or around them. I can say for a fact my observations from being around grizzly contradict this mans opinion. It also seems many others have observations that contradict his opinion

So right now I would say this man has a theory not fact and many could provide conflicting opinions/evidence

[Rob Chipman]

Red_Mist:
"I'm just not sure what this research adds to my conversation with an anti hunter ... roads are bad."

I guess it depends on how anti the anti-hunter is. I know some people who are pretty anti who dismiss or massage the science because it doesn't work for them. This science won't help any of us with them, aside from more clearly identifying that they aren't being honest.

On the other hand, my buddy's wife? The one who works with reducing bear conflicts in urban areas and who thought that g-bears are on the verge of extinction and that all they ate were vegetables? (True story. She was a little upset when I gave her some bear meat :-) Anyway, the science helps with my buddy's wife. There's a little crack in that closed mind. I tell her that hunters don't impact bear pops because where we hunt them the hunt is sustainable, but where roads and other human activity kills them is in areas where a) we don't hunt them and b) the populations aren't as strong. She doesn't eat bear sausages, but my buddy and his kids do, and her little girl breaks her mum's chops over it, saying her favorite meat is bear meat!

Squire:

"To assert by extension that 'more people = more roads = roads are the problem' may just be another example of erroneously attributing cause to a correlation."

Fair enough. Looking into the study a bit more I read that areas with roads but with vehicle closures lead to more bears than roads with no vehicle closures, which, I think, is consistent with your point - it s not the roads, its the humans on the roads. If I follow you correctly what we start discussing is: what's the best route to go? Road closure or road removal? That would then logically involve lots more discussion, speculation, checking of results, etc. A gate may stop a car, truck, Suzuki and even a quad. Does it slow down a wolf? We need to figure that stuff out, but your point is still valid.

"I don't think anyone would disagree that in general you will find more animal tracks on the roads with the least vehicle traffic. What would you conclude from this observation?"

Excellent point. It clearly means that there are more animals on the roads with less vehicle traffic....said the drunk who lost his keys in the dark by his car, but is looking for them under the streetlight because that's where the light is! :-)


BTW, I think SCI provided part of the funding for this work. I don't think Tides gave any. (Tht's for you, Dannybouy! :-) )

[hunter1947]

I don't know where they get off on saying this the bears walk the roads plane and simple like they have forever then they go off into to
bush to feed etc
It don't make any seance to me bears are bears roads have always been in place in order for this to be true full they the biologist would have to
live with the bears to see what they do,,

What a crock I or others I know have never found a dead grizzly bear near a road dead,,infact the
roads help grizzly bears travel more freely easy for them to get from A to B..

I don't see any decline on the grizzly bear population and I spend 50% of my time in the mountains over the past 10 years infact the grizzly bear
population is on the increase big time..

[Squire]

Red_Mist:
"I'm just not sure what this research adds to my conversation with an anti hunter ... roads are bad."

I guess it depends on how anti the anti-hunter is. I know some people who are pretty anti who dismiss or massage the science because it doesn't work for them. This science won't help any of us with them, aside from more clearly identifying that they aren't being honest.

On the other hand, my buddy's wife? The one who works with reducing bear conflicts in urban areas and who thought that g-bears are on the verge of extinction and that all they ate were vegetables? (True story. She was a little upset when I gave her some bear meat :-) Anyway, the science helps with my buddy's wife. There's a little crack in that closed mind. I tell her that hunters don't impact bear pops because where we hunt them the hunt is sustainable, but where roads and other human activity kills them is in areas where a) we don't hunt them and b) the populations aren't as strong. She doesn't eat bear sausages, but my buddy and his kids do, and her little girl breaks her mum's chops over it, saying her favorite meat is bear meat!

Squire:

"To assert by extension that 'more people = more roads = roads are the problem' may just be another example of erroneously attributing cause to a correlation."

