What about bear control???

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Apparently Wolves prey mostly on smaller animals, Rabbits, beaver and birds in spring and summer. No doubt they tale a few Young Elk and Moose over the spring and summer,....I know a wolf will eat way more then one would expect for an animal it's size, and 9 pounds at one time sounds about right. But not every day.

I believe a wolf pack will, on average, kill 2 elk a week.

Contrary to those who prefer that wolves be seen as a vegetarian and, if that is not possible, a consumer of wee rodents and birds, they like elk. Then moose. Then deer.

And they have no trouble killing them.

I picked off a wolf darn near on a cow elk's back many years ago. The cow never missed a beat at the gunshot and then almost ran me down trying to make good her escape. She came within 6ft of me and appeared to perfectly healthy; other than her tongue was hangin' out. She was close to played out.

[Arachnodisiac]

Even if all they eat are deer, moose and elk...
They've got to earn a living out there just as we do.

Obviously, numbers have to be managed, but I do not resent in the least any meal a wild predator takes – even if I may have shot it myself instead.

Part of hunting and enjoying nature is enjoying ALL of it, which to me at least, includes respecting the rights of the other top predators to hunt as well.

I do not believe that I am inherently entitled to more.

I know in some countries (like Sweden) the hunters want to eradicate their lynx and their wolves because they are seen only as competitors –*it's like they are not even viewed as being part of the eco-system.

The world may be our oyster, but we're obligated to share the pearls.

[smith88]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

From what I read in those studies, it definitely has a lot to do with it.
It seems that bears are the number one predator of young ungulates.

Apparently Wolves prey mostly on smaller animals, Rabbits, beaver and birds
in spring and summer. No doubt they tale a few Young Elk and Moose over the spring and summer, but one has to remember that the packs usually break up during the pup rearing period, then regroup late in the summer.

A lone wolf isn't very effective at taking large animals, or their young.
The pack is what makes a wolf a threat to ungulates.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about wolves on the web.
9 pounds a day! WOW that must be one huge wolf. 9 pounds is a huge meal for a 90 pound animal.
I know a wolf will eat way more then one would expect for an animal it's size, and 9 pounds at one time sounds about right. But not every day.
A bear, being twice as heavy, would eat more I'm sure. And given that there is reported to be far more bears then wolves, it follows that bears would be the bigger threat to ungulates.

I believe there are more wolves now then is healthy for the environment, but if so, then Deer and Bear are also overpopulated.

Bear are omnivores, so they also eat a lot of grass, grains, and berries, probably at least 50% or more. And they also dig for bugs and other stuff.

Ungulates are used more than one thinks. Read through this research, kind of neat how much meat bears seem to eat in the cadomin area.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~cristesc/results.htm

I was told some grizzlies in the area have been eating in excess of 15 elk calves each/ month in the spring. Not sure if its published data, just what a researcher told me up there. I didn't look that hard on the web for more data, may be on the u of a site somewhere.

[Northern Bob]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Alberta Black Bear population is estimated at between 30,000 and 40,000.
BC puts their Black Bear population at around 160,000.

However, BC has a land mass of 364,764 sq mi with only 18,000 sq mi of farm land, about 340,000 sq mi of forest. Alberta has only 255,541 sq mi of land of which 81,000 square miles is used for agriculture, or about 175,000 sq mi of forest.

That gives us a Black Bear population density of 2.275 bear per square mile of forest in BC and in Alberta we get a population density of around 4.98 bear per square mile.

I don't know how accurate the figures I found for bear population and land forested areas were, but clearly Alberta has a much higher Black Bear population density then BC does, even though BC has a much higher overall population size.




http://umanitoba.ca/institutes/natur...sis%202002.pdf

Guys, take another look at the numbers in this post. To get the number of bears per square mile of forest you have to divide the number of bears into the square miles. With only 40,000 bears in Alberta roaming 175,000 square miles there isn't almost 5 per square mile. At 40,000 it is 4.375 square miles per bear. For bears per square mile it is 0.229 bears per mile.
For BC it is 0.47 bears per square mile of forest, or 2.125 square miles per bear. Just a wee bit off.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by smith88

Bear are omnivores, so they also eat a lot of grass, grains, and berries, probably at least 50% or more. And they also dig for bugs and other stuff.

10-4

That's why they come with big grinding teeth like these from the back of a grizzly skull (nose and canines missing)....looks kinda like big shark teeth in real life:



I like bears. I try to make a point of shooting at least one each year because I like elk, moose and deer, too.

[smith88]

Those look pretty flat and used for grinding....Sharks have very pointed and thin teeth for slicing....


http://www.arkive.org/great-white-sh...age-G2110.html

[Rocky7]

You're kidding,....right?

I'm not much of a photographer, I guess. Maybe this view will give you a better idea:



Those are most definitely not grinders, my friend. Those are shredders.

