A Review of Bear
Management in Michigan
October 2008
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
Biology of Black Bears................................................................................................................... 1
Range and Distribution............................................................................................................... 1
Life History of Black Bears........................................................................................................ 2
Assessment of Bear Populations..................................................................................................... 6
Bear Population Indices.............................................................................................................. 7
Bear Population Estimators......................................................................................................... 8
Bear Population Model............................................................................................................... 9
Current Population Status and Range in Michigan..................................................................... 9
Harvest Management.................................................................................................................... 11
Legal Authority......................................................................................................................... 11
A Brief History of Bear Hunting in Michigan.......................................................................... 11
Current Management Areas...................................................................................................... 12
Quota System for Distributing Bear Hunting Licenses ............................................................ 12
Current Bear Hunting Periods................................................................................................... 13
Land Ownership........................................................................................................................ 13
Population Goals....................................................................................................................... 14
Management Strategies............................................................................................................. 15
Regulatory Process........................................................................................................................ 16
Establishment of Bear Harvest Objectives and License Quotas............................................... 16
Natural Resources Commission Process................................................................................... 17
Economic Impacts......................................................................................................................... 17
Bear-Human Interactions.............................................................................................................. 18
Biological and Social Carrying Capacity.................................................................................. 18
Bear-Human Encounters........................................................................................................... 19
Baiting and Supplemental Feeding........................................................................................... 20
Recreational Viewing................................................................................................................ 20
Orphaned Cubs.......................................................................................................................... 20
Bear-vehicle accidents.............................................................................................................. 21
Problem Bear Protocols ............................................................................................................ 21
Additional Bear Hunting Issues.................................................................................................... 21
Hunter Conflicts........................................................................................................................ 21
Standardization of Bear Hunting Regulations .......................................................................... 22
BMU Boundaries...................................................................................................................... 23
Baiting/Disease Issues .............................................................................................................. 24
Bear Participation/No Kill Tag License.................................................................................... 24
Guides....................................................................................................................................... 25
Literature Cited............................................................................................................................. 26
1
A Review of Bear Management in Michigan
Introduction
Black bears (Ursus americanus) are an important natural resource for the residents of Michigan,
and as trustee of this resource, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses a scientific
approach to management. Scientific management considers the status of bear populations, bear
ecology, and the social issues associated with bear-human interactions (both positive and
negative). Scientific information is obtained from research, in-state surveys, and published
literature. Scientific management also incorporates the concept of adaptive resource
management, an iterative process by which changes in management actions (e.g., hunting
regulations, or educational efforts) are evaluated to determine if these changes achieve
management goals. Management efforts over time are modified as new information is obtained,
new analyses are conducted, or factors that influence bear ecology change.
Michigan’s bear management program includes research to help understand bear ecology and
social acceptance capacity of Michigan’s residents. In addition, the DNR provides information
to the public about bears and technical assistance to landowners with unwelcome bear
encounters. Sport hunting has the capacity to influence abundance of black bears, provides
recreational opportunities, and is an important tool used to manage the size of Michigan’s bear
population.
The purpose of this review is to present general information on black bears and specific
information relevant to the situation in Michigan. It is hoped this review will provide
information to assist with the development of recommendations by the Bear Management
Consultation Team.
Biology of Black Bears
Range and Distribution
World-wide there are only eight species of bears. Three of those species occur in North
America, and the black bear is the only species found in Michigan. Black bears have a scattered
distribution throughout most of temperate and boreal North America from the edge of the Arctic
prairies in Alaska and Canada, south to central Mexico (Baker 1983). They are found in at least
35 states and all Canadian provinces. During European colonization and expansion, black bears
were largely extirpated from many of the Midwestern states, yet today populations are thriving in
the Upper Great Lakes and western states and remain in parts of most eastern and southeastern
states. In Michigan, black bears are common in the Upper Peninsula (UP) and areas of the
Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). Bears are occasionally observed in the Southern Lower
Peninsula (SLP) and these observations have become more frequent in recent years.
2
Life History of Black Bears
Physical Characteristics
In the Upper Great Lakes Region, most black bears have black or extremely dark brown fur.
Other color variations including brown, cinnamon, grayish-blue, and blonde are found mostly in
western North America (Baker 1983). Color is generally uniform except for a brown muzzle and
occasional white blaze on the chest (Ternent 2005).
Average adult black bears stand less than three feet tall at the shoulder and are approximately
three to five feet in length. Males are typically larger than females. Adult female black bears
weigh approximately 90 to 300 pounds, and adult males weigh about 130 to 500 pounds. All
bears tend to gain weight in the fall and lose weight during the winter period of inactivity
(Ternent 2005). However, despite losing up to thirty percent of their fall body weight in the
winter, many bears emerge from dens in the spring in relatively good condition (Gerstell 1939,
Alt 1980).
Reproduction and Growth
Generally, female black bears are sexually mature at three to five years of age (Pelton 1992), yet
are known to breed at two years of age in the NLP (Etter et al. 2002). Sows from the NLP
typically bred earlier (2-3 years of age) and had above average litter size (2.6 cubs per sow)
compared to sows from other Midwestern states (Bunnell and Tait 1981, Etter et al. 2002, Rogers
1987a). Males are sexually mature at two years of age but typically do not participate in
breeding until four to five years of age (Ternent 2005).
Breeding season for black bears occurs during the summer, the peak being from mid-June to
mid-July (Alt 1982 and 1989). Female’s exhibit delayed implantation (Wimsatt 1963); eggs are
fertilized immediately but development is suspended at the blastocyst stage. In Pennsylvania,
implantation typically occurs between mid-November and early December (Kordek and Lindzey
1980). Delayed implantation postpones any nutritional investment until after the critical fall
foraging period (Ternent 2005). If a fall food shortage results in a reduction in fat reserves the
blastocysts can be absorbed. A reduction in nutritional investment in a poor food year allows the
female to breed again the following summer if nutritional resources are more favorable (Ternent
2005).
Cubs are born helpless and hairless, typically in January while females are in the den. Cubs
weigh 10 to 16 ounces at birth but because of high fat contents in their mother’s milk, they grow
quickly (Ternent 2005). By the time the female and cubs exit the den (generally late April), the
cubs will weigh between five and nine pounds. By the end of their first summer, cubs typically
weigh 50 to 60 pounds. Cubs stay with their mother for about a year and a half, denning together
the winter after birth and separating in late May the following spring. Adult females typically
breed every other year.
Mortality
Black bears are relatively long lived, and disease and starvation contribute little to adult bear
mortality. Black bears in Michigan have few natural predators and are rarely killed by wolves in
3
the UP (DNR, unpublished data). Most recorded mortality in Michigan is from hunting or
vehicle collisions.
Intestinal parasites such as roundworms and tapeworms are common in bears but they rarely
interrupt digestion or affect nutrition (Quinn 1981). The tissue parasites Toxoplasma gondii and
Trichinella spiralis are found in black bears but are not thought to cause mortality (Schad et al.
1986, Briscoe et al. 1993, Dubey et al. 1995).
Bovine tuberculosis has been detected in bears in northeastern Lower Michigan, an area known
to have bovine tuberculosis (TB) in the white-tailed deer herd. From 1996-2003, 3.3% (7 of
214) of bears tested from this area were positive for bovine TB (O’Brien et al. 2006). Bears
likely contract this disease while feeding on carrion or deer gut piles left behind by hunters.
Bears which test positive for bovine TB do not show the physical signs (e.g., lesions in the lungs)
and bears likely serve only as a dead end host and not as a source of infection for other animals
or humans (O’Brien et al. 2006).