Fair enough. Looking into the study a bit more I read that areas with roads but with vehicle closures lead to more bears than roads with no vehicle closures, which, I think, is consistent with your point - it s not the roads, its the humans on the roads. If I follow you correctly what we start discussing is: what's the best route to go? Road closure or road removal? That would then logically involve lots more discussion, speculation, checking of results, etc. A gate may stop a car, truck, Suzuki and even a quad. Does it slow down a wolf? We need to figure that stuff out, but your point is still valid.

"I don't think anyone would disagree that in general you will find more animal tracks on the roads with the least vehicle traffic. What would you conclude from this observation?"

Excellent point. It clearly means that there are more animals on the roads with less vehicle traffic....said the drunk who lost his keys in the dark by his car, but is looking for them under the streetlight because that's where the light is! :-)


BTW, I think SCI provided part of the funding for this work. I don't think Tides gave any. (Tht's for you, Dannybouy! :-) )

I think we agree on a lot and I have seen for myself the impact snowmobile-packed roads especially have on the ability of a wolf pack to travel great distances in search of prey during winter. As such I will modify my statement to ,"Roads themselves are largely benign" as once again it requires the human to make it less so. Un-roaded snowmobile access is also a huge issue for the ungulates that wolves prey on.

It is all part of a larger discussion that can't be tied up in a simple bow. My experience with restricting access with gates is a whole new topic that I refuse to engage in on this forum as it will inevitably lead to my ban for name-calling.:-)

[.264winmag]

Until we've spent a lifetime tagging GB, naming them and knowing what bear is where and when. And living in their habitat we're all just a bunch of opinions. Comparing Alberta to the monashees in bc is a bit of a stretch I'd reckon.
I spend x amount of days in area x and I think there's x amount of bears from x date to x date with no tagging and tracking:roll:

[Dannybuoy]

It’s a theory based on one mans findings does not make him an anti nor does it make him right or wrong. People on this forum need to understand the difference between theories and facts. Not every scientific theory is correct they are merely opinions based on facts.

personally I would say the access and people using it are the issue not the roads them selves. Grizzly make use of these roads for travel and food regularly if the road is in grizzly habitat. Seen it many times first hand

I have also come to the conclusion grizzlies often avoid high traffic areas.

I may not be a bio collecting data but I am a man in the field paying attention to grizzly habits do to hunting them or around them. I can say for a fact my observations from being around grizzly contradict this mans opinion. It also seems many others have observations that contradict his opinion

So right now I would say this man has a theory not fact and many could provide conflicting opinions/evidence
Good Post This is what I could have written if I was more politically correct and wasnt so pissed that a hunter chose to take this side .... also the timing ...
Rob , its not who funded the research its the anti hunter , anti access slant that was portrayed . ALSO You can inform Clayton that grizzly's already inhabit the okanagan so his theory that they will repopulate the okanagan happened some years ago ...if they ever actually were exterpated

[Pemby_mess]

Good Post This is what I could have written if I was more politically correct and wasnt so pissed that a hunter chose to take this side .... also the timing ...
Rob , its not who funded the research its the anti hunter , anti access slant that was portrayed . ALSO You can inform Clayton that grizzly's already inhabit the okanagan so his theory that they will repopulate the okanagan happened some years ago ...if they ever actually were exterpated

its statements like this that act as an all you can eat buffet for "anti" ammunition. They also provide the reasoning for hunters not supporting other hunters.

[Ourea]

Talk about a thread that has ignorance written all over it.

[horshur]

it seems like many are making the cardinal scientific sin of equating grizzly sightings with a reliable population estimate. The average lay person actually knows the difference, so the average hunter should too, especially if and when they're trying to make a case contrary to highly trained people, that study this stuff for a living.
logical fallacy. Lay person could be right and expert wrong. I agree that expert should be more accurate.
if you have seen the grizzly map where it shows areas they don't inhabit..it might help you see lay people's mistrust. Cause the map is wrong a lot.