Keep in mind that mice got the nose so his canines and front teeth are missing. He was a big bear, I think. (BTW, those aren't grinders, either)

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Northern Bob

Guys, take another look at the numbers in this post. To get the number of bears per square mile of forest you have to divide the number of bears into the square miles. With only 40,000 bears in Alberta roaming 175,000 square miles there isn't almost 5 per square mile. At 40,000 it is 4.375 square miles per bear. For bears per square mile it is 0.229 bears per mile.
For BC it is 0.47 bears per square mile of forest, or 2.125 square miles per bear. Just a wee bit off.

You are right. I stand corrected.

The figures are right, the labeling was wrong.
4.98 sq miles per bear for Alberta and 2.275 square miles per bears in BC.
I used the actual figures when calculating but rounded them for posting so as not to have too complicated a number.

All I can say is I was distracted and not really thinking about what the figures represented.

It seems that when I sit down at the keyboard my wife thinks that is the ideal time to discuss the days events. LOL
We all have to make sacrifices sometimes.

[smith88]

Ummmm go look at a cow's teeth.......


http://jakes-bones.blogspot.com/2011...t-on-ebay.html

[Rocky7]

I've seen cow molars. They're flat. Like other herbivores. I'm not good with a camera, so went out and took a couple more in case anyone else is interested. That's a heckuva set of chompers:




From the side:



He was a big bear. I found the skull in the bottom of a gully not far from the Brazeau River. I'd guess he went there to die, but it might have been something else. No holes in the skull, though, and if it was a person you'd think there'd be a hole in the skull. I know I wouldn't turn my back on a downed grizzly without putting one it's brain, anyway.

[silver fox]

That skull is of an ungulate of some sort and deffinatly not of a bear

[smith88]

Forget what their teeth look like, Grizzly and Black bear eat way more plant material than they eat meat. Yes, they have teeth to eat meat but not like what a wolf or a cougar has (or any animal that is a carnivore).


I trust you have a found dead wildlife permit for that Grizzly bear skull......

[Kitscoty Bear Slayer(KBS)]

Originally Posted by smith88

Forget what their teeth look like, Grizzly and Black bear eat way more plant material than they eat meat. Yes, they have teeth to eat meat but not like what a wolf or a cougar has (or any animal that is a carnivore).


I trust you have a found dead wildlife permit for that Grizzly bear skull......

You are kidding right?

[Rocky7]

Well, it looks like smith88 sees no point in shooting bears and silver fox has trouble with shapes, so I guess I'll have to bear down this spring and see if I can fill that supplemental tag.

[smith88]

You're are wrong. I have shot bears and guided bear hunters, I have no problem with shooting bear but casting bears as this big killer of deer, elk and moose is complete BS. Sure, they kill some but they are oppurtunistic feeders, and if you think by killing one boar (you shoot boars right?) will affect the black bear population at all you really need to learn some wildlife biology.

And when ungulates are at their second most venerable (first is when they are just born) the bears are all hibernating!

Maybe you need to go look at SRD's website.....

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildli...s/Default.aspx

[gopher]

Odd looking don't think that's a bear at all

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by gopher

Odd looking not sure thats a bear? Enamel all gone possibly

Yeah, it was pretty old. I dug it out of the moss. Enamel's gone.

I've seen old moose, elk etc. skulls/jaws and they don't look like this. Don't have the dished forehead, either.

[gopher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Yeah, it was pretty old. I dug it out of the moss. Enamel's gone.

I've seen old moose, elk etc. skulls/jaws and they don't look like this. Don't have the dished forehead, either.

Sorry rocky I edited my post got to thinking about it just looks all wrong for a bear. Strange forsure

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by smith88

You're are wrong. I have shot bears and guided bear hunters, I have no problem with shooting bear but casting bears as this big killer of deer, elk and moose is complete BS. Sure, they kill some but they are oppurtunistic feeders, and if you think by killing one boar (you shoot boars right?) will affect the black bear population at all you really need to learn some wildlife biology.

And when ungulates are at their second most venerable (first is when they are just born) the bears are all hibernating!

Maybe you need to go look at SRD's website.....

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildli...s/Default.aspx

Let me say this. Working as a forestry tech for 5 years, i have walked alot of bush. And when the fawns and calves are the most vulnerable is when the bears are awake and looking for a easy meal.

Every year i walk up to and could grab if i want dozens of fawns in tall grass in cut blocks. The same place i see bears ripping stumps and looking for other early meals...If i could kill say 5 deer and 3 moose young'n a year with a knife, im guaranteeing you bears kill A LOT more then you think.

A few years back doing Stocking surveys in a young cutblock i watched a cow moose come running out of the bush full tilt, then a calf 50m behind her, then a big ol black bear. That cow wanted nothing to do with that bear, the calf met its number just inside the treeline. I never seen the final catch, the boar chased the calf back in the trees. I also never finished surveying that cutblock...





Though i get WAAAAY more pizzzed when i found out a black bear has been eating in my favorite blueberry patch...SSS

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by smith88

Maybe you need to go look at SRD's website.....

Maybe I'll just stick with what I know.

Black bears kill just under 1/2 of the moose calves in SK every year. 30% of the moose calves in NL. I've never seen solid number for AB, but the % wouldn't much different here, I don't think.

