black bear management handbookbbcc.org/pdf/bbcc.blackbearguide.pdf · service. the first edition of...

Black Bear Management Handbookfor LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, SOUTHERN ARKANSAS and EAST TEXAS

Published by:

Fourth Edition | March 2015

Special credit to the individual participants of the Black Bear Conservation Coalition

Funding for this publication was provided by:

Delta-Land Services

Walton Family Foundation

Apache Foundation

Louisiana Forestry Association-Sustainable Forestry Initiative

The Joe W. and Dorothy Dorsett Brown Foundation

W.D. Chips

Louisiana Chapter of the Society of American Foresters

Louisiana Chapter of the Association of Consulting Foresters

Black Bear Conservation CoalitionP.O. Box 80442, Baton Rouge, LA 70898

225-400-9622

bbcc.org

Design by VeniHarlan.com

AGRICULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 43

Conservation Program on Agricultural Lands ........................................................................................ 45

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT: A COORDINATED APPROACH ............................................................................ 47

LIVING WITH BEARS ....................................................................................................................................51

Bears in Your Neighborhood ................................................................................................................ 52

Bears and Garbage .............................................................................................................................. 52

Hunting in Bear Country ...................................................................................................................... 53

Bears and Deer Feeders ....................................................................................................................... 54

Bears and Campsites ........................................................................................................................... 55

Bears and Beehives ............................................................................................................................. 57

Bears and Crops and Livestock ............................................................................................................. 57

Bears and Roads ................................................................................................................................. 58

Feeding Bears ..................................................................................................................................... 59

MANAGEMENT OF NUISANCE BEHAVIOR ..................................................................................................... 61

Cooperative Management Approach ..................................................................................................... 63

Aversive Conditioning.......................................................................................................................... 63

Encounters with Bears ......................................................................................................................... 65

Understanding Bear Behavior .............................................................................................................. 67

Interpreting Black Bear Communication ................................................................................................ 67

Defensive Display of Dominance Behavior ............................................................................................69

INCENTIVE PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................71

State & Federal Program Contacts ........................................................................................................ 73

Private Programs ................................................................................................................................. 77

Carbon Banking Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 79

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................. 81

For more information ........................................................................................................................... 83

THE BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COALTION ................................................................................................. 7

EXCUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................11

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................15

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................17

Arkansas ............................................................................................................................................ 19

Louisiana ............................................................................................................................................ 19

Mississippi ......................................................................................................................................... 21

Texas ..................................................................................................................................................22

BEAR ECOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Physical Description ............................................................................................................................ 25

Reproduction ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Denning/Hibernation ..........................................................................................................................26

Movements ......................................................................................................................................... 27

Food Habits ........................................................................................................................................28

Habitat Requirements.......................................................................................................................... 30

MANAGEMENT OF FOREST HABITAT ............................................................................................................ 33

General Forest Management Guidelines ............................................................................................... 33

Forest Diversity ............................................................................................................................... 33

Streamside Management Zones ....................................................................................................... 33

Den Sites ........................................................................................................................................34

Roads ............................................................................................................................................. 35

Forest Openings .............................................................................................................................. 35

Bottomland Hardwood Timber Management ......................................................................................... 35

Canebreak Management ......................................................................................................................38

Upland Pine Management .................................................................................................................... 39

Upland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Management ......................................................................................... 39

Cypress/Tupelo Management ..............................................................................................................40

Table of Contents

© BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COALITION 7

We feel strongly that working together, all partners, public and private, is key to the successful restoration and management of the Louisiana black bear.

The Black Bear Conservation Coalition

The Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) was

formed in the fall of 1990, shortly after the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service published its intent to list the

Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) as

threatened under the guidelines of the Endangered

Species Act. Occurring at the height of the highly

publicized controversy associated with the Northern

spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, there was a

genuine fear that the bear’s listing could generate

a similar conflict in the region. In an effort to avoid

such controversy, and to avoid a litigious conflict

that would have no obvious winners, a group of

progressive wildlife biologists met and formed a

working group that became the BBCC.

That initial meeting evolved to a very active,

collaborative model that set out to reverse the

actions that had brought the Louisiana black bear

to a point that required the federal listing. Working

subcommittees were formed to address research

needs, information and education, habitat and

conflict management. Stakeholders representing

timber companies, agricultural and energy

interests, conservation organizations, universities

and individuals all worked together to determine

what was best for the bear, putting personal and

professional agendas aside. When the bear was

listed in January of 1992, the BBCC was well on its

way in putting plans together to restore the bear to

suitable habitat in its historic range in Louisiana,

Mississippi, and east Texas.

The working groups wrote and had printed a

comprehensive Restoration Plan for the Louisiana

Black Bear, a plan that was later used as the

blueprint for the official Recovery Plan for the

Louisiana Black Bear by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. The first edition of a Black Bear Management

Handbook was printed and distributed to almost

10,000 landowners and others interested in bears.

An annual newsletter was distributed and an

outreach program was developed to give educational

programs to schools, civic organizations, summer

camps, and other opportunities to educate citizens

Phot

o by

Kat

e M

arsh

all G

raph

ics

© BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COALITION © BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COALITION8 9

about the Louisiana black bear. Over the years, the

BBCC has given educational presentations to tens

of thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi

and east Texas, as well as presentations at national

meetings like the biannual Eastern Black Bear

Workshops. Working with local communities, the

BBCC has helped jump start two bear festivals, the

Great Delta Bear Affair in Rolling Fork, MS, and the

Bayou Teche Black Bear Festival in Franklin, LA.

These events are designed to show these small

communities that bears can be an asset to the

economic well-being of their communities.

Maintaining enough habitat for bears means hundreds of other species will also prosper, water quality will improve, and tons of carbon will be removed from the atmosphere.Working with public and private partners, the BBCC

Landowner Assistance Program has helped direct

private landowners to the appropriate private,

state or federal program that helps them meet their

conservation aspirations on their property. USDA

Farm Bill programs have restored over a million

acres of bottomland hardwood forests in the region.

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and

Private Stewardship Grants from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, along with private dollars from the

Apache and Walton Family Foundations supported

the BBCC’s tree planting program. The Apache

Foundation has donated over one million hardwood

seedlings to BBCC efforts while Walton Foundation

funds have paid to plant them. Several thousand

acres in Louisiana and Texas have been planted

by the BBCC with the generous support of these

organizations.

Over the years, the BBCC has spent over $4 million

addressing restoration objectives. The BBCC handled

nuisance bear work for the Louisiana Department of

Wildlife and Fisheries for 15 years and subsidized

bear research by purchasing immobilization drugs,

flights to monitor bears, ATV’s, bear traps, and other

items necessary to support the restoration of the

Louisiana black bear.

We feel strongly that working together, all partners,

public and private, is key to the successful

restoration and management of the Louisiana black

bear. Without a doubt, the bear population has

rebounded, much faster than anyone could have

predicted. Many states are partnering with private

groups in educating the public about bears and

addressing potential and existing conflicts. Private

organizations, whose members are local community

volunteers, can do a lot to reduce the burden on the

government agencies, saving the taxpayer dollars

for other needs. Over the years, the activities of the

BBCC have saved both the federal and state wildlife

agencies several million dollars. The stakeholders

in bear management are many and most are

willing to do their part in creating a “bear friendly”

environment.

The development of forested corridors connecting

existing forested habitat across the region is

an ongoing objective that the BBCC and other

conservation interests will be pursuing in the near

and distant future. More and more emphasis is being

placed on habitat connectivity throughout the nation,

and much will require private property. We have

done a lot with USDA Farm Bill and other government

programs, which are all voluntary, with mitigation

banks, and other conservation easement options. As

budgets get cut and government monies diminish,

we will need to work to develop other ways of

working with the private sector in protecting existing

habitat and restoring areas in strategic locations.

Please visit the BBCC website at www.bbcc.org and

support our efforts now and in the future. As the

Louisiana black bear recovers from near extinction

and becomes a viable part of our wildlife heritage,

citizens will need to learn how to coexist with these

remarkable animals. Bears have a place on the

landscape and are considered a “Keystone” species.

If we can maintain enough habitat for these far-

ranging animals, hundreds of other species will also

prosper, water quality will improve, and many tons

of carbon will be removed from the atmosphere. The

one important species that will benefit most from

this is ours, humans.


Essential black bear habitat components include

food, water, cover, denning sites and limited human

disturbance. Forest management should be directed

toward providing or enhancing these habitat

components. Most forest management practices

advantageous to black bears are also consistent with

normal management activities and are beneficial to

other wildlife species. Such practices include:

n Maintaining occupied bear habitat in some stage

of timberland or vegetative cover

n Maintaining a diverse, productive forest that

provides preferred bear foods and cover

n Using single-tree, group selection, patch

clearcuts or a combination of these in uneven-

age management to promote the regeneration of

key timber species (e.g., oaks) and stimulate the

growth of herbaceous plants

n Designating forested hardwood corridors (as

wide as possible) along major drainages in

both hardwood and pine forests as streamside

management zones (SMZs)

n Preserving trees greater than 36 inches in

diameter at breast height with existing or

potential cavities for potential denning sites

n Favoring cypress stands, escape thickets, food

sources and travel corridors connecting forested

areas

n Considering the size, shape and arrangement of

harvest cuts, as well as the proximity and age of

nearby harvested areas, to promote diversity in

hardwood and pine plantations

Ideal management plans should emphasize conflict prevention and practical solutions. In the past, the existence of viable populations of

the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

was jeopardized by significant habitat alteration

and reduction of the bear’s range of Louisiana,

Mississippi, east Texas, and southern Arkansas.

Consequently, in 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service declared the subspecies “threatened” under

provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in all

of those states except Arkansas. As this document

goes to press, the Louisiana black bear is getting

closer to the recovery objectives due largely to the

successful partnerships fostered by the Black Bear

Conservation Coalition (BBCC).

At the time of listing, black bears in the region

existed primarily in 3 isolated subpopulations

in bottomland hardwood and floodplain forests

in Louisiana. Establishing and maintaining bear

habitat and corridors for movement between these

subpopulations is necessary to meet the criteria

for removing the bear from listing under the ESA.

Because 90% of these lands are private, involving

private landowners in habitat restoration efforts

has been and remains key to the success of bear

restoration efforts.

Executive Summary


by wildlife professionals to all potential bear conflicts

is critical in determining whether the public views

bears as an asset or a liability. A proactive approach

is best, as prevention of nuisance behavior is easier

to manage than addressing ongoing problems.

Providing the public with factual information about

black bears can help avoid conflicts and make

resolutions more acceptable. Measures that are

initiated in a timely manner, maintained properly,

and applied with an understanding of bear behavior,

can greatly reduce any problems associated with

bears. There are many options in dealing with

human/bear conflict situations. In general, conflicts

between humans and wildlife can be addressed

by either managing the animals involved in the

conflict, manipulating the resource being damaged,

or by placing a physical or psychological barrier

between the conflicting resource and the wildlife

species. Ideal management plans should emphasize

conflict prevention and, when problems arise, the

implementation of practical solutions.

An effective response by wildlife professionals to all potential bear conflicts is critical in determining whether the public views bears as an asset or a liability.There are many assistance programs available to

help restore and enhance wildlife habitat on private

lands. These programs offer different types of

easements, cost-share plans, and other financial and

technical assistance. Clear and concise explanations

of how each program works provide private

landowners the information they need to choose

the program that will best meet their management

objectives.

The benefits of all habitat management efforts can

be magnified by planning and applying management

practices within a landscape-scale context, rather

than on an individual tract basis. Coordinated

landscape management among multiple landowners

across a large area may offer the best opportunity for

bear management and restoration. The BBCC actively

seeks out groups of landowners to create landscape-

scale habitat management and restoration projects.

Currently, budget cuts and additional anticipated

cuts may slow the effort, making cooperative

projects more important than ever.

Successful restoration of the Louisiana black bear is

dependent on public support. An effective response

n Selecting crops such as corn, sugarcane or

winter wheat, and locating those crops so that

they provide both forage and cover for bears

n Using all pesticides and herbicides in

accordance with label guidelines and state and

federal regulations

n In acreage reduction programs, locating set-

aside acres to provide extra wildlife habitat and,

in the agricultural programs, planting mast-

producing trees, both hard and soft

n Buffer drainage ditches and streams with

vegetative cover that can be used as travel

corridors

n Converting marginal agricultural lands to

forestland

n Favoring hard mast-producing species such as

oaks and pecans on suitable sites

n Thinning natural hardwood stands when

feasible, preferable at 5 to 15 year intervals

n Burning pine stands on a 3 to 5 year rotation,

avoiding winter burns and always protecting

SMZ’s from fire

n Limiting construction of permanent all-weather

roads into forested areas and gating or closing

such roads when not in use

While forestlands provide optimum bear habitat,

agricultural lands can be managed to enhance

overall bear habitat quality. Use of various

management techniques on agricultural lands next

to or interspersed with forested tracts can serve

to improve and expand occupied bear habitat.

Agricultural management practices that can enhance

black bear habitat include:


For many years, the BBCC coordinated the human/bear conflict resolution and spearheaded a Conflict Management Team consisting of BBCC, USDA Wildlife Services, LSU Department of Renewable Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). USDA Wildlife Services still assists LDWF in addressing nuisance complaints in Louisiana and state agencies address those duties in neighboring states. The BBCC wrote a State Wildlife Grant that provided funds to hire a full-time bear conflict officer in St. Mary Parish and purchase bear-proof residential garbage containers for the “hot spots” in that parish. Bear Festivals were started in Rolling Fork, Mississippi and Franklin, Louisiana to show local communities that bears could stimulate economic development while helping to educate citizens about bears.

As with any wildlife population, the objectives and attitudes of landowners, land managers, resource users, and the general public will determine if a viable bear population is considered a good thing or not. Human attitudes will ultimately determine whether bears can survive in the modern world. Public education will be a key to the future of black bears in Louisiana, Mississippi, southeast Arkansas, and east Texas. It is with this thought in mind that we bring to you the 4th edition of the Black Bear Management Handbook.

If restoration of black bears is successful, it will be through the continued efforts of public and private sectors working together to develop and implement a strategy that considers the objectives and needs of the resource, the landowner, and the public. The BBCC pledges to work toward achieving a healthy bear resource and preserving a unique wildlife heritage. We therefore ask you, the private landowner and land manager for whom this publication is written, to actively support this goal.

Black bears occupy a special place in the fact and folklore of the lower Mississippi River Valley region. William Faulkner used the bear to symbolize southern manhood and his concept of wilderness. Theodore Roosevelt brought national and international attention to the southern bear in the early 1900’s when, while on a bear hunt in Louisiana and Mississippi, he refused to shoot a bear that had been captured and bound to a tree. Impressed with Roosevelt’s sportsmanship, a journalist traveling with the hunting party set to paper the phrase “Teddy’s Bear,” which initiated the stuffed toy craze.