[280 77]

After reading this article and some of the comments it's easy to see why the state of our hunting tradition and rights are in jeopardy . Ourea I have a ton of respect for you and what you do as a hunter and I'm confident that this biologist is knowledgeable given your account of him . The problem I have is that the article comes off as being representative of the overall condition of the grizz population in B.C. which I believe is misleading . I am no expert on the subject but the majority of information I have read on the subject suggests that our grizz populations are fairly good and in many cases possibly better than ever .
I love hiking and hunting and I'm in favor road deactivation , especially on tertiary routes such as skidder trails etc. but the danger I see in an article like this , is that the general public (urban population , non hunters that rarely venture into the back country) reads it and jump on the "lets shut the bush down to save these endangered species" bandwagon . I find this somewhat irresponsible and possibly self serving , given his described hunting style and his position as a professional .
i realize his article is based upon a specific area , but the general public most likely won't pick up on that . In my opinion this could lead to further erosion of the hunting community's rights on a very broad based spectrum . And by the way Danny , it is possible to state your opinions without insulting those who's opinions differ from yours .

[Pemby_mess]

logical fallacy. Lay person could be right and expert wrong. I agree that expert should be more accurate.
if you have seen the grizzly map where it shows areas they don't inhabit..it might help you see lay people's mistrust. Cause the map is wrong a lot.

Nothing I wrote in the paragraph you quoted is considered a logical fallacy. I was addressing a fallacious argument that crops up time and time again on this forum.

The fallacy you're attempting to assign my statement is called "an appeal to authority". However since I left room for a lay person to overcome a professional opinion, after certain logical criteria are met, it does not apply to what I said. If one is presented with a position arrived at via an analysis of evidence, the burden of proof lies on the person Repudiating said position.

claiming "I see lots of grizzly bears", does not constitute evidence counter to the scientific analysis in the study being discussed. True, be they counter-claims coming from a lay person or fellow scientist. If you're a lay-person who wishes to argue with the findings of scientists, you'd better be familiar with the minimum requisites for the discussion.

[Squire]

Until we've spent a lifetime tagging GB, naming them and knowing what bear is where and when. And living in their habitat we're all just a bunch of opinions. Comparing Alberta to the monashees in bc is a bit of a stretch I'd reckon.
I spend x amount of days in area x and I think there's x amount of bears from x date to x date with no tagging and tracking:roll:

Unfortunately tagging bears has a serious detrimental effect on the bear as it has to be tranquilized and a named bear is often a doomed bear. The wildlife biologists put out trail cameras and hair traps for DNA samples so they have a pretty good idea of how many different bears frequent an area. If you know your local bio as I do, you may be apprised of this information as well as data for other animal populations. The information sharing goes both ways as anecdotal sightings and observations are also an important part of the biologists' full picture.

[Pemby_mess]

logical fallacy. Lay person could be right and expert wrong. I agree that expert should be more accurate.
if you have seen the grizzly map where it shows areas they don't inhabit..it might help you see lay people's mistrust. Cause the map is wrong a lot.

An isolated grizzly sighting, does not in the slightest, suggest any distribution map is "wrong". Grizzlies have been know to range well over a 500kms in a season. The habitual range of a male grizzly is over 100 sq Kim's. Seeing one in a region where they are thought to be extirpated does not mean there is an established population there. In fact, quite opposite to it being an anecdotal sign of overall population health, it could very well suggest stress in the region it's traveling fro. Such as; A lack of sows, too much hunting pressure, drought, industrial pressure etc. All very consistent with the study's conclusions.

so this actually is a logical fallacy, and that's what I'm trying to get at.