In Michigan, black bears have been known to live up to 28 years of age (DNR, unpublished
data). Annual survival for yearling and older bears in Michigan’s NLP was 78% and hunting
accounted for nearly 60% of annual mortalities (Etter et al. 2002). Overall cub survival for the
NLP was 75% and within the range reported by other studies (Kasbohm et al. 1996, DeBruyn
1997, McLaughlin 1998). However, cub survival varies annually and has been linked to the
availability of natural foods, particularly soft and hard mast (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, Rogers
1976, Young and Ruff 1982). Additionally, cub mortality occurs at a higher rate in a sow’s first
litter than in subsequent litters.
Human related mortality (e.g., hunting, vehicle collisions), is the primary source of mortality for
black bears in Michigan (Etter et al. 2002) and across North America (Bunnell and Tait 1981,
Schwartz and Franzmann 1992). Mortality rates for males are typically greater than females
(Hamilton 1978, Bunnell and Tait 1981, Hellgren and Vaughan 1989) and are associated with
greater vulnerability of males (particularly yearlings) to human and natural mortality factors
(Bunnell and Tait 1981, Rogers 1987a).
Motor vehicle-bear collisions account for fourteen percent of bear mortalities in the NLP (Etter
et al. 2002); the frequency of these events increases with increased bear density, human
populations, and traffic volume. However, other factors (e.g., habitat and natural food
availability) likely contribute to localized and seasonal variation in vehicle-bear collisions.
Habitat Requirements
Black bears are most frequently found in large, heavily forested areas. In Michigan, bears tend
to use a mixture of vegetation cover types including deciduous lowland forests and coniferous
swamps, mature and early successional upland forests, and some degree of forest openings
consisting of grasses and forbs. Diverse forests are prime habitat as they provide the variety of
cover and food sources which bears require to meet their seasonal needs.
Forested swamps and regenerating clear cuts provide much of the escape and resting cover bears
require. Mature upland forests provide hard mast (e.g., acorns, beechnuts, hickory nuts,
4
hazelnuts), while early successional forests provide soft mast (berries) and diverse herbaceous
ground flora. Forest openings are important for food resources such as emerging grasses,
herbaceous vegetation, insects, and soft mast.
As black bears continue to move into the SLP, it has become clear they can inhabit a highly
fragmented landscape, provided some forested areas exist, especially along riparian zones
(Carter 2007). Black bears are also becoming more common in suburban and exurban areas
throughout their range (McConnell 1997, Lyons 2004, Wolgast et al. 2005, Beckman and Lackey
2008). Some aspects of human activity contribute to suitability of these areas including
abundant food from row crops, orchards, apiaries, bird feeders, and human refuse.
Food Habits
Black bears are omnivorous and opportunistic feeders, using both plant and animal matter.
Approximately seventy-five percent of their diet consists of vegetation (Ternent 2005). In early
spring, bears frequent wetlands feeding on plants such as skunk cabbage, sedges, grasses, and
squawroot (Ternent 2005). Fruits and berries are important during summer and fall, including
blueberry, elderberry, blackberry, June berry, pokeberry, wild grapes, chokecherry, black cherry,
dogwood, and hawthorn. Hard mast from oaks, beech, hickory, and hazelnut become important
in the fall as bears accumulate significant fat reserves for the winter. Bears feed heavily in the
fall and can gain as much as 1 to 2 pounds per day. Bears are capable of doubling their body
weight between August and December when mast is abundant (VDGIF 2002). When fall foods
are scarce, bears tend to den earlier which can impact hunter harvest.
The majority of animal matter consumed by bears includes colonial insects and larvae such as
ants, bees, beetles, and other insects (Pelton 1992). However, bears are opportunistic feeders and
they are capable of preying on most small to medium sized animals including mice, squirrels,
woodchucks, beaver, amphibians, and reptiles. Under certain conditions bears may actively hunt
for newborn white-tailed deer fawns. In north-central Minnesota 86% of fawn deaths from birth
to 12 weeks of age were caused by predators and bears accounted for 29 to 36% of the kills
(Powell 2004). Bears in Pennsylvania accounted for 25% of fawn mortalities to 34 weeks of age
(Vreeland 2002). When available, bears also feed on carrion.
Human-related foods include agricultural crops (e.g. corn, apples, peaches, and cherries),
apiaries, bird feed, and garbage. Pet and some livestock foods are sometimes eaten by bears,
especially when readily available or in years when natural food supplies are poor.
Denning Behavior
Black bears enter a period of winter dormancy for up to six months as an adaptation to food
shortages and severe weather conditions. In Michigan, bears typically enter the den by
December and timing of denning varies annually depending on food availability. Pregnant
females tend to den first and adult males are the last to den. Den emergence typically occurs in
late March and April; adult males generally leave dens earlier than females, and females with
newborn cubs generally emerge latest (Rogers 1987a, O’Pezio et al. 1983).
Unlike true hibernators who have body temperatures that drop to near ambient conditions, black
bear body temperatures decrease only slightly to 31-36°C from a normal range of 37-38°C (Folk
5
et al. 1972 and 1976). Heart rates and metabolism decrease in the den and although they appear
lethargic, bears are easily awakened and capable of fleeing immediately if they feel threatened.
Bears do not eat, drink, or defecate during winter dormancy and basic protein and water needs
are partially met by recycling urea, while other adaptations such as shivering and nutrient
recycling reduce the loss of muscle tone and bone density (Ternent 2005).
Black bears use a variety of den locations and generally select sites that minimize heat loss and
allow conservation of energy. Dens may be excavated or constructed as ground nests. Bears
will also den in rocks cavities, root masses, standing trees, openings under fallen trees, and brush
piles. Dens are often lined with dead grass, leaves, and small twigs. Locations vary from year to
year; however, the occasional reuse of dens has been documented in Michigan.
Bears can lose up to 25-30% of their body weight during denning, and after emergence, bears
may continue to lose weight while searching for scarce early spring foods that tend to be low in
nutritional value (VDGIF 2002). Lactating females raising cubs may be stressed nutritionally
after leaving their dens
Home Range, Movements and Activity
Black bears shift activity patterns seasonally in response to the availability of food. The area that
a bear occupies seasonally or annually is referred to as its “home-range.” The size of home-
ranges typically varies by the sex and the age of the bear. The home-range size of a mature
female is influenced by whether or not she has cubs. Females with newborn cubs have smaller
home ranges that gradually increase as cubs mature (Ternent 2005). Annual male home ranges
are generally larger than females. In Michigan, mean annual home range size for males and
females were among the largest reported for the species (Etter et al. 2002). Females in the NLP
had an average home range size of about 50 square miles, and males had an average home range
size of about 335 square miles. Home ranges of female bears generally overlap, but overlap of
mature male home ranges is less common. The home range for a single adult male may
encompass several female home ranges. Young males disperse away from their natal home
range before establishing a new territory, whereas young females are less likely to disperse and
sometimes occupy areas that include portions of their mother’s home-range (Ternent 2005). In
the NLP, 32 percent of radio-collared yearling females dispersed from their natal home range
and 95 percent of radio-collared yearling males dispersed from their natal home-range (Etter et
al. 2002). Male bears dispersed an average of 14 miles in Pennsylvania (Alt 1977 and 1978).
Black bears are most active at dusk and dawn. Nocturnal activity is uncommon, but may occur if
bears are avoiding daytime disturbance by people (Ternent 2005). Black bears can travel long
distances to exploit concentrated food sources such as soft and hard mast, human refuse, and
agricultural crops (Garshelis and Pelton 1981, Rogers 1987b). Activity intensifies during the
breeding season and again in the late summer and fall when foraging increases.