Today, black bears in the region are making a comeback. Since the early 1900’s, bear habitat had been significantly altered or eliminated throughout much of the region, resulting in a decline to an estimated population of just a few hundred bears. In recent years, habitat loss has been reversed and habitat restoration has increased significantly, allowing the bear population to increase significantly as well. The Black Bear Conservation Coalition (BBCC) believes this trend can continue and is actively working to restore black bears to suitable habitat within its historic range in Louisiana, Mississippi, southern Arkansas and east Texas.

The BBCC represents a broad-based cooperative effort supporting the management and restoration of black bears in the region. Its three focus areas have been habitat restoration and management, research, and information and education, which includes conflict management. Since formation of the BBCC in 1990, a workable strategy has been implemented to achieve realistic goals in each of the focus areas, and BBCC participants have taken a proactive approach toward turning ideas into reality. As a result, state agencies have taken a more active role in each focus area. In the early 90’s, the BBCC Research Subcommittee determined research priorities. Now the state and federal agencies make those decisions.

Forward

Phot

o by

Ash

ley

Hoc

kenb

erry


The American black bear (Ursus americanus) was once found throughout North America from Alaska and northern Canada to northern Mexico. Presently, 16 subspecies are recognized, and those animals found in eastern Texas, most of Mississippi, and all of Louisiana are considered to belong to Ursus americanus luteolus (generally referred to as the Louisiana black bear). For the purpose of defining boundaries for the listing of the subspecies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not include bears in Arkansas. More recent analysis would support the genetics of those animals in southeast Arkansas as genetically similar to luteolus, or at the very least an “intergrade” of luteolus and americanus.

The existence of viable populations of the Louisiana black bear was jeopardized by significant habitat alteration and reduction of the bear’s range. Consequently, in 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) declared the subspecies “threatened” under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although bears north of the Louisiana/Arkansas border were excluded from the listing under the ESA, the historic range of luteolus includes the southern part of Arkansas. There is evidence that bears in southeast Arkansas in and around the White River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) may be in an area where the American and Louisiana bear subspecies come together (intergrade).

The decline in black bear abundance can primarily be attributed to human activity, which includes habitat loss, unregulated harvest, and neglect through lack of management. Because of land drainage and clearing for agriculture, the original 24 million acres of bottomland hardwood forest in the lower Mississippi River Valley was reduced to less than 5 million acres by 1980. Examples of the extent of habitat loss included the Tensas River Basin in Louisiana and the Yazoo River Basin in Mississippi, where less that 20 percent of the original forested acreage remained in bottomland hardwoods.

Introduction

Historic range of American black bear

Current range of American black bear


Although bottomland hardwood loss stabilized in the early 1990’s and is being reversed with the aid of federally subsidized conservation incentives, planned restoration of this habitat, and connecting remaining forests, is still critical for assuring bear population viability. Because black bears have a low reproductive rate, the loss of adult females is also a serious concern. Human caused mortality, including road kills, accidental and illegal take can suppress population growth, especially in small, isolated populations.

While data on the historical status and distribution of the Louisiana black bear in the historic range are generally lacking, there are numerous references to the animals being “widespread” and “common.” It has been reported that black bears once occupied most forested areas in the region, but reached their peak abundance in the expansive forested bottomlands of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River drainages prior to human settlement in the early 1800’s. River drainages in east Texas like the Big Thicket National Preserve were also known to have an

abundant black bear population. These areas are rich in legend and lore regarding the bears that roamed the forest and the men who hunted them. Bears were an important source of food, fur, and oil for early settlers. Historical accounts of bear hunts by Indians and early European explorers date to the mid-1700’s. When President Theodore Roosevelt went on his famous bear hunt that launched the ‘Teddy bear’ in 1902, the bear population had already been greatly diminished.

This dispersal activity was expected as the animals establish new home ranges.

Black bears are managed as a game species in Arkansas. A hunting season for bears in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains has been conducted since 1980. A quota hunt for bears living around the White River NWR has been conducted since 2001. While baiting bears for hunting purposes is allowed in certain management zones and seasons, feeding bears outside of those designations is illegal, with penalties of up to $1,000 in fines. The feeding law was passed to prevent conflicts associated with bears associating people with food.

Louisiana

Although historically considered abundant, black bears populations in Louisiana were low by the 1950’s. The 1959 Louisiana Wildlife Inventory reported that the number of parishes inhabited by bears decreased from 17 in 1890 to 6 in 1950. The Inventory estimated that 80 to 120 bears remained in Louisiana and were restricted to the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins. In an effort to bolster dwindling bear numbers, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) conducted a restocking program during the summers of 1964-1967.

ArkansasThere are 4 distinct bear populations in Arkansas. Two populations occupy the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains in the north and west and another resides in the bottomland hardwood forests in the southeast, primarily on and around the White River NWR. In 2000, a project to establish a population in south-central Arkansas was initiated. From 2000 to 2006, forty six adult female bears and 99 cubs were moved from their winter dens on the White River NWR to the Felsenthal NWR.

The populations in the mountains resulted from a relocation program conducted from 1958 to 1968. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) moved 254 bears from Minnesota and Manitoba, Canada into the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains. That program has been considered to be the most successful restoration of a large carnivore population in the nation. Although bears in southeastern Arkansas were excluded from the 1992 listing of the Louisiana black bear under the Endangered Species Act, the historic range of this subspecies does include parts of southern Arkansas. The bear population around the White River NWR is considered healthy and expanding. The new population around the Felsenthal NWR in the Ouachita River drainage appears to be dispersing in all directions, with some collared animals documented in both Louisiana and Mississippi.


Wills summarized data from LDWF district biologists, and estimated 110 to125 bears in Louisiana. These historical numbers probably do not represent true changes in abundance, but rather can be attributed to estimates based on incidental reports. No quantitative survey data had been collected prior to the listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Several research projects designed to provide estimates of bear numbers in Louisiana have been conducted in recent years. In 1991, University of Tennessee and FWS researchers estimated 60 to 100 animals in the Tensas Basin, primarily on Big Lake Wildlife Management Area, Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, and private forestland north of I-20 (Epps Plantation). In 1998, the population estimate for Epps Plantation was 40 to 60 bears. In 1999, the population of Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was estimated between 90 and 180 bears using a DNA hair capture technique. From 2006-2008 a University of Tennessee study estimated 294 bears in the Tensas Basin study area. In 2007 a similar hair snare survey was initiated in upper Pointe Coupee Parish. That research, with a study area of approximately 115 sq. miles, estimated 56 bears. A duplicate survey has been conducted in the coastal population, and data from that study has recently been reported at approximately 140 bears.

The BBCC, LDWF, FWS, LSU and the University of Tennessee translocated bears into east central Louisiana to help close the gap between the Tensas and Atchafalaya Basin bear populations. Wildlife personnel moved adult females and their cubs from their winter dens in the Tensas Basin to artificial dens at Lake Ophelia NWR, and the Red River and Three Rivers Wildlife Management Areas (recently renamed the Richard K. Yancy WMA). Between March 2001 and 2009, 47 adult females and 104 cubs were moved, and most of these bears have remained in and around the target area. The bears moved as cubs are now adults and producing offspring.

Past management of black bears in Louisiana has focused primarily on harvest restrictions, restocking,

During this period, 161 bears were captured in Cook County, Minnesota and released into Louisiana by LDWF personnel. Pointe Coupee Parish, in the Upper Atchafalaya Basin, received 130 bears and the rest were released near the Madison/Tensas Parish line in the Tensas River Basin. Bears dispersing from the release sites were reported in all states adjacent to Louisiana over the next three years.

At least 30 of these animals died shortly after the restocking effort, mostly from vehicle collisions and illegal kills. Previous taxonomic and genetic research indicated that the genetics of the Louisiana bear were not compromised by the introduction of the Minnesota bears. As technology has improved, however, more recent genetic studies indicate that the bears in the northern Pointe Coupee population do show some evidence of a Minnesota influence, even though the restocking was considered a failure. In 1977, Louis Brunet estimated 350 bears remained in Louisiana, all in large forest tracts isolated from human disturbance. In 1981, Dewey

as the Theodore Roosevelt hunt in 1902 in Sharkey County that led to the creation of the world’s most popular children’s toy, the Teddy Bear.

By the early 1900’s, black bear numbers had been drastically reduced. The clearing of land for agriculture and unregulated harvest through the years had reduced the state’s bear population to less than a dozen animals. They were given statewide protection in 1932. The black bar was included on the first list of rare and threatened vertebrates of Mississippi in 1974 and was listed as an endangered species in the state in 1984.

In June of 2002, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) began its own formal black bear program, hiring a full time bear biologist. The purpose of the program is to provide information and education to sportsmen and citizens of Mississippi, to conduct research to learn more about bear ecology, and to provide management for the state’s growing bear population. It was estimated that there were less than 40 bears in

and habitat protection. The last bear hunting season was held in 1988. In 1991, the civil penalty for killing black bears was set at $10,000 per animal and criminal penalties include a possible prison term. In addition to laws against illegally killing bears in Louisiana, in Fall 2004, it became illegal to intentionally feed wild black bears in Louisiana, with fines up to $550. The feeding law was passed to prevent conflicts associated with bears associating people with food.

Most recent population dynamics and genetics research shows that the translocation of bears to the Three Rivers Complex in lower Concordia and eastern Avoyelles Parishes has paid dividends and is providing a “stepping stone” for the genetics of the Pointe Coupee Parish (Upper Atchafalaya) bears to mix with the genetics of the Tensas River subpopulation. With the aid of the latest in DNA technology, researchers can now document that bears from the upper Atchafalaya subpopulation are breeding with bears in the Three Rivers Complex and the progeny from those pairings are dispersing northward to the Tensas River Basin. This is a huge step in moving the Louisiana black bear toward a viable and sustainable determination.

Mississippi Mississippi is home to two subspecies of black bear. The American black bear (Ursus americanus) occurs in the more northern counties of the state while the federally listed Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) occurs in the southern two-thirds of the state.

The black bear has long played an integral role in Mississippi’s natural and cultural history. Native Americans relied on the black bear as a source of food, clothing, and goods for trade. As the land was settled, bears could still be found in great numbers and the hunting of bears from horseback became a popular sport. The canebrakes and swamps of the Mississippi Delta gave rise to some of the earliest legends of bear hunting and attracted people from all over the country. Of course, no hunt is as famous


education of Mississippi’s sportsmen and citizens through public outreach has helped to dismiss negative stereotypes about black bears and make bear conservation in Mississippi something that everyone can be proud of.

Research conducted by MDWFP in conjunction with Mississippi State University (MSU) has shed new light on bear ecology in Mississippi. Information gathered from monitoring radio-collared bears throughout the state has provided much needed information about home range sizes, dispersal behaviors, and habitat preferences that were previously unknown. Research has also provided information on denning ecology of females with cubs, a key component of Mississippi’s growing bear population.

TexasHistorically, Texas was home to 4 of the 16 recognized subspecies of black bear: the Mexican (Ursus americanus eremicus), the New Mexican black bear (U. a. amblyceps) in west Texas, the Louisiana black bear in east Texas, and the American black bear, which occurred throughout northern and central Texas. Extensive habitat loss and human exploitation that began during colonization and continued through the mid-twentieth century caused the decline of black bear in Texas. Bears were rare in Texas at the beginning of the twentieth century, and by the 1940’s bears were considered extirpated from the state. Restrictions on black bear hunting in Texas were instituted in 1973, and by 1987, bear hunting was prohibited statewide. Bears were listed on the state endangered species list in 1987 and the status was changed to “threatened” in 1996. State criminal penalties for illegal killing of a bear in east Texas range up to $10,000.

Bears have established a stable or growing population in western Texas in the Big Bend National Park region though natural recolonization from adjacent Mexico and smaller populations persist in the panhandle and Trans-Pecos regions of the state.

Mississippi when the program began in 2002. Since that time, Mississippi’s bear population has swelled to over 150 animals dispersed throughout the state. There are several reasons for this increase in population, including the presence of females which were nonexistent in previous years. Successful bear restoration programs in southeast Arkansas and northeast Louisiana created opportunities for dispersing animals to cross the Mississippi River into all Mississippi counties bordering the River. In August of 2006, the MDWFP published the “Conservation and Management of Black Bears in Mississippi”, a document that will guide management decisions in the coming years. Since 2005, MDWFP has documented the births of over 30 bear cubs in Mississippi. This is of special significance due to the fact that no cubs had been documented in the previous 40 years. Another reason for the increase in bear numbers is the increase in bear habitat, particularly in the Delta region. Government reforestation programs such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) have provided corridors connecting large tracts of public lands which serve as vital bear habitat. And finally,

Researchers from Michigan State University and Stephen F. Austin State University have conducted three separate surveys of public attitudes and knowledge regarding black bear in eastern Texas. Overall attitudes towards black bear are generally positive, although a majority of east Texans opposed translocation of bears to the region. These surveys highlighted the value of outreach campaigns to educate the public about bears.

Based on the current status and research, an update and revision of the East Texas Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan developed in 2005, will be prepared by 2015.

Breeding populations are not present in the historic range of the Louisiana black bear in east Texas; however, sightings have been increasing for the past 10-15 years, particularly in the northeastern counties adjacent to Oklahoma and Arkansas. Recent hair snaring studies through Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Stephen F. Austin State University, and the BBCC surveyed over 1,300 sq. kilometers of suitable forested habitat in eastern Texas and only sampled one black bear in Red River County.

Despite the current transient nature of the population in eastern Texas, a regional survey of habitat suitability confirmed that large areas of the state provide suitable conditions to support black bear populations long-term. Researchers from Stephen F. Austin State University identified large areas of contiguous forest that met multiple habitat suitability criteria based on food availability, cover, and human impact factors. Based on these criteria, they identified 6 recovery units primarily located in bottomland forests along major river basins (Pecan Bayou and Sulphur River in northeast Texas and the Trinity, Sabine, and Neches rivers in southeast Texas). Based on habitat suitability index models, scores for these recovery units were comparable for areas of the Southeast currently supporting bear populations. Furthermore, the acreages of suitable habitat for all recovery units exceeded those reported to support stable or growing populations of the Louisiana black bear in Louisiana.


entire sole of their feet (called plantigrade). When bears are interested in getting a better look or scent of something, they will stand on their hind legs, giving them an even more human-like appearance.