[Dannybuoy]

After reading this article and some of the comments it's easy to see why the state of our hunting tradition and rights are in jeopardy . Ourea I have a ton of respect for you and what you do as a hunter and I'm confident that this biologist is knowledgeable given your account of him . The problem I have is that the article comes off as being representative of the overall condition of the grizz population in B.C. which I believe is misleading . I am no expert on the subject but the majority of information I have read on the subject suggests that our grizz populations are fairly good and in many cases possibly better than ever .
I love hiking and hunting and I'm in favor road deactivation , especially on tertiary routes such as skidder trails etc. but the danger I see in an article like this , is that the general public (urban population , non hunters that rarely venture into the back country) reads it and jump on the "lets shut the bush down to save these endangered species" bandwagon . I find this somewhat irresponsible and possibly self serving , given his described hunting style and his position as a professional .
i realize his article is based upon a specific area , but the general public most likely won't pick up on that . In my opinion this could lead to further erosion of the hunting community's rights on a very broad based spectrum . And by the way Danny , it is possible to state your opinions without insulting those who's opinions differ from yours . Another good post ,much better wording .
I reread my previous posts and didnt think I was that insulting other than to question the motives of said bio and I stand by those remarks ...

[Pemby_mess]

It’s a theory based on one mans findings does not make him an anti nor does it make him right or wrong. People on this forum need to understand the difference between theories and facts. Not every scientific theory is correct they are merely opinions based on facts.

personally I would say the access and people using it are the issue not the roads them selves. Grizzly make use of these roads for travel and food regularly if the road is in grizzly habitat. Seen it many times first hand

I have also come to the conclusion grizzlies often avoid high traffic areas.

I may not be a bio collecting data but I am a man in the field paying attention to grizzly habits do to hunting them or around them. I can say for a fact my observations from being around grizzly contradict this mans opinion. It also seems many others have observations that contradict his opinion

So right now I would say this man has a theory not fact and many could provide conflicting opinions/evidence

I have to say something here, cause this is an often repeated thought.

In science, a "theory" refers to a cohesive body of evidence and conceptually proven facts. It is used as a point on which "everybody" agrees is settled and facilitates forward progress within the field. (Everybody, meaning everybody credibly qualified within the field)

This is different than how lay people use the term, which is closer to a scientist's use of "hypothesis". The term Hypothesis refers to the equivalent of a lay person's "theory", yet to receive study or in the process of being credibly disputed. It can refer to anything from "an educated guess" to a considerable body of work yet to receive much scrutiny.

[Husky7mm]

I think we agree on a lot and I have seen for myself the impact snowmobile-packed roads especially have on the ability of a wolf pack to travel great distances in search of prey during winter. As such I will modify my statement to ,"Roads themselves are largely benign" as once again it requires the human to make it less so. Un-roaded snowmobile access is also a huge issue for the ungulates that wolves prey on.


Yes sir, once you walk in the bush all winter long, year after year its a plain as the nose on your face, easy access, east route, are bad news for ungulates, particularly in winter.

[Husky7mm]

Until we've spent a lifetime tagging GB, naming them and knowing what bear is where and when. And living in their habitat we're all just a bunch of opinions. Comparing Alberta to the monashees in bc is a bit of a stretch I'd reckon.
I spend x amount of days in area x and I think there's x amount of bears from x date to x date with no tagging and tracking:roll:
Respect what your saying.

[horshur]

2O years ago I was shoeing horses on the Harper ranch in Kamloops. Cow boss Phill Grey tells me a story. There are bighorn sheep on the ranch. Population estimate by the experts for the herd was one number...Phil tells me he phones up Kamloops bio and tell them there numbers are shit...reply is how does he know that? Cause I have more sheep in my alfalfa field then you guys say exist on the whole range...could prove it with one picture. Not a rural legend. They flew for a count and Phil was right...so I maintain my position.

[.264winmag]

Unfortunately tagging bears has a serious detrimental effect on the bear as it has to be tranquilized and a named bear is often a doomed bear. The wildlife biologists put out trail cameras and hair traps for DNA samples so they have a pretty good idea of how many different bears frequent an area. If you know your local bio as I do, you may be apprised of this information as well as data for other animal populations. The information sharing goes both ways as anecdotal sightings and observations are also an important part of the biologists' full picture.