Social Structure
Black bears are solitary animals with the exception of females accompanied by cubs or yearlings,
and during the breeding season when mature males and females can be seen together. Bears
establish and maintain a dominance hierarchy by using threatening gestures and sounds including
stamping feet, charging, huffing and chopping jaws (Rogers 1977). Fights among bears are
6
uncommon except by males during the breeding season when they are competing for females or
when females are protecting young (Ternent 2005). A communal rubbing tree where bears rub,
bite and claw is another of communication and these trees are assumed to be used as part of the
process of establishing a social structure within the population. Tree rubbing peaks during the
summer and multiple bears may mark the same tree (Ternent 2005).
Assessment of Bear Populations
The DNR estimates the long-term trend and size of bear populations to help understand bear
population dynamics, evaluate whether annual harvests achieve desired management objectives,
and to help make recommendations for annual harvest quotas to the Michigan Natural Resources
Commission (NRC). For the purpose of assessing bear populations, the State is divided into
three ecological regions or land types (Albert 1995). The regions include, Eastern Upper
Peninsula (EUP), Western Upper Peninsula (WUP), and NLP. The DNR uses a combination of
multiple population indices, population estimators, and population models to assess the bear
population on a regional and statewide basis. Primary sources of data used in population indices,
estimators and models are derived from a combination of information from the published
literature, field surveys, mandatory registration of harvested bears, and an annual mail survey of
bear hunters. Field surveys include historical radio-telemetry projects, bait station surveys, and
additional research projects found in DeBruyn (1997), Etter et al. (2002), Etter and Mayhew
(2008); Mayhew and Etter (2008); Visser (1993; 1995; 1996; 1997; and 1998) and Winterstein
and Scribner (2004).
Since 1982, all successful Michigan bear hunters have been required to register their bear at a
DNR registration station within 72 hours of the time of harvest. A bear patch was developed in
1985 to encourage hunters to register their bear and to make the carcass available for the
collection of biological data. Patches were given free to successful bear hunters who brought
their bears to registration stations until patches were discontinued in 2007 as a cost saving
measure by the DNR. Starting in 2008 patches will be available for a fee from Michigan Bear
Hunters Association (MBHA). Profits from the patch program will be donated by MBHA to the
DNR for use in bear and wildlife education efforts.
Registration information collected by the DNR includes the harvest location of the bear, date
harvested, and sex of the bear. A pre-molar tooth is extracted and used to age the bear by
counting cementum layers after the tooth is cross sectioned (Hildebrandt 1976, Willey 1974) and
the reproductive tracts of female bears have been collected periodically to assess reproductive
history. Knowing the age of bears harvested is essential for calculating several population
indices and helps in the development of population models. The pre-molar tooth provided by
successful hunters is also essential for estimating bear populations in the UP and NLP using
capture-recapture methods (described below).
Annual mail surveys of a randomly selected subset of bear license holders have been conducted
in most years since 1982 (Frawley 2008). The purpose of these surveys is to provide an estimate
of bear harvest and to collect additional data used in the calculation of several bear population
indices.
7
Bear Population Indices
The use of indices to monitor wildlife populations is a common wildlife management practice
(Lancia et al. 1996), and many agencies use a variety of indices for evaluating bear populations.
Bear population indices measure an attribute of the population and can be used independently to
monitor changes in population status. While indices do not estimate or enumerate the number of
bears in a population, they can be used to determine whether the population is increasing,
decreasing, or is stable over time. Indices determine population trends over multiple years and
are not reliable indicators of annual changes in population size unless a known relationship
between the index and the population is determined. The DNR considers the logistics of data
collection including cost, data reliability, and ability of the index to detect population change
when selecting an index. Use of multiple indices strengthens the assessment of population status
and the DNR uses several indices (described below) to monitor regional bear populations.
Hunter Harvest
In theory, mandatory registration provides a total count of the number of bears harvested
annually. Hunter compliance with mandatory registration is high based on comparisons between
registration results and mail survey estimates of the harvest (Frawley 2008). Changes in the
harvest from season to season are related to changes in the size of the bear population as well as
population-independent factors such as the availability of natural foods, weather, and hunter
experience.
Hunter Success and Hunter Effort
The responses of hunters to questions in the annual mail survey are used to estimate the number
of bears harvested, the days of “effort” required to harvest a bear, and overall success of hunters
in a region. When other factors are equal, trends in hunter effort and hunter success are believed
to reflect changes in the bear population. Hunter effort is inversely related to population size,
that is, as the population declines, the effort required to harvest an individual animal increases.
Hunter success is positively related to population size because as the population increases,
individual hunter success also increases.
Bait-station Surveys
Bait-station surveys have been used to monitor the status of Michigan’s bear populations since
the mid-1980s. Annual changes in visitation rates by bears to a baited area are used as an
indicator of changes in the bear population. Baits, usually bacon or sardines, are suspended from
a tree in a fashion that makes it difficult for animals other than a bear to access the bait. Baits are
spaced approximately one-half mile apart along roads and trails to reduce the chances of a single
bear taking multiple baits. Baits are checked after one week and the number of sites visited by
bears is determined to produce a visitation rate. Visitation rates are related to population size
because it is assumed that as the population decreases, fewer baits are visited by bears.
Harvest Age and Sex Distribution
Changes in the age distribution of harvested bears may reflect real changes in bear reproduction
and survival. If natural mortality and reproduction of a population are stable, a change in age
distribution over time towards a higher proportion of younger animals is thought be indicative of
8
an exploited population. Younger black bear populations can be less productive because most
female bears in Michigan are not sexually mature until 3 to 5 years of age.
Bear Population Estimators
Population estimators attempt to enumerate population size. Some population estimators allow
calculation of confidence intervals around a mean estimate, effectively providing a range of
estimates. Efforts are made to track and estimate populations at the regional level, but some of
the estimators lack sufficient data to produce separate estimates for the EUP and WUP. In those
cases all the UP data are combined to produce a single UP estimate.
Population Reconstruction
The bear population can be “reconstructed” by using known ages from individual bears.
Mandatory registration of all harvested bears and the cementum aging of bear teeth provide the
data necessary to reconstruct bear populations. However, population reconstruction from harvest
data provides only an estimate of the minimum population size in the relatively recent past (i.e.,
5 to 7 years ago) because bears can live to greater than 20 years of age. Additionally, hunting is
only one source of mortality for bears. An estimate of the total population can be obtained from
harvest data by dividing minimum estimates by a lifetime recovery rate (Roseberry and Woolf
1991) which for UP bears is less than fifty percent (Mayhew and Etter 2008).
UP Tetracycline Capture-Recapture Estimator
Since 1989, a tetracycline based capture-recapture survey has been used to estimate the size of
the UP bear population (Garshelis and Visser 1997, Mayhew and Etter 2008). Tetracycline is an
antibiotic that binds to calcium in bones and teeth, and fluoresces under ultraviolet light.
Tetracycline-laced baits are placed across the UP in the summer. Baits are suspended from a tree
in a fashion that makes it difficult for animals other than a bear to access the bait. A bear
becomes “captured” or “marked” when it consumes bait laced with tetracycline. By marking a
large number of bears using tetracycline-laced baits and later collecting and examining the teeth
from hunter-harvested bears (“recaptured”), an estimate of population size can be calculated.