ReproductionMating generally occurs in the summer months and egg implantation is usually delayed for about five months. Female black bears typically begin having cubs at three to five years of age. Females as young as two years of age may reproduce in high quality habitats. Conversely, females in marginal habitats may not produce young prior to their seventh year. Food availability prior to the denning season has a significant bearing on litter size. Cubs are born in winter dens in January and February. Although two or three cub litters are most common, litter sizes range from one to five, depending on the age and condition

Bear Ecology

Bears are one of the world’s most adaptable carnivores. Their reasoning ability, long-term memory, omnivorous food habits, dexterity, speed, strength, sense of smell, and elusive behavior contribute to their success through evolutionary time.

Physical DescriptionBlack bears in the region are normally black with a brown muzzle and an occasional white blaze on the chest. Average body weights are 150 to 350 pounds for adult males and 120 to 250 for adult females. The largest Louisiana black bear weight recorded in recent years was a 540 lb male from the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The largest Louisiana bear on record was a male bear killed in 1930 in the Baldwin Swamp in St. Mary Parish. That animal weighed 720 lbs. Body lengths range from 3 to 6 feet from nose to their short tail. Size typically varies depending on the quality and quantity of available food. Like humans, bears walk flat-footed on the


unique metabolic and physiological processes and there is no degenerative bone loss during dormancy. Black bears exhibit varying degrees of lethargy while denning, but most can easily be aroused if disturbed.

Denning activity is influenced by a number of factors: food availability, age, gender, reproductive condition, photoperiod, and weather conditions. Generally, pregnant females are the first to den, followed by females with young of the year, solitary females, and finally males. Factors contributing to interruption of the denning period or the changing of den sites during a given winter include human activity, rapidly fluctuating water levels, fluctuating extremes in weather conditions, and the lack of concealment of ground dens. Data collected by monitoring denning behavior indicate bears are more active in winter months in the lower Mississippi River Valley than at more northern latitudes. Recent observations indicate that some females with cubs, especially in the coastal Louisiana population, actively forage in the area near the den, leaving their cubs for short periods and returning to care for them.

For some bears, usually males, winter inactivity may be nothing more than bedding for a few days or weeks

of the female. Cubs are born in a helpless state. Measuring about 8 inches in length and weighing 8 to 12 ounces, they develop and grow rapidly largely because of the richness of bear milk. The sex ratio at birth is usually one male to one female.

Mother and cubs leave the den in April or May when the young weigh from four to eight pounds. The cubs stay with their mother through the first year, which includes sharing a winter den. In mild winters, with residual food sources available, it is not uncommon for the family unit to remain active through the winter. Cubs, now called yearlings, emerge with the mother again in the spring, and live with her until the summer when the family unit dissolves. Male offspring tend to disperse, while females remain and set up home ranges near the mother’s home range. When the family unit dissolves, the female then goes back into estrus, breeds, and repeats the cycle.

Denning/HibernationBased on the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basin studies in Louisiana, the onset of denning occurs from late November to early January. Activity, movement, and home range generally decrease rapidly during this period as bears enter “pre-dens” or nests, or enter the den where they will spend the winter.

Black bears are not true hibernators. They go through a winter dormancy period termed “carnivorean lethargy,” or torpor, which helps them survive food shortages and severe winter weather. During the winter “sleep” bears do not eat, drink, urinate, or defecate. Waste products are recycled through

than females, often covering 2 to 8 times the area of females. Some adult male bears in the Tensas basin ranged up to 35 miles from their capture site. Estimates of average annual home range sizes indicate adult males use 20,000 acres and adult females use 5,000 acres, although individual home ranges can vary widely. For example, one adult male in the upper Atchafalaya Basin ranged over 85,000 acres.

Bears often utilize “daybeds” under forested cover. These sites are usually shallow, unlined depressions scratched in soft ground or leaf litter. Mothers with cubs often bed at the base of the largest tree in the area. The female sends the cubs up the tree if she senses danger and either climbs the tree with them, remains at the base of the tree or exits the area alone. Sometimes bears will rest above ground in the crown or lower branches of a tree.

Older adult males exert social pressure on younger bears, especially during the spring and summer breeding season, forcing them to disperse to other areas. Dispersal of bears, especially young males, puts them at considerable risk. Their movements

in one area before moving to new bedding sites. Pregnant females, the first to seek den sites, usually choose sites that are more secure and inaccessible than those typically selected by males. Females prefer large, hollow trees, as these provide dry, secure, and well-insulated cover, but will also den in brushpiles and thickets. As many thousands of acres of marginal farmland have been replanted to hardwood forest, more females are found denning in the thick cover provided by these early successional plantings.

MovementsMonitoring bear movements has revealed that bears are usually crepuscular (most active around dusk and dawn), although activity varies by season. For example, bears are most active in the fall, when they are trying to build up their fat reserves before winter. During this time, bears may forage day and night.

Home range sizes vary from year to year, and from season to season, depending on population density, food availability, sex, age, and reproductive status. Home ranges for males may increase during the mating season in summer and both male and female bears move extensively in fall.

Bear activity revolves around the search for food, cover, and mates during the breeding season. Male black bears move much greater distances


take them to unfamiliar areas, often those inhabited by humans. In their attempt to locate a new home, they cross roads and highways, increasing the chances of being hit by motor vehicles, and will likely cross areas inhabited by humans. This creates potentially dangerous situations for both humans and bears. Because of the stress and increased human interaction, dispersing bears have a reduced chance of survival.

Studies document that uncleared drains, ditches, bayous, and river banks are frequently used to traverse open land when moving from one forested tract to another. Travel corridors are important to the movements of adult bears and the dispersal of juveniles through agricultural lands, particularly when they are residing in separate tracts of forested lands or in a severely fragmented forest. Females are especially reluctant to move from one forest block to another if there is no vegetative cover linking the two areas. Drainage ditches lined with trees and brush, even as narrow as 30 feet, are used by bears to pass through open agricultural areas. Based on comparative data, this may be a minimum width for a viable corridor; however, a good rule of thumb would be “the wider the better.”

Food HabitsClassified as a carnivore (i.e., meat-eating animal) by taxonomists, Louisiana black bears are not usually active predators and rarely prey on vertebrate animals. There are many stories of bears feeding on nutria and other furbearers caught in traps during the days when fur trapping was a viable vocation. There have been no reports of Louisiana black bears preying on livestock or pets in recent history. (There have been a few instances of bears harming dogs in defense of their cubs or when attacked by the dogs.) Bears are better described as opportunistic feeders as they eat almost anything that is available, thus they are more typically omnivorous.

The growth rate, maximum size, breeding age, litter size, and cub survival of black bears are all linked to

nutrition. Bears spend a considerable amount of time foraging for food, using their keen sense of smell to locate food sources. Feeding signs are usually evident in areas of bear activity, including torn logs, broken saplings, clawed trees, and trampled food plants. Bears utilize all levels of the forest for feeding; from the forest floor to the treetops. Excellent climbers, they can gather foods from treetops and vines.

After emerging from dens in spring, bears may initially be in a “semi-fasting” state as they continue to utilize remaining fat reserves. Food is relatively scarce during this period and weight loss is often more rapid than during denning. Succulent vegetation is first utilized for food and then foods such as residual hard mast (acorns, pecans, etc.), agricultural crops, and insects are consumed. With the arrival of summer, soft mast including dewberries, blackberries, wild grapes, elderberry, persimmon, pokeweed, devil’s walking stick, thistle, and palmetto will become staples in the diet. In the fall, hard mast, such as acorns and pecans, is a particularly important fat and carbohydrate-rich food source that provides the fat reserves necessary for bears to enter the denning period in proper health. Bears exhibit their most rapid weight gain during fall, thus, hard mast is considered a critical food source at this time.

Agricultural crops supplement natural foods and can be very important food sources throughout the year, especially in areas of extremely fragmented habitat and high bear density. For example, corn is an important forage crop for the large number of bears inhabiting the Epps Plantation tracts in Madison Parish, Louisiana. Bears will readily take advantage of food opportunities provided by man. Besides crops from both commercial and residential plantings, bears can get into trouble for getting into garbage and pet foods. In areas where bears are present, it is important for measures to be taken to prevent access to these tempting foods (see Living with Bears chapter)


little chance of close contact or visual encounters with humans. The thick understory typical in managed bottomland hardwood forests provide such natural cover. The quality of escape cover can be enhanced when slash and vegetative growth resulting from prescribed timber management practices such as shelterwood cuts, intermediate thinnings, and small elongated clear-cuts are combined with natural understory thickets.

Forest management practices also encourage food production for bears. Grasses, thistles, blackberries, pokeweed, and several fruiting vines are common in managed forest habitats. Elderberry, devil’s walking stick, French mulberry, red mulberry, and wild grapes all benefit from scattered openings in forest canopy. Rotting wood from decomposing logging slash harbors protein-rich, colonial insects like ants and termites, which are sought by bears most of the year.

Habitat RequirementsMost Louisiana black bears that exist today do so primarily in relatively large contiguous areas of bottomland hardwood habitat. The ingredients of prime black bear habitat include escape cover, dispersal corridors, abundant and diverse natural foods, water, and den sites. Because bears are adaptable, habitat generalists, a well-managed, productive forest can reliably provide the essentials of good black bear habitat. As the bear population increases, bears will expand their range and occupy less desirable habitat, including those in close proximity to humans.

High quality escape cover is especially critical for bears that live in fragmented habitats and in close proximity to humans. Black bears are adaptable and can thrive if afforded areas of retreat that ensure

bears den in tree cavities. On the Tensas River NWR, where some winter flooding is common, about 70% of the bears den in trees. The federal listing specifically states that den trees, den tree sites, and candidate den trees in occupied habitat are to be protected. Candidate den trees are considered to be bald cypress and tupelo gum with visible cavities, having a minimum diameter at breast height (dbh) of 36 inches, and occurring in or along rivers, lakes, streams, bayous, sloughs, or other water bodies. However, studies throughout the region frequently document other tree species used as den sites (e.g., green Ash, American elm, sweetgum, water hickory, overcup oak) that are not necessarily over water.

Additional foraging opportunities are made available by the maintenance of small, scattered permanent wildlife openings in or adjacent to the forest. Natural vegetation, cultivated grains and forage crops (e.g., wheat, oats, rye, corn, clover), and plants found along the edge of forest openings (e.g., blackberries, dewberries, pokeweed, elderberry, devil’s walking stick) are beneficial to bears.

Black bears use heavy cover for daybed and den sites. Most bears in the Atchafalaya Basin use brushpiles and other ground nests for daybeds and winter dens. Ground dens are typically made next to discarded logs or in thick briar and vine growth. Bears in the Tensas River Basin often use daybed sites in hardwood forests that have been logged within the previous five years. Winter den sites in the Tensas Basin, in the past, were predominately found in tree cavities rather than ground dens. But as the bear population has grown and thousands of acres of marginal cropland have been converted back to a forested condition, ground dens have become more common. Cavity trees are especially important in seasonally flooded areas. In the White River NWR in southeast Arkansas, for example, over 90% of

Phot

o by

Bra

d Pa

rsk

Phot

o by

Ven

i Har

lan


Habitat DiversityDiversity is the key to maintaining good bear habitat. In some areas, bear densities are extremely high and home ranges are relatively small in part because of the mix of bottomland hardwoods, managed timber, and agriculture on the landscape. Diversity within the forest stand is also important. Maintaining a diversity of age classes, stand types, and vegetative composition within the forest will provide excellent habitat conditions for black bears. Stand diversity will be greater using an uneven-age management system, with single tree selection, group selection, or small patch harvest cuts. Harvesting operations should be scheduled to create optimum between-stand diversity by scheduling cuts on adjacent compartments at different times. The size, shape, arrangement and proximity of harvest cuts should be relative to state BMPs as well as black bear needs.

Streamside Management ZonesTravel corridors that allow bears to move through vegetative cover from one forest block to another are extremely important components of bear habitat. Connecting the currently isolated bear populations living in separate forested areas is one of the US

Management strategies should be dictated by site, soils, and landowner objectives. Many positive benefits to overall land stewardship can be gained from managing habitats for black bears. Forest and agricultural practices that benefit bears also benefit many other wildlife species. Most of the practices described as beneficial for bears coincide with Best Management Practices (BMP) for forestry and soil conservation practices for agriculture.

Practices that promote black bear habitat are outlined throughout the following section. Landowners whose management objectives include timber, wildlife, or agriculture, and who desire to enhance their lands for bears can incorporate the following guidelines into their individual management strategies.

General Forest Management GuidelinesIn general, species composition and management strategies should be dictated by site, soils, and the management objectives of the landowner. All management activities should comply with state Best Management Practices (BMPs). Special areas may be identified in a given tract area or region, and management strategies formulated to maintain or enhance them. Such areas should include cypress stands for den sites, canebreaks, palmetto or other thickets for escape cover, key hard and soft mast sources for food, and corridors connecting forested areas for travel cover.

Management of Forest Habitat

Phot

o by

Ven

i Har

lan


Den SitesBlack bears den in heavy cover or tree cavities in winter. Most bears in the Atchafalaya Basin den in brushpiles next to discarded logs or in thick briar and vine growth. Winter den sites in the Tensas Basin in the past were predominately found in tree cavities rather than ground dens. A dramatic increase in acreage restored through federal conservation initiatives has changed the landscape to where many bears are now denning on the ground in the thick vegetative cover provided in early successional stages on restored sites. The federal listing specifically states that den trees, den tree sites, and candidate den trees in occupied habitat are to be protected. Candidate den trees are considered to be bald cypress and tupelo gum with visible cavities, having a minimum diameter at breast height (dbh) of 36 inches, and occurring in or along rivers, lakes, streams, bayous, sloughs, or other water bodies. However, studies throughout the region frequently document other tree species used as den sites that are not necessarily over water. Landowners wishing to manage for den trees should retain as many trees that are >36 in dbh with visible cavities as feasible, regardless of tree species or proximity to water. Through work on the Tensas River NWR, researchers suggest landowners managing bear den trees maintain a minimum of 5% of their forests managed in the >250 yr age class. From studies in southern Arkansas, researchers suggest that in areas where

Fish and Wildlife Service’s criteria for recovering the species. Because bears will take advantage of waterways to travel through their home ranges, Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) can provide travel corridors and other benefits to bears. A SMZ is a vegetated buffer zone along streams, bayous, and drainages that aids in preventing erosion and siltation but also provides critical elements for good wildlife habitat. Because a majority of SMZs are managed for hardwoods, they can provide hard mast production, den sites, and escape cover as well as travel corridors. These areas should be managed by selective harvesting, favoring hard mast species and cavity tree den sites. State BMPs and site characteristics should be employed during layout of SMZs. If included in the timber base, SMZs should be wide enough to be a silviculturally manageable stand separate from adjacent stands. Mature hollow or cull hardwoods should be left along drainages in SMZs and travel corridors for potential denning sites. These trees should be marked and protected during management activities. Fire should be excluded from these areas, except on soils and slopes where the plowing of fire lanes would result in more site damage than a cool burn. Herbicides should only be applied in an SMZ on a selective/individual tree basis, and are otherwise discouraged to protect water sources. The SMZs should be as wide as possible, based on site evaluation and landowner objectives. By increasing the width of the SMZ, the habitat for bears would be enhanced.