Tagging is not the only way to collect information you're correct. As far as the tagging having a detrimental affect on GB, ya if I was doing it probably! The fella I know that has done it for longer than anyone I know of has it pretty dialled in. It works, has been working for a long time with very little detrimental affect. He has some amazing information and stories from radio collared bears, there's no guessing the bears range etc. They're also not literally named, it's a number system. Honestly some of the stories would blow people's minds and really change some people's view on gb biology. They are awesome animals.

[HappyJack]

The obvious solution is to close the back country, roads and trails. No more atv/utv, no more snow mobiles...no snow shoes or skiis, no heli skiing. May as well just shut it all down and make people sit at home an play on the x box or something. Realistically it will come down to what brings more economic activity to BC. Outdoor activities or a few grizzly bears that people don't even want to hunt anymore.

[Husky7mm]

After reading this article and some of the comments it's easy to see why the state of our hunting tradition and rights are in jeopardy . Ourea I have a ton of respect for you and what you do as a hunter and I'm confident that this biologist is knowledgeable given your account of him . The problem I have is that the article comes off as being representative of the overall condition of the grizz population in B.C. which I believe is misleading . I am no expert on the subject but the majority of information I have read on the subject suggests that our grizz populations are fairly good and in many cases possibly better than ever .
I love hiking and hunting and I'm in favor road deactivation , especially on tertiary routes such as skidder trails etc. but the danger I see in an article like this , is that the general public (urban population , non hunters that rarely venture into the back country) reads it and jump on the "lets shut the bush down to save these endangered species" bandwagon . I find this somewhat irresponsible and possibly self serving , given his described hunting style and his position as a professional .
i realize his article is based upon a specific area , but the general public most likely won't pick up on that . In my opinion this could lead to further erosion of the hunting community's rights on a very broad based spectrum . And by the way Danny , it is possible to state your opinions without insulting those who's opinions differ from yours .

Well put, thank you for your contribution.

[Husky7mm]

Thank you Rob and squire you have given me two perspectives, both very convincing . I appreciate that you both took the time to produce that!

[Squire]

Tagging is not the only way to collect information you're correct. As far as the tagging having a detrimental affect on GB, ya if I was doing it probably! The fella I know that has done it for longer than anyone I know of has it pretty dialled in. It works, has been working for a long time with very little detrimental affect. He has some amazing information and stories from radio collared bears, there's no guessing the bears range etc. They're also not literally named, it's a number system. Honestly some of the stories would blow people's minds and really change some people's view on gb biology. They are awesome animals.

I appreciate that the pros can do it well and the info the radio collars gather is invaluable. I guess I was referring more to my experience with nuisance bears that need to be repeatedly tranquilized for relocation. It's also these nuisance bears that end up getting named and their days are usually numbered. A few years ago we had one that died within a few days of its third relocation.

They are indeed awesome animals and worth doing what we can to preserve them.:-D

[horshur]

The question I have is whether it is wise to re colonize grizzly where the habitat and separation from humanity does not really exist anymore? It seems a setup for conflict and failure. Like keeping a lion in a cage.

[Husky7mm]

Wolves, grizzly and cougar are indeed awesome, amazing animals.

[.264winmag]

I appreciate that the pros can do it well and the info the radio collars gather is invaluable. I guess I was referring more to my experience with nuisance bears that need to be repeatedly tranquilized for relocation. It's also these nuisance bears that end up getting named and their days are usually numbered. A few years ago we had one that died within a few days of its third relocation.

They are indeed awesome animals and worth doing what we can to preserve them.:-D

This fella has also successfully darted 'problem' bears and relocated successfully. Also planned transplants have been successful. Sometimes they make their way back, of course, but most often worth the effort. Straight out nuisance bears are indeed a tough nut to crack indeed, not great success on them.

[303savage]

The effects are immediate."

How many more grizzly do we need? I think their is more than enough.