Tetracycline-based population estimates have not been derived for Drummond Island (DI) or the
NLP. Tetracycline-based population estimation was attempted for these areas in the mid-1990s.
On DI, an insufficient sample of marked bears was obtained without risking “double-marking”
bears (i.e., bears that take greater then one tetracycline bait). Additionally, the low number of
bear harvested annually on DI reduces the probability of recaptures and influences the estimate.
An additional issue in the NLP was the inability to identify an unknown source of tetracycline in
some bears. This may have been the result of bears consuming honey or bees from apiaries
because bee keepers often use tetracycline to treat bees.
NLP Genetic Capture-Recapture Estimator
The same principles that are used for the tetracycline capture-recapture estimator also apply to
the NLP Genetic Capture-Recapture Estimator. The difference is that individual bears can be
“captured” or “marked” and later identified with genetic techniques using hair and tissue samples
(Dreher et al. 2007, Etter and Mayhew 2008). Bears are attracted with bait to a barbed wire
“snare” configured around three to four closely spaced trees. Bears deposit hair samples while
9
navigating through the barbed wire to access the bait. For several weeks during the summer, hair
snares are checked and samples collected. Deposited hair follicles, which contain DNA, are used
to identify individual bears from each sample period (one week). A final recapture event
includes collection of tissue samples (contained in teeth) from each bear harvested from the
NLP. This technique has advantages over the tetracycline capture-recapture technique because
individual bears can be identified using DNA, whereas the tetracycline technique does not allow
for identification of individual bears unless they are recaptured in the harvest. This difference
allows for the use of more sophisticated statistical models potentially increasing the accuracy and
precision of the bear population estimate. However, the genetic technique is much more labor
intensive and costly than the tetracycline technique, making it prohibitive to operate in the UP
where the bear population is considerably larger and many more bears are harvested annually.
Bear Population Model
Population models also attempt to describe the population based on past and present
demographic information including harvest data. The population model currently being used by
the DNR was developed in 1984 by the Minnesota DNR (Garshelis and Snow 1988), and was
subsequently upgraded by Minnesota and Wisconsin researchers. The model is a conceptually
simple accounting type model based on a variation of the equation:
N
t+1
= N
t
+ B
t
– D
t
where N
t
is the population size at time t, B
t
is the number of bears recruited to the population
through births, and D
t
is the number of deaths of bears alive at time t. In the model, immigration
(bears moving into the population from an outside source) and emigration (bears dispersing from
the population) are considered equal. The model is deterministic which means that each run with
the same inputs will produce identical results. There is no component of random variation and
therefore no confidence intervals are produced in the output. The necessary model inputs
include: 1) a starting and ending year, 2) a starting population size, 3) an initial sex and age
composition, 4) reproductive parameters (litter size, cub sex ratio, and percentage of females
producing cubs at each age), 5) natural and other human-caused mortality rates, and 6) harvest
mortality (actual number). All mortality parameters are sex and age specific. Input parameters
used to model the bear population are derived from population estimates from Michigan surveys,
information from the published literature, research conducted in Michigan, and data from the
annual bear harvest.
Current Population Status and Range in Michigan
Bear populations in Michigan have been steadily increasing since at least the 1990s (Figure 1).
An estimated 19,000 bears (including cubs) occupy approximately 35,000 square miles of
suitable bear habitat in the UP and NLP. Greater than eighty-five percent of the bear population
resides in the UP where large tracts of state, federal, and private commercial forest lands contain
good to excellent bear habitat. Bear populations in both Peninsulas are believed to be stable to
increasing, and an increasing number of bear observations in southern Michigan suggest that
bears are expanding from the NLP into the SLP.
10
Simulated Late Summer Model Estimates of the Number of
Bear (including cubs of the year) in Michigan, 1990-2007.
0
2100
4200
6300
8400
10500
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Estimated Number of Bear
Northern Lower Peninsula
Eastern Upper Peninsula
Western Upper Peninsula
Figure 1. Simulated late summer model estimates of the number of bear in Michigan, 1990-2007.
Black bears are relatively common north of a line from Muskegon to Saginaw. Bears are less
common and in some cases likely only seasonal transients in much of the area south of this line.
A simulated model of preferred bear habitat indicates that less than three percent of the
landscape in southern Michigan is suitable for black bears (Carter 2007). However, this model
was based on data collected from radio-collared bears that resided in the NLP and may not fully
describe the potential for bears to become established in southern Michigan. For example, bear
populations are expanding and growing rapidly in New Jersey, the most densely populated state
in the nation (McConnell 1997). Bears living on the fringes of suburbs in Southern California
have altered their foraging times to later at night when human activity is minimal (Lyons 2004).
Based on these references and an increasing number of bear observations, southern Michigan
may provide better bear habitat than predicted by the simulated model.
11
Harvest Management
Legal Authority
The DNR has a public trust responsibility for the management of all wildlife species and
populations. Primary legal authority for wildlife management and regulation comes from the
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Public Act 451 of 1994. Part 401 of
Public Act 451 gives authority to the NRC and the DNR Director to issue orders (the Wildlife
Conservation Order) specific to wildlife management and hunting.
In 1996, Michigan voters supported a hunting ballot initiative requiring the NRC to use
“principles of sound scientific management” in making decisions concerning the taking of bear
and other wildlife. This legislation also gave exclusive authority to the NRC over the method
and manner of take for game species. Following passage of the initiative, it was codified as
Section 40113a of Public Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, MCL 324.40113a.
A Brief History of Bear Hunting in Michigan
Sport hunting of black bears was first regulated in 1925 when the Michigan legislature declared
the species a game animal. Prior to 1925, bears could be taken at any time and by any means. In
1939, the legislature rescinded statewide bear regulations, but authorized the Conservation
Commission (now the NRC) to grant protection for bears in counties requesting it. Using bait
for bear hunting has always been legal in Michigan and hunting bears with dogs became legal in
1939. Cubs were first protected in 1948, and in 1952 the legislature empowered the NRC to
open or close bear hunting seasons as necessary, and to prescribe methods of take. Also in 1952,
bear trapping was outlawed except under special permit.
In general, bear hunting opportunities coincided with the firearm deer hunting season through
1952. The first and only spring bear season (April 1-May 31) was held in 1953. Early (August
15-September 15 in the UP, and October 1-November 5 in the LP) and late fall (November 15-
30) hunting seasons were established and continued through 1964. In 1965, bear hunting was
closed in the NLP due to concerns about a declining bear population and limited hunting
opportunities in the NLP resumed in 1969.
The first bear hunting stamp (license) was issued in 1959. However, only small game license
holders who were interested in hunting bear were required to affix the stamp to their license. The
stamps were issued through 1963. From 1959-1963, firearm deer license holders were not
required to possess a stamp to harvest a bear during the firearm deer season. During the 1964
and 1965 seasons, a separate bear license was required of all bear hunters. Again, between 1966
and 1979, firearm deer license holders were not required to possess a stamp to harvest a bear
during the firearm deer season. It was not until 1980 that a separate bear license was required.
In 1990, bear hunting was placed under a zone and quota system which is still in use today, and
during the same year it became illegal to take bear during the November firearm deer season.
12
When regulated, the bag limit has been one bear per year per person in Michigan. Beginning in
1995, it became unlawful to take a female bear accompanied by cubs. Hunters in Michigan
usually use bait, dogs or a combination of both to pursue bear (Frawley 2008).