Forest OpeningsSome small forest openings should be maintained in early successional natural plant species such as dewberry or pokeweed or in planted foods. Plantings of corn or clover in summer and small grains and clover in winter are beneficial. These areas should be burned, bush-hogged or disked on a 3 to 5 year cycle. Emphasis should be placed on integrating forest and agricultural management by utilizing existing adjacent agricultural fields or rights-of-way for the permanent openings.

Bottomland Hardwood Timber Management

I. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Large tracts of naturally-occurring mature bottomland hardwood forest, composed of a mix of tree species, will provide for black bear needs without intensive management. For example, natural disturbance in the form of tree falls and wind storms typically provide sufficient forest openings needed for forage production and cover. One option for naturally occurring bottomland hardwood stands is to leave these stands unmanaged. However, if habitat conditions are inappropriate or if a landowner’s objective is to harvest timber products from the land for income, the following recommendations should be considered.

frequent flooding occurs, forestry operations should concentrate logging debris (e.g., cut tree tops, cull piles, slash) on higher ground to prevent bears from selecting den sites in debris that could flood during winter.

RoadsRoads may influence bear movements and habitat use, although responses vary depending on road type, traffic volume, and where they are located on the landscape. Previous studies suggested that bears avoid wide areas along busy roads, but roads with low traffic do not necessarily affect bear habitat use. In fact, logging roads with little vehicular traffic are used by bears for travel and foraging along the roadside. Maintenance of wide roadsides will promote the production of soft mast. These areas should be burned, bush-hogged or disked on a 3 to 5 year cycle. Construction of logging and other roads that may provide permanent routes of access to occupied bear habitat should be limited to a minimum of 1/2 mile apart. Using gates to control vehicular traffic on these roads after completion of logging will limit disturbances to bears.


It is important to maintain a diverse bottomland hardwood forest of maximum growing vigor. From a bear habitat standpoint, a productive forest stimulates yield from hard mast (e.g., oak, pecan, hickory) and soft mast (e.g., blackgum, wild grape, blackberry) producing trees and vegetation that maintains a diversity of animal foods. Black bears depend largely on fall and early winter mast crops to provide enough fat reserves to survive winter dormancy. Management of a timber stand for oaks and other hard mast producing species is good for production of high quality hardwood timber and optimum black bear foraging habitat. Maximizing tree vigor and hard mast production will benefit bears as well as all other wildlife species that depend on this carbohydrate-rich food source. Maintaining a diversity of age classes, stand types, and vegetative composition within the forest will provide excellent habitat conditions for black bears. Rotation length for crop trees should be a minimum of 50 years, with 70-100 years preferred for hard mast production.

Intermediate cuts should be designed to improve species composition, remove individual trees of poor quality or vigor, promote regeneration of desirable timber species, encourage food production and create escape and nesting cover for bears and a variety of other wildlife species. Stand thinnings should be made when it is economically and silviculturally feasible, preferably with 5 to 15 year intervals. Although regular thinnings are compatible with maintenance of suitable black bear habitat, cuts should carefully consider protection of existing and potential den trees (see III. Special Considerations). Mid-story timber stand improvement (TSI) can be accomplished in such a manner as to remove less desirable non-commercial species (e.g., American hornbeam, box elder, eastern hop hornbeam) while encouraging those desirable to bears (e.g., mulberry, swamp dogwood, spicebush). Diameter-limit harvest (or high-grading) should be avoided as this may lead to a change in stand composition detrimental to bear habitat and timber stand quality over a long rotation period. When feasible, logging slash and tops should

(top-bottom) Bald Cypress, Mayhaw, Red Swamp Maple,

Muscadine, Black Gum

be left for bedding areas and for foraging sites for insects, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and small mammals. Deadfall trees should also be left undisturbed for foraging sites for insects.

II. REGENERATION/MANAGEMENT

Natural regeneration of key species such as hard mast producers can be achieved through planned silvicultural management operations. Natural regeneration through group selection or small patch removals will enhance regeneration of shade intolerant species such as oaks.

Early successional food plants (e.g., dewberry, blackberry, elderberry, pokeberry) also benefit from these harvest practices that allow sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor. In intensive short rotation hardwood plantations, use coppice (or stump sprout) regeneration when feasible to regenerate within one year of harvesting. Where feasible, land managers can intercrop with grains (soybeans, wheat) for at least the first year.

III. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Forest management practices in natural stands should incorporate guidelines to insure that several trees 30” dbh or greater are present on each tract or management unit. This will insure large trees are available for avenues of escape and security for mother and cubs and provide for future den trees in the stand. Females with cubs typically select the base of the largest tree in the vicinity for their daybed site. Leaving a few clumps of large standing trees in each compartment will increase use of these areas by mother bears.

(top-bottom) Water Oak, Pokeweek, Willow Oak, Dogwood, Tupelo


of quality black bear habitat. Several hardwood seedling nurseries in Louisiana are attempting to grow switchcane for use in habitat restoration efforts.

Upland Pine Management


When upland areas are managed intensively for pine production, managers typically use an even-aged management strategy for regeneration of pine stands. Even-aged silvicultural activities include two basic methods: 1) leaving seed trees for natural regeneration, and 2) harvest cuts with some form of site preparation for artificial regeneration through seedling planting.


To create high quality bear habitat, harvest should maximize forest age and type diversity. Harvest shape

Canebreak Management


Canebreaks historically were associated with Louisiana black bear habitat. Extensive stands of switchcane provide habitat diversity, cover, and a seasonal food supply for many wildlife species, including deer, rabbits, and black bears. Less abundant than in the past, switchcane habitat should be favored in hardwood forest stands when managing for the Louisiana black bear.


On selected areas where lack of cover is deemed to be a limiting factor, natural regeneration of existing stands of cane should be encouraged to expand through the removal of overstory trees and clearing

of competing vegetation. On suitable sites, especially abandoned agricultural fields, public transportation and utility rights-of-way, opportunities exist for artificial regeneration of switchcane. If seed is available, direct seeding is the favored method of propagation. Another effective method of artificial regeneration, although potentially labor intensive, involves rhizome transplanting with and without attached culms.


Switchcane life history traits, including its periodic seeding events and its susceptibility to decline from frequent prescribed burns, intensive cattle grazing, and agricultural clearing, justify special management procedures for expansion of this habitat type. Areas with existing stands of switchcane deserve protective measures to conserve this valuable component

should maximize edge habitat by using irregularly shaped cuts where feasible based on site topography. To create maximum between-stand diversity, there should be at least 7 years difference in age classes between adjacent regeneration areas. High between-stand diversity will help ensure a constant supply of soft mast within a relatively small area.

Even-aged pine stands should be thinned as soon as economically feasible (typically by 15 years). This practice will produce a more vigorous pine stand as well as allow sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor and encourage soft mast production and growth of vigorous herbaceous vegetation.


Fire in the upland pine ecosystem is a natural occurrence. Burning in pine stands should be conducted on a 3 to 5 year rotation depending on site condition. If adult female bears are known to be in the area, use caution when burning in winter during the first 5 years after initial harvest. Burning during this time period may disturb bears denning in this thick, early successional cover. Poor soils and dry sites should be burned less often. Planted pine stands should be burned as soon as practical (7 to 10 years after establishment) and after intermediate thinnings. Contact your state forestry agency about timing of burns, the possibility for technical or financial assistance, and liability issues surrounding this practice. Hardwood areas and Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) should always be protected from fire.

Upland Mixed Pine-Hardwood Management


Upland sites where stands of timber are comprised of a mixture of pine and hardwood tend to be managed differently than pure pine stands. Several different types of hardwood trees (oak, cherry, hickory, sweetgum, beech) can be found intermixed with pine. The age classes of the trees may be the

Key Bottomland Hardwood Plant Species CANOPY MID-STORY UNDER-STORY

Nuttall Oak Sassafras Blackberry

Willow Oak Red Mulberry Dewberry

Water Oak Dogwood Pokeweed

Cherrybark Oak Persimmon Elderberry

Overcup Oak Black Gum Green Briar

Cow Oak Mayhaw Devil’s Walking Stick

Live Oak Switch Cane French Mulberry

Shumard Oak Paw Paw Muscadine

Sweet Pecan Swamp Holly Wild Grape

Water Hickory Winterberry Poison Ivy

Bald Cypress Sugarberry

Blackgum

Green Ash

Water Tupelo


same or vary, depending on when previous cuttings took place and what was harvested. These stands can provide good habitat for black bears and still meet the landowner’s objectives.

The biggest challenge in maintaining a mixed pine-hardwood site is managing the lower story of trees. The hardwood component of the stand is often made up of primarily shade tolerant trees that will respond to sunlight once the overstory is removed. However, pine seedlings that are released from the older, mature trees will usually grow faster than the hardwoods and will be the dominant species for several years. Since acorns and other hard mast provide bears with an important source of food in the fall, forest management activities should favor oaks or other hard mast species as the stand develops.


The removal of the overstory, and the timing of this operation, will determine which species of trees will become dominant as time passes. Harvesting of trees should result in openings large enough that soft mast will be produced and utilized by bears. Normally, groups of trees or “patches” of the overstory are removed, which produce the openings that are needed for soft mast food species (e.g., dewberry, pokeberry, blackberry, French mulberry) to have sufficient sunlight to grow. After a few years, these openings will become impenetrable thickets with many hardwood sprouts and pine seedlings growing vigorously. Although availability of natural foods declines over time as openings mature, bears will utilize those sites as denning areas because of the thick cover provided. Also, rotting logs, stumps, and logging slash from the harvest operation will provide good sources of grubs, insects and beetles.


If large openings are made at the time of harvest, the landowner should consider leaving some groups of large trees scattered across the tract for females with cubs to use as a means of escape. Also, trees with cavities should be maintained for den sites.

Cypress Tupelo Management


Management of cypress and tupelo stands is integral to the restoration of the Louisiana black bear. These stands are generally found in close proximity to bodies of water. Bears use this habitat type primarily for escape cover and denning sites. When the FWS formally listed the Louisiana black bear as threatened, cypress and tupelo were afforded special protection due to the importance of those trees as bear denning sites. All cypress and tupelo adjacent to water that are 36 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or larger, with visible signs of defects (i.e. cavities, broken tops), must be protected in areas designated as critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear and should be protected in any area known to be occupied by bears.


Management of cypress and tupelo stands is similar with a few minor differences. Regeneration is generally from stump sprouts of trees up to 14” dbh if sufficient sunlight is available. Usually tupelo sprouts at higher rates than cypress, so care must be taken to prevent harvested stands from becoming dominated by tupelo. Because a large amount of sunlight is needed to stimulate stump sprouting and sprout survival, harvesting these stands is the preferred method of regeneration.

Regeneration from seed is usually more complex. Both species produce adequate to excellent seed crops yearly, with abundant crops every 3-5 years. Tupelo is the most consistent and prolific of the two species. Cypress needs exposed wet soil for germination and continued moisture for about 2-3 years for seedlings to become established.

Flooding is a constant threat to first year seedlings. Seedlings from either species will experience early mortality if they are submerged for any length of time during the first growing season. Once established, growth is vigorous during the early years. Depending upon site quality and growing conditions, timber grows to saw log size within 80 years.


Vigorous growth in dense stands causes pruning to occur early on, producing good quality bole development. Thinning should begin by age 20 if markets are available. Thinning to 70 to 80 trees per acre will maintain high rates of growth and bole quality. Subsequent thinnings should be conducted at 10 year intervals to remove poor quality stems.

Natural stands where little information is known concerning age and growth can be maintained at higher stand densities than artificially regenerated stands. Natural stands may be maintained with few or no harvests until the trees reach targeted size. For periodic income from these natural stands and to shorten the time to reach a desired diameter, selective harvests may be done, removing the poorer quality trees and maintaining a density of 70-100 trees per acre.

Retention of small isolated groups and individual trees of cypress or tupelo within other stands of bottomland hardwoods can benefit bears. When harvesting for regeneration purposes, consideration should be given to these isolated stands or individuals to promote regeneration and provide escape for bears. In areas where water is present much of the year (e.g., Lower Atchafalaya), careful consideration should be taken when the

decision to harvest is made. Removal of all trees in permanently flooded areas will almost inevitably lead to conversion of forested wetlands to open water because regeneration is hindered by the constant presence of water.

When managing stands of tupelo and cypress in occupied bear habitat, trees with visible cavities or defects in the top or bole should be excluded from the harvest and protected from logging damage. Bears will select these trees for denning sites and escape cover.


All pesticides and herbicides should be used in accordance with label guidelines and State and Federal regulations. Application of chemicals to crops adjacent to forested tracts or travel corridors should be done so that adjacent wildlife habitat is not harmed. A buffer adjacent to forested lands may be left unsprayed, as various plant species in wooded areas adjacent to cropland provide food and cover and could be damaged by drift or inadvertent application. No chemical labeled as harmful to large mammals should be applied to cropland within occupied or potential bear habitat.

Landowners may opt to develop corridors by leaving land idle and letting it revert to native vegetative cover. Locating set-aside acres next to forested lands, ditches, or sloughs can provide additional wildlife

Food plots developed within forested habitat for game may be used by black bears. Commonly planted forage species include clovers, wheat, oats, ryegrass and other grasses and legumes. While forestlands provide optimum bear habitat, agricultural lands can be managed to enhance overall bear habitat quality. Use of various habitat management techniques on agricultural lands next to or interspersed with forested tracts can serve to improve and expand wildlife habitat. Agricultural habitat management practices beneficial to bears could be as simple as crop selection or as intensive as the development of wildlife corridors or even the total conversion of marginal agricultural land to hardwood trees. The habitat management options chosen will depend on both the site and objectives of the landowner.

Bear habitat quality can be favorably influenced by both crop selection and location. Crops such as corn, sugarcane, and winter wheat benefit bears more than soybeans or cotton, not only as forage, but also for cover. Locating preferred crops adjacent to forested lands and travel corridors helps maximize those benefits. Leaving a percentage of the crop in areas near forests also benefits bears and other wildlife.

Agricultural Considerations


One acre blocks of soft mast species that will not compete with larger native trees could also be planted and maintained to promote diversity. Food plots planted in annual crops can benefit bears, especially when corn is planted for summer and wheat in winter. For information on conservation programs available to private landowners, see the Contact Information found at the end of this handbook.