[Islandeer]

Hey I know, we should have a Wildlife Tax on all Starbucks Coffee and put the funds toward more of the science so we can come up with the same results.
Ok, a good point for meaningful dialogue, respect viewpoints from opposing perspectives.
You may derive some valuable insight from someone else’s reality that could aid in advancing the discussion to a higher place of understanding. That is the goal isn’t it?

[HarryToolips]

Guys, we are all going to differ a little bit. Let's accept that and be courteous to each other, understanding that we have a common goal = conservation.


And the purpose of me bringing this up was to just provide another example of a SCIENCE journal mentioning part of the problem being road access. It's not the only cause for decline in wildlife and we all know that. And that's not the point either. Perhaps, I'll use this journal as an example when I have a conversation with my non-hunter friends in Vancouver who have no idea about the wildlife, yet are by default anti-hunting. We need to start having conversations with people who are by default against hunting and pro banning of such activities. We NEED more people by our side.


There are stages to every issue and people working under with it: storming, norming, and then performing.


The first conversation u will have with an anti-hunter is going to be a storm. They won't like it. Out of 10 conversations, maybe 2 people will listen. Some will say "I will never do it, but I get why you do it". We then have "normal" (morning) conversations with people who "get it" and hopefully get the conservation piece across them. And then we perform with the goal of them understanding what we are truly about. I know it sounds theoretical but that's truly how humans behave. We need more people by our side and having difficult conversations is the only way to do. 100,000 BC hunters is not going to cut it.


We need more support and the understanding of why we hunt and how stopping a grizzly bear hunt is not helpful. This journal is just another tool we can bring up in our conversations.
Very well said..

[boxhitch]

Clayton on Wildsight

https://wildsight.ca/blog/2018/03/23/grizzlies-need-room-to-roam-an-interview-with-clayton-lamb/


I sat down with Clayton to talk about what inspired him to study grizzlies, his research, and his upcoming grizzly talks in Cranbrook on Wednesday, April 4 (https://wildsight.ca/events/grizzly-bears-running-out-of-room-cranbrook/) and Fernie on Thursday, April 5 (https://wildsight.ca/events/grizzly-bears-running-out-of-room-fernie/).

[Greenthumbed]

Clayton Lamb spoke in Golden a little while back. I missed it, but my wife was able to go. She really got a lot out of his presentation. Hunting is not the grizzlies problem, but people in general definitely are.

[srupp]

Hmm a few points..
His statements on roads is all over the map he uses it both ways..
Bears avoiding humans when they havnt been hunted in 20 years.., someone is.bears change behavior only with negative interaction

Bears avoid humans. .hmm only till the rewards/advantages outweigh the consequences. .fresh tied up dog for food, apple trees, even dog food..
The loss of grizzly hunting except for indians has taught the biologists nothing. .its too early to draw any conclusion.
Beaers do not avoid trails and roads..how many bears are killed on roads even in national parks..on train tracks. Fact is bears are lazy. .they use roads for whstever purpose they choose. .same as they use fallen trees to cross creeks

Habituated bears learn that an encounter with man is not a bad thing..it can be with a legal hunting season used for managing, populations , location and numbers.
Best feeding area in Cunningham pass was the swale..right on the pass road..lots of big old grizzlies..they prefer quiet. ..but they Require food..3 choices.go nocturnal..eat at night..some do..change eating areas..too import not many do..some do..or hunt down the human interfering in their smorgasbord and destroy him...some do..problem is no scientist can tell me what a bear will do or howhe will rrespond to anything..they are individuals with personalities..they know what..only after they act

The system could not have been broaken..seen numerous bears 26..27..28..29 years old shot recently.most all habitat have healthy mature carrying capacity..with huntable numbers in all the areas ive been in.
I am not afraid of a educated experienced biologist..I intensly dislike those with well funded agendas..
There are as many grizzlies in for example cariboo mnts as I saw 30 years ago.todays bears are bigger and older..I know why...but would be surprised if he did.
Cheers
Srupp

[gcreek]

Hmm a few points..
His statements on roads is all over the map he uses it both ways..
Bears avoiding humans when they havnt been hunted in 20 years.., someone is.bears change behavior only with negative interaction