Current Management Areas
Regions
To facilitate the management of bears, primary bear range in Michigan is broken into three
ecological regions; the Eastern Upper Peninsula (EUP), Western Upper Peninsula (WUP), and
Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). Drummond Island (DI) at the east end of the Upper Peninsula
is semi-isolated and a unique habitat for bears and thus is managed separate from the UP and
NLP. Population dynamics are assessed relative to the ecological characteristics of each distinct
ecoregion. Although populations of bears are not physically isolated by ecological boundaries
(i.e., there is not complete demographic closure among regions), differences in genetic
population structure are evident between the UP and NLP suggesting that movements of bears
between the two peninsulas are infrequent (Lopez 2004).
Bear Management Units
In 1990, a zone and quota system was established to regulate the bear harvest and limit the
number of bear hunters in specific areas. Ecological regions (EUP, WUP and NLP) are presently
divided into 11 zones called Bear Management Units (BMUs; see 2008 Michigan Bear Hunting
Guide). Bear Management Units are designed to help distribute hunters and thus the bear harvest
throughout the entire ecological unit, rather than allowing hunters to target animals only in
optimal habitats. Some BMUs have only one time period when hunting is allowed, while others
have several, sometimes overlapping, hunt periods. By distributing hunters throughout the
ecological region, BMUs also help to assure that biological information obtained from harvested
bears is representative of the entire region’s population. Boundaries of BMUs typically are
established as clearly recognizable roads, rivers or county lines for the benefit of hunters and to
assist with law enforcement.
Quota System for Distributing Bear Hunting Licenses
Because of increasing demand for bear hunting opportunities, in 1990, a quota system was
established to limit the number of bear hunters and to better influence the distribution and
density of hunters in the different BMUs. Under the quota system, the number of hunters
participating in each unit and hunt period is limited by the number of licenses issued to achieve a
desired bear harvest but still maintain a high level of recreational opportunity. Under this
system, beginning in 2000, individuals that apply for a bear license receive a preference point
each year that they apply for a bear license but are unsuccessful at drawing a license. In the
drawing, applicants with the greatest number of points in each BMU and hunt period are issued
licenses first. Applicants may opt to receive a preference point only, and bank the point for
future drawings. Beginning in 2007, applicants could indicate a second choice hunt which is
considered if all licenses for the first choice hunt are awarded. The second choice hunt was
established to provide additional hunting opportunities and meet the desired harvest levels.
Black bear populations have increased over the years (Figure 1), leading to more hunting
opportunity and increased license availability. However, during the same period, there has also
13
been an increase in the number of bear hunters (Frawley 2008). This has lead to increased
competition for licenses in some BMUs. Odds of drawing a license are specific to each BMU
and hunt period. The number of hunters applying for licenses increased most years from 1990 to
2004, but has been relatively stable for the last four years.
Because approximately 85 percent of Michigan’s black bears are in the UP, there are also more
bear hunting opportunities in the UP. Over 80 percent (approximately 10,000) of the 12,000
possible licenses were available in the UP in 2007 and similar opportunities are available in
2008.
Current Bear Hunting Periods
The timing and length of bear hunting seasons varies throughout the state in order to achieve
desired harvest levels, while at the same time providing ample recreational hunting opportunities.
Additionally, the number of hunters who desire to hunt in a particular region also varies. In
general, bear hunter demand is highest in BMUs with a combination of high bear densities and
close proximity to higher human populations. Currently, bear hunting seasons occur in mid-
September in the NLP and from September 10 through October 26 in the UP. There is also an
archery-only season in early October in the Red Oak BMU in the NLP. The season in the UP is
arranged in three overlapping hunt periods. The first hunt period has a five day quiet period
from September 10-14 during which dogs may not be used.
These seasons were determined over time using a combination of biological and social factors.
Hunting success, particularly for hunters not using dogs, is most closely tied to periods of natural
food availability. When there is an abundance of natural food, hunting success tends to decrease
(MacDonald 1994). Prior to mid-September, both soft and hard mast is available in abundance,
suggesting that in most years hunting success would be relatively low during this time. A second
consideration is the effect of weather, both on bear movement patterns and the resulting hunter
success levels. Meat care may also be an issue in some areas. Higher temperatures, particularly
in inland areas and earlier hunt periods, may result in meat spoilage.
Land Ownership
Black bears are generally forest animals and forested cover types and land management practices
within these cover types can impact available habitat for bears. Michigan has nearly 19 million
acres of forest land, and approximately 65% is privately owned. The DNR manages
approximately 3.9 million acres of forest land scattered across the UP and NLP. Slightly more
than half (51.6%) of DNR owned forest land is located in the NLP eco-region. The EUP and
WUP eco-regions contain 26.5% and 21.9% of forested cover types, respectively (Michigan
State Forest Management Plan 2008). Approximately 35,000 square miles of suitable bear
habitat is located in the UP and NLP (Bostick et al. 2005).
Ownership patterns provide unique challenges for bear management. In general, public lands
consist of good bear habitat (mostly forested); whereas private lands vary in the quality of habitat
they provide. Individual bears have large home-ranges and seasonal movements of ten to twenty
miles are common for black bears. Mature males in Michigan have been known to move even
greater distances during the breeding season. As bears move across the landscape they cross
14
multiple jurisdictional boundaries and private land parcels. Land uses and management practices
vary widely across bear range, particularly on private lands. Because of these various uses and
practices, bears may be in conflict with some private land owners while others may want to
attract bears to their property for viewing or hunting opportunities. Additionally, access to
private lands to hunt bears is also limited by the property owner which can influence bear harvest
in different areas of the state. In the UP, approximately 40 percent of lands are in public trust
(state and federal lands), 20 percent are in private ownership, but open to the public through the
Commercial Forestlands Act, and the remaining 40 percent are in private ownership. In the NLP
(Zone 2; see 2008 Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide), approximately 31 percent of lands
are in public trust, less than 1 percent are in CFA agreement, and 68 percent are in private
ownership. In the SLP (Zone 1, see 2008 Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide) less than 5
percent of lands is in public trust, with the remainder in private ownership.
Population Goals
Wildlife managers often develop goals for wildlife species whose numbers can be influenced
through management actions. Population goals can be important targets sometimes established
as a function of the biological and social carrying capacity (see below). If population goals are
established, factors such as a species’ life history, available habitat, land use and ownership
patterns, habitat management plans, wildlife-human interactions, and social tolerance must be
considered. Natural resources decision makers can use established population goals to direct
management policies and impact resource allocation for wildlife species.
There are two different types of population goals that can be developed for black bear
populations: qualitative goals and quantitative goals. Qualitative goals are based on the social
desires for a particular abundance of bears in an area. The actual population does not need to be
enumerated, but rather stated as “not enough,” “too many,” or “just the right amount” of bears
relative to a desired social attribute. From a management standpoint, biologists can state desired
population goals as increase, decrease, or maintain the bear population relative to current levels.
Qualitative goals can also be stated relative to quantitative measures. For example, there may be
a social desire to maintain a certain level of bear hunter satisfaction, or minimize bear-nuisance
complaints. Both of these “indices” can be measured quantitatively, but they still reflect a social
desire relative to attitudes towards bears. Qualitative goals also can be measured against
enumerated population levels if the bear population can be estimated accurately. However, this
approach should be viewed with caution because accurate estimates of wildlife populations are
difficult and expensive to obtain, and social attitudes towards wildlife change frequently due to
factors that may or may not be related directly the relative abundance of a species.