I've read reams of general, wishy-washy stuff written by people who read other wishy-washy stuff written by other people. Not interested in reading any more, thanks. I have family who, for instance, lived their entire life in the bush and ran traplines. Between that teaching and my own experience, I've got a pretty good feel for it.

I have nothing against bears. I like them as well as any other animal - except if one's creeping up on me. But there's no doubt we'd be doing the ungulates a favour if we trimmed down this very high bear (and wolf) population.

edit: Thanks for that, albertdeer. Folks should know the truth before they start forming opinions.

[smith88]

Where did you get that number of bears kill "just under half"? I would like to read that.

And albertadeer, I said they were most vunerable when they were just dropped...

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by gopher

Sorry rocky I edited my post got to thinking about it just looks all wrong for a bear. Strange forsure

It looks wrong for a bear for a reason, and not because of the conjectured enamal loss.

The teeth pictured are in good shape, showing the vertical folds of an obligate ungulate, in this case, Alces Alces.


How many upper pre-molars/molars does a grizzly bear have?

[IHUNT]

I was talking to a buddy of mine that flyes through the cold lake bombing range in the spring counting moose and caribou. He said that behind just about every herd of caribou there is a bear only a few hundred yards behind. And has seen many bears kill the early spring moose calfs.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by IHUNT

I was talking to a buddy of mine that flyes through the cold lake bombing range in the spring counting moose and caribou. He said that behind just about every herd of caribou there is a bear only a few hundred yards behind. And has seen many bears kill the early spring moose calfs.

A bear can smell afterbirth for miles.

I remember years ago, as a kid, the Cumberland House area and north of Hudson Bay, SK, was thick with moose. We'd see anywhere from 25-50 in an afternoon driving north. Then the black bear population got out of hand. The SK government finally wised up and started issuing 3 tag bear licences. After several years of that, the moose population was recovering steadily. They had finally listened to trappers, natives, hunters and others who know the bush and told them over and over that black bears were taking most of the moose calves. (That's where I saw the biggest black bear I've ever seen, btw. From a distance, I first thought it was a moose in the ditch. It was a giant.)

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

in this case, Alces Alces.

Works for me. 'Specially with Smith88 quizzing me about permits.

[bdub]

Looks like a dead horse, definitley not griz or black bear skull.

[Rocky7]

I'll throw it out and my wife will be happy.

Come to think of it, I've never taken a good look at bear molars. Have to do that this spring. The nose never did look straight enuf.

[silver fox]

Having trouble with shapes I see..

[Caleb]

Originally Posted by smith88

You're are wrong. I have shot bears and guided bear hunters, I have no problem with shooting bear but casting bears as this big killer of deer, elk and moose is complete BS.

Smith88, you're right and wrong in the above statement. On an annual basis, ungulates make up a relatively small percentage of their diet. However a small amount of a bear's annual diet made up of ungulate calves means a fair number of calves as they are relatively small, and as with most predators the kills are probably not entirely consumed.

Here's a quote for you from a Guide Outfitters Association of BC document: "Black bears can account for up to 50% of moose calf mortality."
http://www.goabc.org/pdfs/moose-paper.pdf
No source given, but probably not a complete fabrication.

Here's another: "A similar bear predation study conducted by Schwartz and Franzmann (1991) found that individual black bears can harvest between 1.4 and 5.3 moose calves per calving season in Alaska."
http://umanitoba.ca/institutes/natur...sis%202002.pdf
(The thesis that I got the quote from was done on the moose of Hecla Island, where moose calf to adult ratios went from 0:100 to 40:100 after most of the island's black bears were removed. Wolves were left alone. Obviously black bears were the only significant predator of moose young, and when their population was uncontrolled moose calf survival was 0%.)

So if 30,000+ Alberta black bear kills about 3 calves/fawns per season, then you would get a lot of ungulates taken out of the picture every year that don't make it past their first month or two. Obviously this is an extrapolation from a different situation, but it's probably safe to say that black bears likely kill 10s of 1,000s of ungulate young each spring in Alberta.

In some areas, this is part of a healthy dynamic, and ungulates still do well. But in areas with too many other negative impacts on ungulate populations (increasing wolf predation, habitat fragmentation by roads and cutlines, feral horses), this could be a factor that tips the balance in favour of a decreasing population.

So in answer to the OP: yes, black bear management goes hand-in-hand with ungulate management. It can't be neglected. Increasing recruitment (decreasing calf mortality) is one of a biologist's main goals to help a population in decline. Bear harvesting is not a magic bullet solution in most cases, but it needs to be understood and included in the discussion.

Originally Posted by smith88

Sure, they kill some but they are oppurtunistic feeders, and if you think by killing one boar (you shoot boars right?) will affect the black bear population at all you really need to learn some wildlife biology.

This is actually a relevant point. Are boars bigger predators of calves and fawns? Does harvesting mostly boars increase or decrease the black bear population? To genuinely have an impact on a population through harvest, you have to target the breeders. Example: farmland cow elk hunts. Will killing a boar make a difference in the short-term? Maybe a small one. But unless the black bear population as a whole is being managed, then the impact may be reduced.

Just my thoughts.

Caleb