Bears avoid humans. .hmm only till the rewards/advantages outweigh the consequences. .fresh tied up dog for food, apple trees, even dog food..
The loss of grizzly hunting except for indians has taught the biologists nothing. .its too early to draw any conclusion.
Beaers do not avoid trails and roads..how many bears are killed on roads even in national parks..on train tracks. Fact is bears are lazy. .they use roads for whstever purpose they choose. .same as they use fallen trees to cross creeks

Habituated bears learn that an encounter with man is not a bad thing..it can be with a legal hunting season used for managing, populations , location and numbers.
Best feeding area in Cunningham pass was the swale..right on the pass road..lots of big old grizzlies..they prefer quiet. ..but they Require food..3 choices.go nocturnal..eat at night..some do..change eating areas..too import not many do..some do..or hunt down the human interfering in their smorgasbord and destroy him...some do..problem is no scientist can tell me what a bear will do or howhe will rrespond to anything..they are individuals with personalities..they know what..only after they act

The system could not have been broaken..seen numerous bears 26..27..28..29 years old shot recently.most all habitat have healthy mature carrying capacity..with huntable numbers in all the areas ive been in.
I am not afraid of a educated experienced biologist..I intensly dislike those with well funded agendas..
There are as many grizzlies in for example cariboo mnts as I saw 30 years ago.todays bears are bigger and older..I know why...but would be surprised if he did.
Cheers
Srupp

Well said Steven.

If you see a bear's tracks on your property, he is casing you out. If you see the bear, he has decided what's yours is his.

[boxhitch]

-2010 Spatial and temporal use of roads by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2192/09GR010.1

-MacHutchon, G. and M. Proctor. 2016. The Effect of Roads and Human Actions on Roads on Grizzly Bears and their Habitat.
Trans-Border Grizzly Bear Project. www.transbordergrizzlybearproject.ca (http://www.transbordergrizzlybearproject.ca)

-Hamilton, D. and L. Gyug. 2007. Landscape Level Forest Management Strategy for the Boundary Portion of the Arrow-Boundary
Forest District within the Kettle-Boundary Grizzly Bear Population Unit.

-1996 Relationships Among Grizzly Bears, Roads and Habitat in the Swan Mountains Montana

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2404779?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Access and road density in G Bear habitat has been discussed for decades. BC Gov implemented it own guidelines in respect of this and have not enforced their own rules in many areas

[scott h]

I concur, here now in northern Alberta every logging road but the very main road is deactivated in an impassable fashion. Even better, and more to the thread many oil and gas access roads are gated and closed to non industry vehicles,( save atvs in the afternoon). Grizzlies are regularly seen all over the place in these closeures. Sometimes not even leaving when you show up. Many of these closeures have been put in way too late but in the future these zones have potential to be honey holes. There is great habitat due to disturbance. Too bad the wolves use these roads too, and they are great at it.
If there were less roads, there indeed would be more game, but part of it is what kind of killer is using the road. Also disturbance is needed of somekind, a sea of conifer is not ideal habitat of ungulates.

It is kinda funny that it took so long for people/industry/government to understand that the easier it is to access area, the harder it will be hunted/poached. Proper deactivation/vehicle closures with allowed foot access makes a huge difference for the quality and quantity of all game animals, obviously grizzlies included.

[scott h]

To most grizzlies up here a road IS just another piece of their habitat. They where born with them there, a road is as normal as a mountain, a river, a lake, a cut block, a pipeline.......
The only problem with that road is that it allows many more people into the area then would be there with out it being present. More people equals more pressure.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

And their behaviour is different whether they are hunted or not. It doesn't take long to adapt either way.

[boxhitch]

The one small detail thats being overlooked is the word 'activity'. Its not the roads that are the problem it is activity they bring that the bears will avoid, especially sows with cubs.
Put 'active' in front of all Claytons references to roads and the picture is different