Quantitative population goals attempt to identify a desired population size or a numeric range
within which the population is considered to be at the desired goal. Black bear management
plans that establish quantitative population goals require more intensive data collection and
analysis compared to those using qualitative goals. Population size estimates are generated from
data sets that often require intensive field collection efforts. Staff time and available funding can
be constraints to conducting this level of data collection. Although more data intensive, numeric
population goals and their requisite population size estimates can offer an advantage over
qualitative goals by determining the degree to which a population is over or under goal.
15
Regardless of the type of goal used, it is important that population goals be adaptive to changes
in the landscape, relative abundance of bears, number of hunters, and social attitudes. Presently,
the DNR uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative goals to manage the state’s bear
population.
Management Strategies
Public Act 451 requires that the DNR use sound science when making bear management
decisions. Scientific information is obtained from research, in-state surveys, and published
literature. Social issues associated with bear-human interactions (both positive and negative) are
also important factors that must be considered when making decisions regarding the harvest of
bears in Michigan. Qualitative social information is obtained from discussions with tribal
governments, stakeholders, DNR field staff, and other agency staff. Quantitative social
information is obtained from surveys such as the annual “Michigan Black Bear Hunter Survey”,
which asks questions pertaining to specific management options or objectives. Additional
quantitative social information, not necessarily associated with hunting, is also obtained through
surveys (e.g., Peyton et al. 2001).
Scientific management incorporates the concept of adaptive resource management, an iterative
process by which changes in management actions (e.g., hunting regulations, or educational
efforts) are evaluated to determine if these changes achieve management goals. Management
efforts over time are modified as new information is obtained, new analyses are conducted, or
factors that influence bear ecology change.
The current bear management program includes research to help understand the ecology of bear
and social acceptance capacity of Michigan’s residents. In addition, the DNR provides
information to the public about bears and technical assistance to landowners with unwelcome
bear encounters. Sport hunting has the capacity to influence abundance of black bears, provides
recreational opportunities, and is an important tool used to manage the size of Michigan’s bear
population.
The mission of the Department’s black bear management program is to maintain a healthy black
bear population that provides a balance of recreational opportunities for residents while at the
same time minimizes conflicts with humans. To fulfill this mission, the DNR has established six
strategic bear management goals focusing on populations, recreational opportunity, and
education.
Population
1) Maintain long-term, viable populations of bear within habitats suitable for the species.
2) Maintain bear populations at levels compatible with land use, recreational opportunities, and
the public’s acceptance capacity for bears.
3) Manage black bear habitat to provide for the long-term viability of the species.
16
4) Use hunting as the primary tool to help achieve population goals.
Recreation
5) In addition to hunting, provide bear-related recreational opportunities which recognize the
aesthetic value of bears.
Education
6) Promote education about bears, bear-related recreational activities, and how to minimize
negative human-bear interactions.
Regulatory Process
Establishment of Bear Harvest Objectives and License Quotas
Each year, population estimators, indices, and models are updated by the state bear specialist and
research biologist. This information is forwarded to members of the Bear Management
Workgroup, Management Unit Supervisors (MUS), tribal governments in the 1836 ceded
territories, and other interested agencies. Workgroup members and the supervisors meet with the
wildlife habitat biologists in their respective areas to assess the status of local bear populations
and determine harvest levels necessary to manage populations at desired levels. They also
discuss any issues relevant to bear management that would require changes to regulations.
Government-to-government consultations with the 1836 Treaty Tribes are conducted to discuss
harvest quotas and any proposed regulations changes. Additional meetings with US Forest
Service or other agency biologists may occur to discuss management issues of particular interest
to these groups. Further, the DNR receives feedback and information on bears and bear
management on a continual basis from user groups interested in bears, from agricultural groups,
and from the general public. Perceived or measured social tolerance (which varies
geographically) is given strong consideration when making harvest recommendations. After
taking all of the available biological and social information into consideration, and weighting the
factors appropriately for their management unit, MUSs forward to the field coordinator and
statewide bear specialist their regional population trajectory recommendations (e.g., increase,
decrease, or stabilize the regional population) and any other proposed changes to bear hunting
regulations. The bear specialist reviews these recommendations in the context of statewide
issues and needs. Any conflicts are moved to the species section supervisor and field coordinator
for resolution.
The regional (EUP, WUP or NLP) bear population model is used to determine the level of
harvest required to achieve these goals. This harvest level is termed the “desired harvest” and is
represented by the number of bears in a region that would have to be harvested during the
hunting season in order to allow the population to reach the population trajectory goal.
Once the desired harvest levels for each region have been established, the MUSs distribute the
proposed regional harvest among BMUs within that region. In the UP where there are three hunt
periods, the desired harvest is first distributed equally among hunt periods and then the number
17
of licenses is calculated to achieve this harvest in each period. The number of licenses (quota)
that will be recommended for each BMU and hunt period is determined using a three-year
running average of license success (bears harvested/number of licenses issued) by hunt period
for each respective BMU. If past license application rates do not appear to be high enough to
achieve the desired harvest in a given hunt period, the harvest is adjusted into other hunt periods
to try to maintain the overall desired harvest and have no leftover licenses. Applicants may
select a first and second hunt choice. If any licenses remain after first and second hunt choices
are awarded, leftover licenses become available to unsuccessful applicants for a week and then
become available to individuals that have not applied for a bear license.
Once these recommendations have been reviewed and approved by all of the DNR Resource
Bureau Division Chiefs and the Director, they are forwarded to the NRC for consideration.
Natural Resources Commission Process
The NRC has an established process for review and approval of all Wildlife Conservation Order
amendments. While a 60-day public review is built into that process, 30 days of public review
are required by Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994.
1) The process begins on the Monday following the regularly scheduled monthly NRC
meeting when the Department submits a memo outlining the recommendations to the
NRC. This action puts the recommendations on the NRC calendar for the following
month and opens a public review period.
2) At the following month’s NRC meeting, the Department typically makes a presentation
“for information” on the recommendations, and questions from the NRC are addressed.
At this time the public has an opportunity to speak before the NRC to voice their
concerns, support, or opposition to the recommendations. The NRC does not take action
to approve the recommendations at this meeting.
3) At the subsequent NRC meeting (approximately 60 days after the recommendation memo
was submitted), the NRC typically takes action on the recommendations. There is
another opportunity for the public to voice their concerns, support, or opposition to the
recommendations. At the end of the meeting, most often the NRC votes on the
recommendations, yet can defer the decision to a later meeting following additional
public comment. If approved, the recommendations become part of the Wildlife
Conservation Order and the Department can take actions to ensure the approved
recommendations are implemented.
Economic Impacts
There are a variety of economic impacts of having bears in Michigan. One economic benefit is
from bear hunting. For example, in Michigan during 1998, an estimated 7,196 hunters spent an
average of 474 dollars per bear hunt, for an estimated total of $3.4 million (Etter et al. 2002).
Baiting and hunting bears with dogs lend themselves to outfitting, and a significant bear
outfitting industry has developed in some areas.
18
Wildlife viewing also contributes to the economy of Michigan. While it is difficult to assess
what portion of wildlife viewing funds are generated due to bears specifically, bears are a
popular, large animal that visitors often seek to encounter. United States Forest Service surveys
indicate that National Forest visitors rank seeing a bear high on their list of desired activities
when recreating in the National Forest system. Over three million people participate in wildlife
viewing annually in Michigan and Michigan ranks sixth in the nation in dollars contributed
($2.68 million) to the economy from wildlife viewing activities (Leonard 2008).
Bears can also cause negative economic impacts. Bears visit apiaries, orchards, row crops,
individual residences and cottages in search of food. Although economic cost estimates are not
available for bear damage on a statewide basis, bears can cause considerable damage. An
individual bear can cause significant damage to bee hives and one bee keeper reported bear
damage costs of $24,000 in a single year (DNR unpublished). Fruit growers and bee keepers
incur costs to erect electric fences and other deterrents to protect their crops from bear damage.