Conservation Programs on Agricultural Lands

If a landowner opts to sign up some or all of his farmland into a conservation program, most of these projects potentially increase bear habitat quality. Site suitability and landowner objectives should dictate which tree species are selected. Where mast producing trees and shrubs are being planted, it would be advantageous to diversify the species, as dictated by the soil and site considerations. A combination of hard mast producers from the red and white oak families and sweet pecan would be ideal along with a small amount of soft mast species such as blackgum, mulberry, hackberry, persimmon, haws, plums, dogwood, and sassafras. Direct seeding or planting of seedlings in one acre blocks would provide sufficient soft mast food resources.

habitat. If located next to ditches or in sloughs that join two forested tracts of land, these fallow areas can serve as travel corridors. When managed properly, vegetated areas along drainage ditches and bayous can provide suitable corridors to allow movement of bears among fragmented tracts of otherwise suitable habitat. To allow for adequate cover, these areas should be as wide as possible. If access to drainage ditches is required for periodic maintenance, the corridor could be located on one side of the ditch, leaving the other side open for maintenance access. For producers participating in an acreage reduction program, set-aside acreage (acreage in a conservation program, like Conservation Reserve Program) can be located or used in a manner that provides beneficial wildlife habitat for bears and other species.

Food plots developed within forested habitat for game may be used by black bears. Commonly planted forage species include clovers, wheat, oats, ryegrass and other grasses and legumes. If maintained, food plots within a forested tract should be distributed to minimize fragmentation. For example, they could be grouped fairly close together and close to forest borders rather than distributed evenly throughout the interior.


landowners to forgo other objectives in order to achieve overall wildlife benefits for the area, is critical for a successful cooperative management approach. Management guidelines vary based on:

nSize and shape of individual tracts

nLandowner objectives and attitudes

nNumber of landowners

nForest type and condition

nHabitat suitability

nPossibility for corridor development

nManagement strategies already in place

nExtent and location of non-timbered lands

nRecreational objectives and support of

user groups

In order to apply the concept of landscape management to bear restoration, the BBCC laid out plans for Bear Management Units (BMUs). Each BMU is to be guided by a team of landowners, responsible natural resource management agency personnel, and community leaders. The program is entirely voluntary and landowners provide input from planning through implementation of the BMU. Currently, the BBCC is actively seeking out groups of landowners to create landscape-scale habitat management and restoration “cooperatives.” Lands with such cooperatives are more likely to be accepted into conservation programs that offer financial assistance to private landowners to restore and enhance wildlife habitat.

While the BBCC’s focus is restoring the Louisiana black bear, habitat restoration on a landscape scale has many more benefits than just for the bears. Because of the large home ranges of bears, suitable habitat often cannot be maintained on any single ownership. Coordinated landscape management may offer the best opportunity for bear management and restoration. Landscape management for the black bear calls for coordinated habitat management efforts among multiple landowners across a large area. Landscape management works through a cooperative approach whereby various landowners and user groups work together to promote bear management. The goal is to focus efforts of a diverse user group toward common management objectives that benefit the resource. Some objectives of landscape management for black bears can include preventing further habitat fragmentation, establishing corridors between existing fragmented habitat, and integrating management among tracts to effectively use fragmented resources.

Successful management at the landscape level is dependent on mutual cooperation and partnerships among landowners. The willingness of individual

Landscape Management: A Coordinated Approach

Phot

o by

Ven

i Har

lan


Rich food and cover resources are available for many game species, including white-tailed deer, squirrels, rabbits, and waterfowl. There are also 60 rare plant and animal species and 7 rare natural communities that can benefit from bottomland hardwood restoration and enhancement. Of these 67 rare elements, 38 are considered either imperiled or critically imperiled in the state, and 5 are imperiled or critically imperiled worldwide. The majority of bird species of highest concern in the region are

While the BBCC’s focus is restoring the Louisiana black bear, habitat restoration on a landscape scale has many more benefits than just for the bears. Bottomland hardwoods can support 2 to 5 times as many animals as upland areas in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, which makes conserving this habitat for wildlife a high priority. For example, bottomland hardwood bear habitat provides for the needs of a highly diverse array of both common and rare plant and animal species.

interior breeding birds such as the Hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), and Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus). Only landscape-scale conservation efforts can address issues such as forest fragmentation on the regional level. In addition to wildlife benefits, restoration of forested wetlands and riparian corridors also benefits the public through increased flood storage, erosion control, timber production, carbon sequestration, water quality enhancement, and outdoor recreational opportunities.

The good news is that several initiatives are ongoing to address bottomland hardwood restoration in the Alluvial Valley and elsewhere. Groups called Conservation Delivery Networks have been formed to bring together all the stakeholders and agencies to address these issues. Budget cutbacks hamper these efforts, but by pooling resources, much can be done. Private grant monies have come available through groups like the Walton Family Foundation, an organization who not only has contributed millions of dollars to this effort, but is also encouraging other private groups to follow suit. The Apache Foundation, the non-profit arm of the Apache Corporation (an oil company headquartered in Houston, TX), has already donated 3 million trees to organizations in their operating area in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The BBCC will continue to pursue funding and donated seedlings from these organizations to continue our habitat restoration efforts.

dependent on the same swamp forests, bottomland hardwoods, and riparian zone corridors required for bear habitat. Cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulean) and Swallow-tailed kites (Elanoides forficatus), for example, need forested wetland blocks of 20,000 acres and 100,000 acres, respectively, to support source populations. Unfortunately, the bottomland hardwood forest remaining is highly fragmented; there are 35,000 discrete forest blocks and most are less than 500 acres in size. This landscape pattern results in 99% of the remaining forest blocks being insufficient to support source populations of forest


presence of a bear, perceived as dangerous, to actual property damage or possible safety threats.

The public needs to be provided with factual information about black bears so that conflicts can be avoided or acceptably resolved. Landowners, agricultural producers and other wildlife resource users educated about bears can minimize bear-caused damage through preventative methods. Once educated about bears, most people readily accept their presence and are willing to modify certain behaviors to avoid conflict. In most conflict situations, no single control technique will solve all nuisance bear problems. However, certain measures that are initiated in a timely manner, maintained properly, and applied with an understanding of bear behavior, can greatly reduce any problems associated with bears. The best way to avoid trouble with bears is to prevent the issues from arising in the first place. The role that individuals and communities play in creating human-bear conflicts has been recognized for some time, but rarely have residents been held accountable for removing the source of the problem. As a result, hundreds of bears throughout the country are destroyed each year.

Once educated about bears, most people are willing to modify behaviors to avoid conflict. Successful restoration of the Louisiana black bear is and has always been dependent on public support. An effective response by wildlife professionals to all reported bear conflicts, whether perceived or real, is critical in determining whether the public views the bear as an asset or a liability.

Most conflicts between bears and humans are related to the animals’ search for food. Nuisance activities are usually more common in years when there is a shortage of natural foods. An amazingly acute sense of smell enables the bear to find sources of nourishment, and unfortunately this can be beehives, garbage, or pet foods. Damage to crops such as corn, wheat, oats, watermelon, and sugarcane has also been reported. When compared to other types of agricultural losses, however, those caused by black bears are relatively small although can be locally severe. Other issues reported to wildlife agencies include bears eating corn and other grains from feeders used by hunters to attract deer and scavenging animals caught in traps set by commercial trappers.

Although generally shy creatures, bears are very intelligent and possess excellent learning and long term memory capabilities. Bears will continue to return to areas where they have found food in the past. Bears lose their instinctive fear of humans quite easily when food conditioned and can become nuisances as a result. Problems vary from the simple

Living With Bears


fear of humans there is little incentive for them to avoid circumstances that bring the two together. This could easily result in a dangerous situation, both for people and the bear.

Bears and GarbageGarbage management is an integral part of avoiding conflicts with bears. Bears that obtain meals regularly from garbage generally become a nuisance because they depend on man for their food and lose their fear of humans. “Garbage dump” bears can begin feeding in dumpsters and residential garbage cans when landfills and dumps no longer supply a dependable source of food. These bears are more likely to be removed from the population because this undesirable behavior is very difficult to change.

Landfills located in occupied habitat should be managed to discourage bears from using them as a food source. When possible, the perimeter of landfills should be enclosed within bear-resistant fences. Additionally, landfill operators should maintain a small face of exposed garbage and completely cover it with a deep layer of dirt. This reduces odors and makes it difficult for bears to feed. A program to deter bears, developed with the assistance of the appropriate state agency or the BBCC, should be implemented by landfill operators should problems occur.

Bears in Your NeighborhoodNormally avoiding people, bears will enter neighborhoods in their search for food or just when traveling from one place to another. If bears live near your neighborhood, you should initiate preventive measures to avoid encouraging nuisance bear behavior. Managing garbage and its disposal is a must in avoiding problems with bears. Preventive measures are described in the “Bears and Garbage” section.

Pet foods as well as bird feeders can attract bears. If pet food is allowed to remain outdoors for extended periods of time a bear will surely find it, eat it, and will come back looking for more. Bird feeds have a remarkably high caloric content, 10,000 calories/pound, and are sought by bears looking for highly nutritious foods. Removing or placing feeders out of reach of bears is recommended in occupied bear habitat.

Although feeding wild black bears is illegal in Louisiana and Arkansas, and strongly discouraged in Mississippi and Texas, problems still occur when people, fascinated by a bear near their home or workplace, toss food out the door so that they can watch or photograph the animal. In these situations, both the humans and the bear quickly lose fear of each other. Fear of humans is a bear’s most important survival mechanism. Once bears lose their

Hunting in Bear Country Hunting clubs with property in occupied bear habitat should incorporate bear awareness programs into their annual list of organizational activities so that members can learn facts and dispel myths (e.g., the mistaken belief that bears and deer cannot live in the same area). Identification, behavior, and management of black bears should be discussed in formal hunter education programs. Interested hunting clubs should contact the BBCC or the appropriate state agency to arrange a presentation on the Louisiana black bear. Likewise, wildlife professionals should promote bear conservation when working with the media, hunters, and other outdoor enthusiasts. Clubs should also police their wildlife resources and report any wildlife violation that is discovered.

Hunting camps in occupied bear habitat should remove offal from skinning sheds as soon as possible. This material should be hauled to approved landfills or remote dumpsites, deeply buried, or completely incinerated. Skinning sheds and other food handling areas should be kept as clean as possible to prevent odors from attracting bears.

Homeowners and campers in or near occupied bear habitat should avoid attracting bears by dumping wastes in closed containers located away from their homes or campsites. Discarded food wrappers, including candy bars, soft drink cans and pastry wrappings, are attractants and should not be thrown on the ground. The best thing to do is what not to do: DON’T LITTER!

Efforts should be made to secure all garbage containers or deposit all edible wastes in separate containers that are stored where bears cannot gain access. When possible, residents in bear habitat should keep their garbage inside their home or closed utility shed in double-bagged garbage bags and put garbage out the morning of pick up, not the night before, to limit the time a bear will have access to your garbage. To further eliminate attractive odors, wash the refuse containers about once a week with a disinfectant solution. In areas where garbage pick up is early in the morning, state wildlife agencies can work with local communities and waste management companies to schedule later pick up times to allow for this preventive measure. Bear resistant garbage cans are another alternative; however, these can be somewhat expensive for individuals to purchase, but are available to citizens in certain communities with a history of conflict. Contact your state wildlife agency or the BBCC for availability of bear-resistant garbage cans.

Communities across North America are being encouraged to participate in Bear Smart/Wise/Aware Community Programs. These are generally proactive conservation strategies that encourage efforts by communities, businesses and individuals to reduce human-bear conflicts; reduce safety risks and the number of bears that are destroyed by addressing the root causes of conflict. To achieve these goals communities must address a number of proactive measures like bear-proofing waste systems and eliminating attractants, as well as initiating effective and consistent educational programs, and stepping up enforcement.


legal game in some areas. Running of dogs outside the hunting season, particularly in late spring, can adversely impact bears by contributing additional stress during a time when bears have just emerged from winter dens and are searching for foods. In addition, dogs may harm or kill cubs caught on the ground. Control of free-ranging dogs in occupied habitat could also reduce the likelihood of potentially dangerous confrontations between dog handlers and bears.

In some areas, a program to control feral hogs may be warranted. Feral hogs can significantly lower the quality of habitat for bears and other native species. The BBCC and state agencies can provide technical support for addressing feral hog problems. In areas where both hogs and bears are found, hunters should be especially careful of their targets as large hogs can appear similar to bears. Feral hogs are more aggressive than bears, so when there is a conflict between the two species, the hogs will generally dominate. Feral hogs can force bears out of good habitat and into poorer habitats, including those occupied by humans. Traps set to capture feral hogs should have an opening in the top large enough to allow bears to escape if captured.

Bears and Deer FeedersThe seasonal abundance of natural foods such as berries and acorns will not necessarily deter black bears from taking advantage of food options provided by humans. When you are using

Since black bear and large feral hogs are similar in appearance, hog hunters should be especially certain of their target in areas where black bear and feral hog populations overlap. Because the Louisiana black bear is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, killing bears within the historic range of the subspecies carries federal and state penalties that can includes heavy fines, suspension of hunting privileges, and/or jail time. Outdoorsmen should avoid confrontations with the Louisiana black bear by practicing safe hunting methods.

Hunters should gut and remove game carcasses from the kill site as quickly as possible, never leaving the gut pile on or near a trail. Do not drag the carcass back to the campsite, as this just creates a clear scent trail for bears to follow. Hang the carcass at least 10 feet above the ground and 4 feet from the attachment point, also making sure to remove any bloody clothes or items and hang them at a safe distance along with all other attractants. Bears may still appear and investigate the carcass; so upon returning, the hunter should approach upwind and make noise while always scanning the area. If a bear has obtained the carcass, a hunter should not attempt to approach or reclaim the kill as this may antagonize the bear and provoke a dangerous situation.

Use of hunting dogs in occupied habitat should be controlled as dogs may chase bears instead of

Fewer conflicts will occur if the use of feeders is abandoned and more emphasis is placed on well fertilized and limed foodplots or natural vegetation. Fertilizing briar thickets and other natural vegetation will be more attractive to deer and not as appealing to bears and other generalists.

Bears and CampsitesWhen participating in outdoor activities in occupied bear habitat, thinking ahead can help prevent bear encounters. Outdoorsmen should be as noisy as possible when walking in bear habitat, especially when fresh bear sign is encountered. If possible, avoid walking at dawn, dusk and during the night, as these times are when bears are most active. Remember, however, bear encounters can occur at any time.

It is much easier to keep bears from being attracted to hunting camps, campsites or picnic areas before a problem starts. Camps are sometimes visited and

supplemental feeding as part of a deer management program, planting of food plots with cereal grains such as wheat, oats or ryegrass is the best alternative for avoiding conflicts with black bears. Using feeders in white-tailed deer management often causes conflicts between black bears and humans.