Damage can also occur within privately-owned cervid facilities, when bears consume deer feed
and prey on fawns.
Bear-Human Interactions
Biological and Social Carrying Capacity
The abundance and distribution of black bears in Michigan is influenced by biological carrying
capacity (BCC) and social carrying capacity (SCC). The concept of BCC proposes the
abundance of any wildlife species is limited by the ability of the available habitat to support the
population. The concept of SCC proposes the abundance of a wildlife species is limited by the
human social environment or human tolerance for that wildlife species.
Biological carrying capacity is determined by habitat components such as food, water, shelter
and space, and addresses the maximum population size that can be sustained under varying
availability of these factors. It can be influenced by bear social behavior which is influenced by
bear density. If a population is at BCC, bear productivity may be limited because of later ages of
first reproduction, longer intervals between litters, smaller litter sizes, decreased cub and yearling
survival rates, and greater social conflict. The high productivity and low natural mortality rates
observed in Michigan suggest that the bear populations are below BCC.
While BCC only addresses the maximum population that can be sustained by the available
habitat, SCC is defined by both the maximum and minimum population sizes that society will
tolerate. Issues and conflicts occur when stakeholders disagree on acceptable levels of bear-
human interactions. Bear management often focuses on managing issues created by bear-human
interactions and dealing with the differences in stakeholder values, beliefs, and tolerances
regarding those interactions.
Bear-human interactions can be positive or negative. Positive interactions may include knowing
bears are present in an area, observing bears, and bear hunting. Negative interactions may
include bears causing property damage and people fearful of bears for a variety of reasons. Both
positive and negative interactions are important to stakeholders and influence their tolerances
19
and preferences for bear abundance. Social carrying capacity is determined more by the type of
interactions people have with bears than bear population size per se.
A SCC model was developed in the Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan in 2000 by Michigan
State University and the DNR (Peyton et al. 2001). As part of the study, surveys were sent to
6,000 LP residents. Four zones from north to south were identified based on the approximate
density of bears, and mailings were stratified accordingly. Results of the study indicated that 10
percent of the respondents were intolerant of the presence of bears, while 60 percent indicated
they would only become intolerant if they perceived a personal threat by a bear. A greater
proportion of respondents in the most southern stratum were intolerant of the presence of bears
and this proportion decreased in the northern strata. Over 60 percent of the respondents
indicated the existence value of bears was an important benefit, and “the role bears play in
nature” and recreational viewing also were considered important. Recreational hunting was not
seen as a personal benefit by a majority of the respondents.
For addressing problem bears, the most accepted management option was to “leave the bear
alone, provided no one was injured.” The next preferred options were “a carefully regulated
hunt,” and then “capture bears which repeatedly cause problems for people and relocate them to
another part of the LP.” The option to “destroy bears which repeatedly cause problems for
people” was the least favored.
Respondents desired a clear policy and guidelines for managing nuisance bears. They desired
agency employees with training and equipment to implement the policy, and good
communication with the agency concerning the policy and rational. Since completion of this
study, the DNR has developed the Michigan Problem Bear Management Guidelines and
annually conducts training of personnel in the safe capture and handling of bears. A Living With
Bears slide presentation has been created and presented to a number of interested stakeholder
groups. Additional public education materials have been developed and shared with the public,
including a Preventing Bear Problems section on the DNR website at www.michigan.gov/dnr.
Bear-Human Encounters
Black bears are shy, elusive animals, usually flee when encountered, and are generally not a
threat to humans. However, bears are large and powerful animals that have been known to injure
and even kill humans if they feel threatened. Fatal human encounters are rare; from 1900
through the summer of 2005, 57 people in North America have been killed by black bears, while
it is estimated that millions of interactions between people and bears occur annually (Masterson
2006).
Based on reported bear observations in recent years, it is assumed that bears will continue to
expand their range southward into more populated areas of Michigan. At the same time,
residents from urban areas have continued to move into areas traditionally occupied by bears to
the north. These shifts in human and bear demographics suggest that bear-human interactions
are likely to become more common.
20
Baiting and Supplemental Feeding
Black bear hunting is an established tradition in Michigan, and has strong statewide support
among hunting groups. The majority of Michigan bear hunters use bait to attract bears and
improve harvest opportunities. Over 90% of Michigan bear hunters either hunt directly over a
baited site, or use bait to attract bears to a specific site so that they can be hunted with dogs
(Frawley 2008).
Some individuals or special interest groups contend that baiting bears for hunting habituates
bears to human foods and thus increases the likelihood that individual bears will become a
nuisance. However, others contend that bear that visit baits placed by hunters are less likely to
survive or have negative associations with humans (hunters) at bait sites and are thus less likely
to become a nuisance. Neither of these hypotheses have been tested, so it uncertain whether
either is true.
Supplemental feeding of wildlife involves the deliberate placement of foods for the purpose of
enhancing viewing opportunities or augmenting naturally occurring food resources.
Supplemental feeding is not advised by the DNR because of the potential for habituating bears
and making them more likely to become involved with negative bear-human interactions.
Recreational Viewing
Historically, some northern Michigan restaurants and towns maintained open garbage dumps as
feeding sites for the purpose of attracting and viewing bears. Today this practice has been
discontinued in most areas because of improved sanitary requirements meant to protect people
and wildlife. Many Michigan residents and visitors still desire to see black bears in the wild, or
have the opportunity to photograph one. However, recreational viewing of a species that exists
at low relative density is likely to remain a function of local bear abundance, seasonal habitat
quality, time spent afield, and random chance. The best viewing times would coincide with
prime bear activity times of dawn and dusk. Black bears are naturally reclusive animals that tend
to prefer habitats with thick vegetative cover; most bear observations are likely to remain a rare
event.
Orphaned Cubs
Female bears rarely abandon their cubs, but if unexpected sow mortality or persistent site
disturbance (especially den sites) occurs, cubs are sometimes orphaned in the wild. Depending
on the time of year when cubs are orphaned, the chances for their survival are very low. Because
this is a very rare event, the population level implications are minimal. However, popular public
opinion is that the DNR should respond to instances regarding orphaned cubs and make efforts to
return cubs to the wild. The DNR maintains a small number of radio-collared female bears to act
as foster mothers for orphaned cubs. If cubs are orphaned soon after their birth in the winter den,
in many instances they can be successfully added to the existing liters of nursing, radio-collared
sows. After den emergence, female black bears will sometimes accept a foster cub if the
orphan’s scent can be masked and it is placed in the same setting with the sow’s own cubs. In
rare instances if placement with a surrogate mother is not possible, orphaned cubs can be held
21
and cared for by a trained wildlife rehabilitator. After July 1, cubs are considered old enough to
survive on their own and cubs obtained after that date are released to the wild. Zoos or
accredited wildlife facilities are sometimes used as a permanent home for orphaned cubs when
other options are not available.
Bear-vehicle accidents
Most recorded bear mortality in Michigan is from hunting or bear-vehicle collisions. However,
unlike deer-vehicle collisions, the Michigan State Police does not maintain an official database to
track bear accidents. In some areas where bear-vehicle accidents are common, caution signs
similar to deer crossing signs have been placed to alert motorists of the potential for bear
crossings. As the bear population expands into areas of the state with higher human densities,
the possibility of bear-vehicle accidents increases not just in the traditional northern bear range,
but statewide. In the last five years, bear-vehicle accidents have been reported in a number of
southern Michigan counties including Barry, Kent, Genesee, and Muskegon. A mechanism to
gather bear-vehicle accident information has not been established, nor have protocols been
developed to recover bear carcasses resulting from vehicle collisions.