Whole kernel corn is the most common type of grain for feeding and baiting white-tailed deer. Distributing corn or other grains in piles on the ground or in open feeders (“free feeding”) is not only costly in terms of the amount needed, but also invites problems where black bears regularly occur. Free feeding provides a reliable food source, making conflicts unavoidable. Large amounts of corn left in an open environment are not usually consumed in time to prevent souring. The odor of sour grain is an excellent bear attractant because of their keen sense of smell. Switching bait types from preferred bear foods like corn to less attractive foods like soybeans or rice bran can also help reduce bear activity at bait sites. The distribution of grain in smaller amounts by “controlled feeding,” via timed feeding mechanisms, is a more cost-effective means of providing supplemental feed for white-tailed deer.

When you are using direct feeding of corn and other grains, controlled feeding devices hung in the proper manner will eliminate many problems that occur when black bear and white-tailed deer are found in the same area. Many types of timed feeding mechanisms exist, varying from homemade rigs to more elaborate electrical devices available at many feed stores or hunting supply outlets. Whatever design is used, method of placement is the most critical factor in avoiding black bear confrontations. The agility and resourcefulness of black bears require that any type of feeding device be suspended out of their reach. It is recommended that the base of any hanging feeder be at least 8 feet above the ground; additionally, the top should be at least 4 feet from the attachment point. Feeder tops should be tightly sealed. To prevent climbing bears from pulling feeders to within their reach, small diameter cables should be used for suspension of the feeder.

Know

Your

Target!

✓Snout

✓Head

✓Ears


including a four-wheeler or boat. Discarded food wrappers, including candy bars, soft drink cans and pastry wrappings, are attractants and should not be thrown on the ground. The best thing to do is what not to do: DON’T LITTER!

Black bears have damaged wooden structures constructed of pressure-treated lumber in parts of its range. Some deer hunters have found the wooden supports of tower stands gnawed so extensively that they were rendered unsafe for use. Gnawing bears have also caused extensive damage to wooden signs and outbuildings in some areas. Presumably, chemical salts used to preserve the wood were the main attractant.

Use of alternative construction materials should be considered where bears regularly damage wooden structures. Steel, aluminum, fiberglass, and other durable materials can be used instead of treated wood to build and/or shield deer stands, signs, and other structures. Foodstuffs that may attract foraging bears should be removed from unoccupied buildings and stored in bear-resistant containers. Contact the wildlife department regarding what is considered bear resistant. This includes human and pet food and food items commonly used to attract wildlife (e.g., molasses, salt blocks, corn, wheat). Bear-resistant doors, window shutters, and fences can also be used to protect unoccupied buildings.

damaged by bears searching for discarded food and garbage. A bear that finds food at one camp may decide to visit others and cause problems there. As bear numbers increase, it will become more important for camp owners to maintain clean, garbage-free grounds. Bears are like very big raccoons, except bears are much stronger and are capable of causing considerable damage in search for food.

When camping, the easiest way to prevent attracting a bear is to eliminate or hide appealing items such as food, but also toothpaste, deodorant, and other items with strong scents. Bag your food in airtight, odor containing bags, store the food in a sack or other container, and hang this at least 10 feet above the ground and 4 feet from the tree or pole away from your campsite.

Campsites, including buildings, should be kept as clean as possible. Specific areas should be designated for cleaning fish and game, and these areas should be cleaned thoroughly after each use. Refuse from cleaning should be buried deeply or stored in a bear-resistant container and removed from the site. Keep garbage in a locked container and remove it when you leave the camp.

Bears will search a container for any cracks or openings they can get their teeth or claws into to rip open the container. Bears will claw or chew on the material until it gives way or knock or jump on the container until it breaks open. Sealed containers that reduce odor or leaking of food material are recommended. Suitable containers include a locker or a steel drum with locking snap rings, PVC plastic tubes may be used as long as the diameter is large enough to prevent the bear from crushing the tube with its mouth.

Absolutely no food or garbage should be left in an unoccupied campsite. Corn or other foods used for baiting should be kept in a locked food container inside a storage shed or in the camp. Do not leave any food in deer stands or in a parked vehicle,

help of an authorized wildlife professional, aversive conditioning of bears. Properly maintained electric fencing has been shown to be almost 100% effective in deterring bear damage. Fences can also be used to control ongoing damage. Compact apiaries are easier to protect with bear-resistant fencing than those scattered over a larger area. Therefore, beekeepers should consolidate hives to form the smallest apiary that can be practically managed.

Plans for various types of bear-resistant fences and other types of damage control information can be obtained from the offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, any of the state wildlife agencies, or the Cooperative Extension Service. This information is readily available on the Internet.

Bears, Crops and LivestockWhile some bears in western states may prey on livestock, reports of livestock predation by bears in the region are extremely rare. Bears will enter livestock enclosures to feed on livestock food and several complaints have been received in Louisiana where bears were in hog or goat pens, eating feed and intimidating the livestock and scaring the animals from the feeders. As the bear population expands into new areas, however, owners of crops and livestock in or close to occupied bear habitat should employ preventative measures to exclude or minimize the potential for bear damage. Crops and livestock should

Bears and BeehivesDamage to bees and hives is the most economically important agricultural problem associated with the Louisiana black bear. A bear that encounters an unprotected commercial apiary can destroy or badly damage scores of hives in just one night. Losses to some beekeepers can be a significant financial burden, especially when several apiaries are managed within the home range of a bear that has become a habitual beehive robber. In some cases, individual beekeepers have reportedly sustained as much as $10,000 in damages. It is important for beekeepers to initiate damage prevention strategies that preclude or minimize bear-caused damage.

Some bears are especially fond of larval bees and honey and will actively seek out hives in their home range. Consequently, beehives should be located as far as possible from timber and brush providing bears with cover and travel routes. Honey crops should be harvested as soon as possible after the spring, summer and fall nectar flows to reduce the attractiveness of hives to foraging bears, and prevent the loss of the new honey crop in the event of depredation. When possible, apiaries should be moved to new locations if bear activity is detected nearby. To minimize possible damage to hives and prevent bears from establishing bad habits, apiaries in occupied habitat should be protected using electric fences, bear-resistant platforms, or, with the


Bears and RoadsFree access by humans to occupied bear habitat increases the chance of contact between man and bear. These contacts may lead to the harassment or destruction of bears under certain conditions. Managing the area and timing of access to bear habitat is one strategy for minimizing this occurrence.

On most privately owned land with black bear habitat, some type of access management program has already been implemented by the landowners or their lessees. For example, most properties are legally posted and patrolled to prevent trespass by unauthorized individuals. In some cases, access points to private property are controlled with a system of locked gates and limited-use roads. Access to abandoned roads is often further restricted with gates and other barriers such as trenches, mounded dirt, and felled trees. Landowners wanting to develop an access management plan for their property can use these same techniques to their advantage.

Access to publicly owned properties is usually addressed in operational plans developed by the responsible land-management agency. Each agency abides by its own set of policies and regulations, such as limitations on the use of off-road or all-terrain vehicles. Therefore, each should review its access management plans to determine how these can be adapted to maximize benefits to bears.

be inspected frequently so that any damage can be discovered quickly, and preventive control measures can be implemented. Gardens, small fields and pastures should be protected with bear-resistant fences if bear damage is anticipated. Farmers should harvest crops as quickly as possible and consider planting crops that are not attractive to bears.

There are several alternatives to control bear damage to crops and livestock. Intensive herding practices can lessen the chance that bears will prey on livestock. Carcasses of dead animals should be hauled to an approved landfill or destroyed by deep burial or incineration to prevent bears from scavenging near susceptible livestock. Fields or pastures susceptible to bear damage can employ gas exploders, noise-making pyrotechnics, strobe lights, electronic sirens and noise generators, or scarecrows to temporarily repel bears. Long-term and repetitious use of these devices, however, may render them ineffective. Livestock guardian dogs (LGD’s) such as Anatolian Shepherds or Great Pyrenees are becoming more popular with goat, sheep, and chicken farmers, mostly as a deterrent to fox, coyote, and feral dog depredation. But the LGD’s should also be effective in dissuading bears from investigating the livestock area. Bears don’t like dogs, so just about any breed that barks at a bear would act as a deterrent. At some point, if damage occurs, USDA Wildlife Services or the state wildlife agency should be contacted for further control strategies.

Feeding BearsProblems have occurred when people, fascinated by a bear near their home or workplace, have tossed food out the door so that they can watch or photograph the animal. In these situations, both the humans and the bear quickly lose fear of each other. Fear of humans is a bear’s most important survival mechanism. Once bears lose their fear of humans there is little incentive for them to avoid circumstances that bring the two together. Bear encounters could easily result in a dangerous situation, both for people and the bear. It must be remembered that these are wild animals and should be treated as such. Feeding wild black bears is illegal in Louisiana and Arkansas, and strongly discouraged in Mississippi and Texas.

Interaction between humans and bears is always to be discouraged. Bears tolerant of human activity may become aggressive, especially if a handout is expected. Feeding bears is not recommended in any situation. “Friendly” bears should not be tolerated and should be reported to an appropriate wildlife professional as soon as possible.

Agencies should also develop and implement appropriate access management plans if none currently exist.

Bears are often killed by motor vehicles as the animals cross highways, especially on roads that traverse travel corridors historically used by bears. Highway and natural resource management agencies should work to identify these corridors and install overpasses or culverts under roadbeds. Drift fences can direct bears to culvert entrances and facilitate movement beneath the roadbed. In addition, management of vegetative cover can help reduce bear-vehicle collisions. Crossings may be reduced through removing vegetative cover from roadsides at more dangerous areas and increasing vegetative cover around underpasses to encourage use of these areas.

Collisions between bears and vehicles may also result in human injury or death. Some accidents could possibly be avoided if drivers were educated about the potential for bears to cross in particular areas. Informational billboards and brochures, bear crossing signs and reduced speed limits at appropriate locations could be used to alert drivers to the potential presence of bears along certain highways.

Types of Human/Bear Interactions 1978-Dec. 31, 2006 (n=12,183)

IN BUILDING2%

IN CROPS0%

IN FEED3%

IN FEEDER2%

SIGHTING0%

THREATENED ANIMAL1%

THREATENED HUMAN1%

IN GARBAGE24%

IN YARD19%

APIARY2%

DEAD BEAR7%

IN AREA20%

ATTACKED ANIMAL1%

SICK/INJURED BEAR5%

PROPERTY DAMAGE8%

OTHER1%

KILLED ANIMAL4%


resource being damaged, or by placing a physical or psychological barrier between the conflicting resource and wildlife species. These same principles can be applied to management of human/bear conflicts. Due to the legal status of the Louisiana black bear, conflict resolution will rely heavily on non-lethal damage control techniques, such as barriers, capture and aversive conditioning, and resource management strategies. Destruction of offending animals will only be considered if human health and safety is jeopardized and all other measures have failed. Ideal management plans should emphasize conflict prevention and, when problems arise, the implementation of practical solutions.

Hunting is often recommended as a damage control tool because it can reduce wildlife populations and the associated problems to acceptable levels, as well as elicit human-avoiding behavior in the hunted species. Legal harvest may become part of the overall management plan for the black bear in the future. Until the subspecies is recovered and removed from the ESA list of threatened species, however, hunting is not considered a management option for the Louisiana black bear. Once the bear is delisted, agency biologists will determine if

Informing the public about potential conflicts and available solutions is an important strategy in the overall restoration effort.Public attitude will dictate whether bears are considered an asset or a liability, which will ultimately determine whether or not bears can survive. Public perception of bears will be partially dependent on immediate and effective responses by wildlife professionals to reported conflicts. Black bears may be killed by individuals who are unaware of solutions to simple problems, who feel that no effective solution for their particular conflict exists, or who think that no one cares. Removing the offending individual is only one of the many management options available to address nuisance bear problems. Private citizens should not attempt to kill or harm bears. Because the Louisiana black bear is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), killing bears within the historic range of the subspecies carries heavy state and federal penalties that can include hefty fines, suspension of hunting privileges, and jail time. Informing the public about potential conflicts and available solutions is an important strategy in the overall restoration effort.

In general, conflicts between humans and wildlife can be addressed by either managing the animals involved in the conflict, manipulating the

Management of Nuisance Behavior


related damage. Solar-powered electric fencing for bee yards is a prime example of an effective barrier to prevent nuisance bear problems. Properly maintained electric fencing has been shown to be almost 100% effective in deterring bear damage. Fences can also be used to control ongoing damage.

Management of the resources being damaged or threatened is also applicable to our goal of effectively managing bear/human conflicts. In some cases, conflicts may be avoided by keeping susceptible resources away from bear habitat or by removing attractants that lure bears to those resources. Changing methods and food types used in baiting deer are good examples of how to manage a resource to reduce nuisance bear problems. Deer hunters experiencing unwanted attention from bears at their deer feeders should consider switching bait types from preferred bear foods like corn to less attractive foods like soybeans or rice bran and changing from free feeding with large bait piles to time-controlled feeding methods.

there is a harvestable surplus of bears that can be removed from the population while still achieving bear recovery and restoration objectives. Local bear densities, public tolerance for bears, landowner desires, and other social factors will have to be taken into consideration in structuring future bear harvest regulations by state wildlife agencies. While a harvest may reduce the number of bears, it will not eliminate conflicts.

Trapping nuisance bears and releasing them far from their capture site is called relocation. Relocating nuisance bears can cause them to roam over large areas in search of familiar surroundings. Bears have an excellent homing instinct, and will attempt to find their way back to familiar territory. Bears have been documented traveling up to 400 miles from relocation sites. This increases their susceptibility to being killed by vehicles along roads or by humans who perceive a threat to their own safety. Because of the stress and increased human interaction, relocated bears have a greatly reduced chance of survival. In addition, moving a problem animal from one area to another can potentially bring the nuisance problem to the new area. Consequently, bears involved in conflicts with humans should be left in their established home range whenever possible. Many states have abandoned the practice or relocating nuisance bears and now focus on educating the public about coexisting with the animals. Nuisance behavior can be altered through live trapping, aversive conditioning, and releasing bears into the same general area. This can be accomplished by using the bear’s intelligence and quick learning ability to “teach” bears to stop nuisance behavior. This is referred to as aversive conditioning (see Aversive Conditioning section).

Barriers preventing access by bears may totally eliminate some ongoing problems and offer the greatest immediate relief from conflicts that arise. Barriers, in most cases, are both economically and technically feasible to install and are considered a viable option for controlling many types of bear-

Aversive ConditioningAversive conditioning of nuisance bears is not new, but there have been some recent developments that may offer substantially improved results. Aversive conditioning is simply creating a very negative experience for the offending animal, hoping that the negative experience will outweigh the positive rewards offered by the nuisance activity.

Nuisance bears have traditionally been captured at the site of the offense, immobilized, marked and weighed, and allowed to recover from the drugs. When released, the bears were hazed with rubber buckshot, firecrackers, or pepper sprays. In some cases, this worked well. However, many nuisance bears that were habituated to humans and either food or garbage, often continued their nuisance activity after capture and hazing. These bears might change location, but the offending activity persisted. As a result, several bears were killed by agency personnel or placed in zoos. Other bears were killed by motor vehicles because they were spending so much time in populated areas near humans.

Using dogs to haze bears had been discussed for several years at BBCC gatherings. The discussions

Cooperative Management ApproachMost state wildlife agencies have the sole responsibility for addressing bear/human conflicts when they occur. For example, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will provide assistance to citizens who report bear problems in Texas and those in Arkansas are handled by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. In areas where bears are present within the historic range of the Louisiana black bear, however, a federal role for managing the species exists because bears are protected as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In Louisiana, problems are addressed by USDA Wildlife Services (USDA-WS) and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS). In Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks is the lead agency with assistance from the FWS. State and federal agencies have worked cooperatively to develop protocols for addressing conflicts. Written plans outline standard procedures that will be taken when bears create problems, including preventive measures, aversive conditioning, and possible removal of offending bears.

For several years, a Conflict Management Team consisting of the USDA-WS, FWS, LDWF, and the BBCC worked together successfully in Louisiana. Louisiana has since delegated bear nuisance calls to their Private Lands Biologists in areas of the state with potential problems and now has a full-time bear biologist on staff. Efficient and effective response to complaints is more feasible when duties are shared among professional agency personnel. The responder is determined by the location, time, and availability of personnel.


were dominated by what breed of dog would be best and how they would work in this region. The job requires a dog of sufficient size and athletic enough to move efficiently through the dense, swampy bear habitat of south Louisiana. An overly aggressive dog would likely get killed by a bear, so another requirement was for a dog with good temperament and excellent obedience. Hounds trained to hunt wild hogs were used on several occasions to haze bears with some positive results. Unfortunately, the hounds got so scattered over the swamps and marshland that it sometimes took several days to collect the dogs. This created another problem with the time required to work a nuisance situation, and so the search for another breed continued. The Blackmouth cur was the next candidate selected for use in aversive conditioning. The Blackmouth cur is a medium-sized dog that is very athletic, tractable, and aggressive. This breed is traditionally used as a livestock herding dog, but also used to hunt hogs, squirrels, and raccoons.

In the aversive conditioning process, the dogs are released to chase the bear after it has been hazed with rubber buckshot or paintballs as previously described. Experienced dogs will catch the bear within about one hundred yards and either tree it or circle it on the ground, cutting off its escape when it tries to run. The “fight” involves a lot of barking and growling, with little to no actual contact. When the dogs are holding the bear at bay, a biologist can run up and usually get off another round of rubber buckshot to get the bear running again. The dogs will usually catch the bear again in another hundred yards or so and the process is repeated. This may happen three or four times before the dogs are called back to the handler.

The hazing is very intense for about fifteen minutes and then the bear is allowed to go about its business. The BBCC Conflict Management Team used the curs for five years and experienced a 90% success rate on bears hazed with the dogs. When the dogs are properly trained, they can be utilized in a

WARNING: The various brands of “less than lethal” rubber bullets, buckshot, and slugs, perform differently. Some are safe at close range and

ineffective at greater distances.

Others, effective at up to fifty yards, are dangerous at close range. Only trained personnel should be allowed to use these tools in dealing with wildlife problems.

Pepper Spray can be an effective tool when used correctly. Care must be taken not to spray into the wind or to attempt to spray while standing in a doorway if the central air system is running. If inhaled, it doesn’t take much to incapacitate a human.

Paintball guns have been used in several national parks in the western states with good results. Paintball guns can shoot many more rounds than a shotgun, shoot farther than rubber bullets, and when the paintballs are chilled or frozen, they sting more than rubber shot. It should be noted that “harassment” of a federally listed species is illegal, so only agency use of this method is legal. This can change if and when the bear is removed from the ESA listing.

Encounters with BearsEncounters with black bears are rare, and an aggressive encounter with a black bear is extraordinarily rare. Black bears typically are cautious animals and try to avoid people. When working or recreating in bear country, it is likely that people have been near bears without knowing it because bears can catch a scent more than a mile away and either leave the area or hide nearby. Seeing a bear in the wild by chance from a safe distance can be exciting, however safety and respect for this animal should be followed at all times. While the information provided in this handbook should help avoid dangerous encounters, bears are wild animals and each bear and every encounter is different.

Black bears are not normally aggressive, but like all wild animals, they can attack if provoked or cornered without an escape route. Unprovoked attacks on humans are extremely rare throughout the species’ range. Within the historic range of the Louisiana black bear, there have been no reports of bears acting aggressively toward people in recent history. Most attacks that do occur have happened when humans surprised, cornered or otherwise threatened the animals. People can make bears feel threatened by making direct eye contact, approaching them too closely, coming between a bear and its food source, or being near an adult female with cubs. A female with cubs is defensive and can be dangerously aggressive if she perceives that her young are threatened. Bear cubs should never be approached. Even if the adult female bear is not observed, she will probably not be far from her young.

In a confrontational situation, it is important to remain calm. People should identify themselves by talking quietly and watch the bear without making direct eye contact as they move slowly away from the bear. Remember that leaving the area should always be the first option to avoid escalating the encounter. Bears usually try to avoid confrontation by retreating, so be sure you leave the bear an obvious escape route. Bears that confront humans will often stand on

variety of rural and suburban situations because they can be called back if necessary. The dogs are also useful as ambassadors for the bear management program, where they can be taken to presentations to school groups and other educational opportunities with the public. From late 2001 to 2007, the BBCC Conflict Management Team used dogs to deal with nuisance bears. During that period, no bears were euthanized, no bears were relocated, which meant no relocated bears were killed by motor vehicles

while trying to find their way back home.


nDo not try to climb a tree to escape a black bear. Black bears are agile tree climbers.

nDo not run from a bear; bears can reach speeds of 35 mph and can easily outrun a person. Running can also trigger the bear’s chase instinct.

nDo not try to play dead! This method may work with some brown bear encounters, but not with black bears.

If you are physically attacked by a bear, fight back aggressively with any and all means available. Bears will be less likely to continue an attack if they experience enough resistance. If you experience aggressive bear behavior, please contact your state wildlife agency as soon as possible.

their hind legs to get a better view or smell. This is not aggressive behavior; the bear is trying to figure out the situation, to get a better look at the potential danger or get a better chance of smelling whatever might be perceived as a danger.

If the confrontation escalates to where the bear looks interested and moves toward you, look for these signs: if a bear runs toward you and stops (called bluff charging), swats at the ground, or vocalizes in huffs or grunts, the bear is warning you to back off. Again, try to retreat from the area if possible. If retreat is not an option, try to appear as large as possible by holding a coat or shirt open and your arms out. Try to intimidate the bear by talking loudly, making direct eye contact, and acting aggressively by throwing sticks or rocks (not food), or shaking a large stick. Put a natural barrier (e.g. tree) between you and the bear that encumbers the bear’s movements but allows you to get away. Here are several misconceptions about how to react to an aggressive black bear encounter:

when communicating and injuries can arise from being swatted or bitten; the intent on the bear’s part is not necessarily threatening. Although the bites and paw swats are intended to deliver a serious message, this type of defensive behavior can be “disarmed” with an appropriate response. It is essential to recognize the difference between defensive and aggressive or offensive actions and these behaviors can be different in different locations (human use areas or secluded woodlands).

INTERPRETING BLACK BEAR COMMUNICATION Ben Kilham, 2007

To understand bears, we must first understand the basic principles of animal behavior, which are common to all species, including humans. For example, from observing the behavior of a fish, we can learn how a bear or a human will react under certain conditions. Bears are not aliens from Mars, nor are we. We are all animals. This needs to be stressed because from our own experiences with other people and our pets, we can draw an understanding of how that behavior applies to bears.

Since the time of Charles Darwin, it has been recognized that any sound generated through the larynx of any bird or mammal is an “honest” sound. These sounds are emotional communications tied directly to the central nervous system.

Understanding Bear BehaviorThis section is reprinted with permission from the publication “Responding to Human-Bear Conflicts: A guide to Non-lethal Bear Management Techniques” prepared by the Get Bear Smart Society.

The safest way to reduce risk when dealing with bears is to have knowledge and understanding of their behavior and motivation. Therefore, an understanding of bear communication is essential to mitigating conflict situations and maintaining human safety. Recently, the understanding of bear behavior has changed as bear experts learned to recognize the characteristics and predictability of defensive and aggressive behavior patterns.

Because bear’s home ranges often overlap, they have evolved a structured but flexible society that enables them to interact while keeping serious conflict, and thus the risk of injury, to a minimum. Bears have a dominance hierarchy and communicate their dominance and submission to other bears through vocalizations and body language also known as “posturing.” When two bears meet, each quickly assesses the situation and chooses how it will respond to avoid a physical confrontation.

Bears rank in the hierarchy based on gender, age, size, physical condition and individual temperament. Frequently, large, mature, confident males are dominant, while sub-adults are lowest in the hierarchy. Dominance is important because it determines access to food resources and mates.

Bears typically use the same behaviors when responding to humans as they use when communicating with other bears. Unfortunately, people with limited expertise in bear behavior often respond with fear and frequently misinterpret the ritualized displays as aggressive behavior-often with deadly consequences to the bear.

Nonetheless, there is potential for minor or serious injury when bears and people come into very close contact (less than 3 ft.). Bears can be very physical


attack. Behaviorist Niko Timbergen notes that these types of displays are used to intimidate an opponent or simply to increase the bear’s true mood. Bears are able to turn this behavior on and off like a light switch. It is deliberate.

Bears also use the same behaviors for intentional communication in a number of different ways; they can be used to intimidate, to modify behavior, or show displeasure. Applied with a wide range of intensity, these behaviors reflect the level of the bear’s concern.

Moods, on the other hand, come and go very slowly. For example, once angry, it may take us a long time to cool off. It is, therefore, necessary to analyze the bear’s mood when it is not displaying these behaviors; its intentions when it is; and then apply both to the context of the situation. This may be a tough concept to apply in the field, but a necessary and important one. It is actually a good thing when faced with a bear that bluffs or false charges as it means that you have time to analyze the bear’s intentions and modify its displeasure or fear.

One reason that bears perform these ritualistic or intentional displays is to inhibit aggressiveness. Because bears occupy very expansive areas and meet face-to-face infrequently, the ritual use of chomps, huffs and false charges actually serves to deter attacks that might otherwise occur if these displays are lacking. Humans and other animals also have rituals to repress aggressiveness. For example, we may greet a strange dog with a slow approach and a kind word – while observing the response. If the response is friendly (i.e. the tail is wagging), we may choose to pet the dog. Similarly, we might offer a smile or a handshake to strangers or people we haven’t seen for a while. This gives us an opportunity to gauge the response of the individual we just met and react accordingly. Granted, the bear’s rituals of snorting, chomping, huffing and false charging are not as cordial as ours, but both serve the same purpose, i.e. they inhibit potential aggressiveness and buy some time in order to gauge the situation.

“The signaling behavior of animals can be compared with the crying of a human baby, or with the involuntary expressions of anger or fear in humans of all ages. We know that such ‘emotional language’ in Man is different from deliberate speech. The ‘language’ of animals is of the level of our ‘emotional language’.” (Timbergin, 1974)

As humans, we pay little attention to this means of communication because of our fondness for intentional language and culture; yet, subconsciously, we receive and emit these emotional messages all the time. When enraged, all animals make harsh sounds; in contrast, they use soft-toned noises to make appeasement vocalizations.

This form of communication also includes body language; we can sit down with other humans throughout the world and communicate our emotional states without any knowledge of each other’s language. The ear movements of a horse and those of a bear have the same meaning. Basic expressions on the face of humans and bears have the same general meaning, whether it is a pleasant facial expression, a frown or pure stink eye. The mood of a bear can therefore be determined by observation.

Once we understand how bears communicate emotionally and honestly, we can take a look at how and why they communicate intentionally and how they lie or bluff. Intentional communications intended to bluff, deceive or to alter another’s behavior are generated through mechanical sounds or actions. The “squared –off lip” is the switch (i.e. the lip is drawn forward and appears square; the face looks long), which is followed by any of the following actions in varying degrees of intensity: the chomping of teeth or lips, snorting or woofing (blowing air through the nose or mouth), huffing (inhaling or exhaling air rapidly), the swat, lunge and the false charge.

This behavior has developed over the last six million years, through the evolutionary process, as ritualistic displays that help reduce the chance of

Such ritualistic or intentional behavior occurs in bears whenever two unfamiliar individuals come together. Scientists have tried for years to define this behavior as belonging to various distinct categories, including aggressiveness, threat or even fear. In reality, it is not possible to draw one single specific meaning from this behavior because of the wide range of circumstances under which these displays are used. These acts are context specific.

Some examples of ritualized displays include the following examples:

nIn a captive situation, when a new cub is placed into a cage with other unrelated individuals, they will all display initially. But within hours, they become friends. The display inhibits initial aggression and allows time for communication and friendship to take place.

nWhen a female bear first meets a mate, they are both unfamiliar with each other. As a result, they are likely to both display with chomps, huffs and false charges. These displays may last for an extended period of time. At some point, however, they start making soft inviting vocalizations while still displaying, and eventually, they end up mating. Again, the display inhibits aggression, which allows for communication and mating.

nWhen a person gets too close to a mother with young cubs, the female will usually display, letting the person know her displeasure without having to attack. If the person disregards her signals, she may kick it up a notch by cocking her hears, charging and vocalizing a face-to-face “huh,huh,huh,huh”. Often the female will also use a greatly modified false charge or swat to the ground in an attempt to persuade an intruder to back away. These gestures constitute a motivational use of ritualistic displays. The intentional display is used to convey a message or prevent an attack. Some bears have even had great success using these displays to intentionally motivate people to drop food or backpacks.

Defensive Display or Dominance BehaviorBears exhibit dominance behavior and defensive displays and will show these behaviors in any sequence (Herrero, 2002)

FRONTAL ORIENTATION bear’s body is directly facing the person

JAW POPPING OR TEETH CLACKING moving its jaw rapidly to click or pop its teeth

SNORTING OR WOOFING blowing air through the nose or mouth

HUFFING inhaling and exhaling air rapidly

STARING maintaining direct eye contact

STANDING ITS GROUND rather than moving away, the bear stands still, usually facing the person

PAW SWATTING slapping the ground or surrounding vegetation

LUNGING one or two quick steps toward a person, often ending with a slap to the ground

BLUFF OR FALSE CHARGE the bear runs straight at a person but veers off or stops before making physical contact; this is almost always accompanied by other ritualized displays, like huffing jaw popping or slapping the ground. The vast majority of charges by bears are bluff charges and only rarely lead to contact or human injury.

NOTE: A bear that stands upright on its back legs is not exhibiting defensive or aggressive behavior. Usually a bear rises up on its hind legs out of curiosity. Standing up allows the bear to get a better view or to better catch the scent of something in order to identify it.


One of the common misconceptions about conservation programs is that once you’ve entered into an easement agreement, your land becomes open to public access. This is not the case! An easement purchases some of a landowner’s rights to use the land, but it remains private property. The contract spells out specifically what rights are being purchased. Even on the strictest easements, the landowner will be in control and able to hunt and fish and lease those rights retained on that land. These easements do not allow access by the general public to private lands or increase a landowner’s liability for having endangered species on the land. The contracted land is still private property so the government cannot apply restrictions it has on its own lands.

While there are many public and private programs available to the landowner, budget cuts, changing priorities and other factors determine what programs may be available at any given time. Rather than try to list the numerous programs in this publication, we have provided contact information for agencies and organizations that can provide assistance to private landowners. If you cannot find the information you need, contact the BBCC office and we will do our best to assist you (225) 400-9622.

Involving the private landowner in habitat restoration is key to bear recovery efforts.Restoring bottomland hardwood forests is one of the criteria for removing the bear from the Endangered Species list. Bottomland hardwoods need to be established and maintained as corridors for movement and genetic exchange between the northern, central, and southern bear populations. Although there are public lands in the region, 90% of bottomland forests are on private lands, which is why involving the private landowner in habitat restoration is key to the success of bear recovery efforts.

Most bottomland hardwood habitat loss along the Mississippi River came from conversion of forests to agricultural uses, especially during the soybean boom when prices were unusually high. Many of those lands flood regularly and are now considered either marginal or completely unproductive cropland. It’s these marginal croplands that the Black Bear Conservation Coalition is targeting for reforestation.

There are several federal, state, and private conservation programs available to private landowners that offer assistance for conversion of non-productive farmland back to bottomland hardwoods. These programs offer different types of easements, cost-share plans, and other financial and technical assistance. Interested landowners may be unfamiliar with these programs and the process to select the appropriate program for their needs.

Incentive Programs for Wildlife Habitat Restoration


State & Federal Program Contacts

ARKANSAS CONTACTS

Arkansas Fish and Game Commission

2 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, AR 72205

(501) 223-6300

www.agfc.com

Arkansas Forestry Commission

3821 West Roosevelt Road


(501) 296-1940

www.forestry.state.ar.us

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission

101 East Capitol, Suite 350


(501) 682-1611

www.anrc.ark.org

Natural Resources Conservation Service

700 West Capitol Avenue

Room 3416, Federal Building

Little Rock, AR 72201-3225

(501) 301-3100

www.ar.nrcs.usda.gov

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

110 Amity Rd., Suite 300

350 Conway, AR 72032

(501) 513-4470

www.fws.gov/arkansas-es

LOUISIANA CONTACTS

Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

2000 Quail Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

(225) 765-2800

www.wlf.la.gov

Louisiana Department of Agriculture

and Forestry

P.O. Box 1628

Baton Rouge, LA 70821

(225) 925-4500

www.ldaf.state.la.us


3737 Government Street

Alexandria, LA 71303

(318) 473-7751

www.nrcs.usa.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/la/

home

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

646 Cajundome Boulevard

Lafayette, LA 70506

(337) 291-3119

www.fws.gov/lafayette

Phot

o by

Ven

i Har

lan


MISSISSIPPI CONTACTS

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries,

& Parks

1505 Eastover Drive

Jackson, MS 39201

(601) 432-2400

www.mdwfp.com

Mississippi Forestry Commission

301 N Lamar

Suite 300

Jackson, MS 39215-1033

(601) 359-1386

www.mfc.ms.gov

Mississippi Department of Revenue

P.O. Box 1033

Jackson, MS 39211-6374

(601) 923-7000

www.dor.ms.gov


100 W. Capitol Street

Suite 1321 Federal Building

Jackson, MS 39269

(601) 965-5196

www.ms.nrcs.usda.gov


6578 Dogwood View Parkway

Suite A

Jackson, MS 39213

(601) 321-1132

www.fws.gov/mississippiES

TEXAS CONTACTS

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

4200 Smith School Road

Austin, TX 78744

(512) 389-4800

www.tpwd.state.tx.us


2005 Green Oaks Boulevard

Arlington, TX 76006-6247

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ArlingtonTexas

Texas Forest Service

301 Tarrow

Suite 364

College Station, TX 77840-7896

(979) 458–6606

http://txforestservice.tamu.edu


101 South Main

Temple, TX 76501

(254) 742-9800

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/TX/

home


BBCC has cooperated

with private landowners

to plant bottomland

hardwood forests

on over 35 different

projects in 10 parishes

in Louisiana.

Some private conservation organizations work with landowners to develop conservation easements or other financial or technical assistance to restore or enhance wildlife habitat on their property. Each private organization has its own mission, goals and objectives that determine the type lands or habitats where they focus their easements or other assistance. An example of a private conservation organization program is the Black Bear Conservation Coalition’s Landowner Assistance Program.

The BBCC’s Landowner Assistance Program is an attempt to encourage private landowner involvement in conservation programs. Through grant awards, the BBCC’s conservation program has helped private landowners restore and enhance habitat for the Louisiana black bear. At the time of this publication (March 2015), the BBCC has cooperated with private landowners to plant bottomland hardwood forests on over 35 different projects in 10 parishes in Louisiana. Enhancement projects include the removal of Chinese tallow trees, an invasive exotic species that quickly dominates the early stages of forest

Private Programs

succession and inhibits native forest restoration. The BBCC also designs control programs for feral hog populations to decrease the habitat damage where this species overlaps with bear range. The BBCC covers up to 90% of the costs to restore and enhance bear habitat in exchange for agreement with landowners to leave the trees and other improvements in place for a minimum of 25 years.

The BBCC’s program is just one of many choices available to interested private landowners. Several of the private conservation organizations active in this region are listed below. Private landowners are encouraged to contact the private conservation organizations to find out about opportunities for financial and technical assistance for conserving their property for wildlife.

Conservation OrganizationsBlack Bear Conservation Coalition P.O. Box 80442 Baton Rouge, LA 70898 (225) 400-9622 www.bbcc.org

Conservation Force3900 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 1045Metarie, LA 70002-1746(504) 837-1233www.conservationforce.org

GreenTrees 108 S. Lakeshore Drive Lake Village, AR 71653 (870) 403-3885 www.green-trees.com

Phot

o by

Ven

i Har

lan


The Nature ConservancyTNC - Arkansas Field Office 601 North University AvenueLittle Rock, AR 72205(501) 663-6699 http://nature.org/Arkansas TNC - Louisiana Field OfficeP.O. Box 4125Baton Rouge, LA 70821(225) 338-1040http://nature.org/Louisiana

TNC - Mississippi Field Office 964 N. Jefferson Street Jackson, MS 39202 (601) 713-3355http://nature.org/Mississippi

TNC - Texas Field OfficeP.O. Box 1440San Antonio, TX 78295-1440 (210) 224-8774http://nature.org/Texas

Trust for Public Land 1137 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 (504) 620-5142 1010 Cedar Hill Drive Jackson, MS 39206(601) 213-8077

Mississippi Land Trust P.O. Box 23 Starkville, MS 38776 (662) 686-3375

Coastal Plain Conservancy414 Pujo StreetLake Charles, LA 70601(337) 436-9401, Ext. 205www.coastalplain.net

Ducks Unlimited DU - Arkansas Chapter 4511 East 43rd Street North Little Rock, AR 72117 (501) 955-9264 www.ducks.org/Arkansas DU - Louisiana Chapter 4974 Central Avenue, Suite A Monroe, LA 71203-6106 (318) 340-1020 www.ducks.org/Louisiana

DU - Mississippi Chapter 193 Business Park Drive, Suite E Ridgeland, MS 39157 (601) 206-5446 www.ducks.org/Mississippi

DU - Texas Chapter P.O. Box 1873 Crosby, TX 77532 (832) 595-0663 www.ducks.org/Texas

The Conservation FundTCF-LA, MS, AR 812 Park Avenue Mandeville, LA 70448(985) 674-3332 [email protected]

TCF-TXP.O.Box 4608, SFA StationNacogdoches, TX 75962-4608(936) [email protected]

Carbon Banking OpportunitiesPrivate landowners in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) have an additional opportunity for financial assistance to restore bottomland hardwood forests called carbon banking. Carbon banking, or carbon sequestration, is the process of growing trees to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Energy companies pay money to landowners to create carbon banks so they can receive carbon credits that are traded on the open market. Carbon banking is on the rise and will likely become a driving force behind reforestation efforts in LMAV. Several of the national non-profits organizations and some for profit companies are now purchasing carbon easements.

When existing forests are conserved and sustainably managed, and cleared forests are replanted, they can become very effective long-term carbon storage banks. Managed forests can provide society with carbon banks, but also wood products, clean water, flood water storage, recreational opportunities, and fish and wildlife habitat. Energy companies are especially interested in using forests as carbon banks in the LMAV because this region provides fertile soils, abundant rainfall, long growing seasons, and relatively inexpensive land.

From the BBCC’s perspective, carbon banking in forests in the LMAV creates important economic opportunities for private landowners and an opportunity to create the habitat needed for a healthy black bear population. As the utility industry embraces the need to sequester atmospheric carbon, the goals and objectives of the BBCC and those of the utility industry become increasingly compatible.

If uncertain as to whom or what organization to contact, call the BBCC office to get guidance. After a discussion of the objectives of the landowner, recommendations will be given as to what programs or organizations are best suited to provide the desired conditions.


Over 1,000,000 acres within the historic range of

the bear in Mississippi and Louisiana have been

reforested through the Conservation Reserve and

Wetland Reserve Program since 1990. Over 100,000

acres of trees have been planted by utility companies

in efforts to sequester atmospheric carbon.

Additional acres have and will be reforested through

other conservation initiatives.

Attitudes of landowners and the public in general

are changing to be more accommodating to the

needs of the black bear. The black bear should be

viewed as an asset, a unique and treasured wildlife

heritage. People are beginning to understand

that, with responsible planning and management,

the black bear can coexist with many land uses,

including forestry, agriculture and outdoor

recreation. Also, Mississippi and Louisiana’s

Congressional delegations have strongly supported

black bear management and restoration efforts.

The BBCC represents the combined efforts of

over sixty agencies, companies, organizations

and universities that have worked together for

the black bear and its associated resources. BBCC

priorities have been to put the resource first, to

find common ground, to build coalitions while

avoiding confrontations, to replace emotion with

credible science throughout the management

process and to have a strong commitment to black

bear restoration.

Most important, however, to the ultimate acceptance

of black bear are the attitudes of those who read

this publication. The BBCC asks you to support the

goal of maintaining a healthy black bear resource,

and restoring a truly unique and magnificent wildlife

heritage. Working together, the effort will result in

a win-win situation for all stakeholders, and more

importantly, for the Louisiana black bear.

The BBCC asks you to support the goal of maintaining a healthy black bear resource, and restoring a truly unique and magnificent wildlife heritage.

The indomitable march of progress had brought the black bear to a crossroad of existence in the lower Mississippi River Valley Region. Bear populations in this region had been reduced significantly since the time of European exploration and settlement, thus, in 1992, the Louisiana black bear was listed as “threatened” under the guidelines of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Since the listing, millions of both public and private dollars have been spent to reverse the trends that led to the bear’s decline. The BBCC has been key in the restoration of the Louisiana black bear. Even before the listing, the BBCC was organizing meetings of stakeholders in the region to discuss bear management and ways to address restoration. Immediately after the listing, the BBCC wrote and published the “Restoration Plan for the Louisiana black bear,” the first of 4 editions of this Management Handbook for landowners and other educational materials. The BBCC worked with timber companies and other potential donors to raise monies for much needed research and continued to meet to address all the issues related to bear management in the region.

Conclusion


Black Bear Conservation Coalition P.O. Box 80442 Baton Rouge, LA 70898 (225) 400-9622 www.bbcc.org

Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge401 Island Road Marksville, LA 71351 (318) 253-4238www.fws.gov/lakeophelia

Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries P.O. Box 98000 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 (225) 765-2385www.wlf.state.la.us

Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 2312 Fred Morgan, Sr. Road Tallulah, LA 71282 (318) 574-2664 www.fws.gov/refuge/tensas_river U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service646 Cajundome Boulevard Lafayette, LA 70506 (337) 291-3124 http://southeast.fws.gov/es/lafayette.htm

U.S.D.A. Wildlife ServicesP.O. Box 589Port Allen, LA 70767(225) 389-0229www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/pdf/louisiana.pdf

Arkansas

Arkansas Fish and Game Commission 2 Natural Resources DriveLittle Rock, AR 72205(501) 223-6300www.agfc.com Felsenthal National Wildlife RefugeP.O. Box 11575531 Highway 82 WestCrossett, AR 71635(870) 364-3167http://felsenthal.fws.gov

White River National Wildlife Refuge57 South CC Camp RoadP.O. Box 205St. Charles, AR 72140(870) 282-8200http://whiteriver.fws.gov

Louisiana

Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge10816A Highway 182 E Franklin, LA 70538 (337) 828-0092www.fws.gov/bayouteche

Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife RefugeP.O. Box 1772Ferriday, LA 71334 (318) 336-7119 www.fws.gov/refuge/bayou_cocodrie

For More Information

© BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COALITION84

Mississippi

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks 2148 Riverside Drive Jackson, MS 39202-1353 (601) 354-7303 www.mdwfp.com

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6578 Dogwood View Parkway Suite AJackson, MS 39213(601) 321-1132http://southeast.fws.gov/jackson/index.html

U.S.D.A. Wildlife ServicesP.O. Drawer FW200 Thompson Hall Mississippi State, MS 39762 (662) 325-3014www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/pdf/mississippi.pdf

Texas

Big Thicket National Preserve3785 Milam StreetBeaumont, TX 77701-4724 (409) 839-2689 www.nps.gov/bith

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 11942 FM 848 Tyler, TX 75707 (903) 566-1626 www.tpwd.state.tx.us

Phot

o by

Ash

ley

Hoc

kenb

erry


Louisiana Chapter of the Association of

Consulting Foresters

P.O. Box 80442, Baton Rouge, LA 70898

225-400-9622

[email protected]

bbcc.org

black bear management handbookbbcc.org/pdf/bbcc.blackbearguide.pdf · service. the first edition of...

Documents