Problem Bear Protocols
The issue of nuisance or problem bear management is complicated, and involves human
behaviors and perceptions, as well as bear behavior. There is a wide range of public opinions as
to what constitutes a bear problem, or a problem bear. To some, the mere presence of a bear is a
perceived problem, while others may enjoy seeing bears on a regular basis. Publications such as
Preventing Bear Problems in Michigan provide useful and proactive suggestions to minimize the
chance of negative bear-human interactions and people can often solve their own bear concerns
before they become a nuisance. However, when bear incidents do occur, the DNR response
follows steps outlined in the Michigan Problem Bear Management Guidelines. Responses range
from providing technical assistance to landowners, to physically removing a bear, to euthanizing
individual bears when public safety is threatened. The information in this guidance document is
part of an educational effort that integrates personnel from DNR Law Enforcement, Wildlife, and
Office of Lands and Facilities staff, as well as local law enforcement agencies and emergency
dispatchers, and in some unique cases, zoos or accredited rehabilitation facilities.
Additional Bear Hunting Issues
Hunter Conflicts
Conflicts sometimes arise between bear hunters and other outdoor users in part due to limited
opportunities to hunt bears and because bear season(s) coincide with a time of increased outdoor
recreation (e.g., other hunting seasons, wildlife viewing). Historically, bear hunters in Michigan
have been permitted to use bait and/or dogs to hunt bears. Both methods are effective,
particularly in rugged areas of Michigan with limited access. Greater than ninety percent of
Michigan bear hunters use bait to attract bears (Frawley 2008). Approximately twelve percent of
hunters use dogs or a combination of dogs and bait.
22
Bear hunters are permitted to establish no more than three bait stations per hunter. Baits cannot
be placed for bears prior to August 10 in the UP or prior to 30-days before the opening of bear
season in the LP (August 19 in 2008). It is unlawful to use man-made materials or a container at
a bait site on public or commercial forest lands (CFL) however, these materials are legal on
private land. One issue related to baiting for bears is that some individuals assume “territorial
ownership” of public lands and they attempt to exclude all other hunters (including hunters of
game species other than bear) from the area they are baiting. Additionally, although bait
containers are illegal on public land some hunters use and leave them when their hunt is done.
Removing this refuse is then at the expense of the land owner (e.g., DNR, USFS, CFL owner).
Complaints about disturbance of bear bait hunters by other outdoor recreationists is also
common, particularly in the NLP where bear season does not open until after many of the small
game (e.g., grouse, rabbit, hare) hunting seasons open. There are additional special deer hunting
seasons open during the bear hunting season in portions of the NLP and these overlapping
seasons also have potential to cause conflicts among hunters.
Bear hunters may pursue bears with dogs except during certain times of year and during certain
periods of the open bear hunting season. These periods of no bear dog activity are commonly
referred to as “quiet periods”. Most bear hunters who use dogs will train their dogs during the
summer before bear hunting season begins. In order to protect nesting birds and young wildlife
during the time of year in which they are most vulnerable, a quiet period was established
between April 15 and July 15; no hunting dogs (includes all hunting dogs) may be trained on
game between those dates except on specially designated state lands or unless the dog handler
receives a permit from the DNR to conduct a special dog hunting field trial. Under current
regulations in the UP, hunters may not pursue bears using dogs the first five days of the first hunt
period. This quiet period was put in place to reduce potential conflicts between hunters using
bait and hunters using dogs. However, in the NLP both methods are permitted simultaneously
throughout the general one-week bear hunting season. Dogs are not permitted for hunting bear
in the Red Oak BMU during the archery-only season (October 5 to 11 in 2008).
Conflicts between bear bait and dog hunters sometimes occur on public lands. Hunters using
bait sometimes complain that dogs chase bears off of their baits, while dog hunters claim that
other factors, not their dogs, are the reason for decreased bear activity at an individual bait site.
Controversies have also occurred between private landowners and dog hunters. Bears have large
home ranges and can potentially cross multiple parcels of land (in both private and public
ownership) while being chased by dogs. This can lead to conflicts between bear dog hunters and
private land owners who do not want dogs or hunters on their property.
Another issue arises when some dog hunters alter road conditions to facilitate locating fresh bear
tracks. Dog hunters will sometimes drag a chain link fence or other object down a dirt road or on
the shoulder of a paved road to scarify the soil. They return at a later time to locate fresh bear
tracks from which they can start a bear chase with their dogs.
Standardization of Bear Hunting Regulations
In recent years, constituents have proposed regulation changes that vary but fall under the
general category of standardization of bear hunting regulations. These changes typically center
23
on the concept of having similar start dates and seasons including a bait-only season or portion of
a season in the NLP as exists in the UP. Current season structures vary significantly between the
UP and the NLP (see 2008 Michigan Bear Hunting Guide). The ability to achieve desired bear
harvest levels in the two Peninsulas, with very different season structures, is a complex interplay
of many factors including, overall bear density and distribution, land ownership patterns,
available bear habitat, hunter access, and hunter success. Based on the harvest location of bears
reported by hunters, distribution of bears in the UP is relatively uniform with the exception of
around human population centers (e.g., Marquette, Sault Ste. Marie, Escanaba). In the NLP, bear
harvest centers around three core areas, the Luther-Mitchell Swamp in Lake and Newaygo
Counties, the Dead Stream Swamp in northeast Missaukee County, and an area in the northeast
NLP around the intersection of Montmorency, Alpena, Oscoda, and Alcona Counties (also
commonly referred to as “Club Country”). Bear harvest intensity is likely an index to bear
density and distribution. Bear hunter success varies by BMU and hunt periods in the UP
(Frawley 2006, 2007 and 2008). However, in most years overall hunter success is only slightly
higher (1 to 5 percent) in the UP compared to the NLP. Additionally, the number of days (effort)
spent by hunters pursuing bears can influences bear hunter success and harvest. From 1996-
2007, the average number of days spent by hunters pursuing bears was greater in the UP (7-8
days) compared to the NLP (5 days). However, the number of days each hunter can possibly
hunt for a bear in a given season in the UP is 32 to 42 days compared to 7 to 14 days in the NLP.
These discrepancies are likely due in part to the interplay of the factors listed about as well as
economic (e.g., influence of fuel prices) and social factors (e.g., proximity to human population
centers) which are difficult to measure.
As an example of how standardization of UP and NLP bear seasons could potentially influence
bear hunter recreational opportunities, in 2008 the NRC approved a significant season change on
Drummond Island (DI) from a 7-day season with no quiet period to a 42-day season with a 5-day
quiet period (i.e., identical to the first hunt period in the remaining UP BMUs). Because of the
anticipated increase in bear harvest success rates on DI, the number of available licenses
recommended by the DNR to the NRC was reduced from 15 for a 7-day season to 8 for a 42-day
season. We are awaiting harvest results from 2008 to evaluate this change in regulations on DI.
However, if additional days were added to lengthen the bear season in the LP, it is likely that
license quotas would need to be reduced in some or all NLP BMUs to maintain current desired
bear harvest levels.
BMU Boundaries
The primary function of BMUs is to distribute hunters and thus hunting effort to achieve desired
regional bear harvest objectives. Bears are not evenly distributed across the landscape and the
majority of bear hunters hunt bears where they perceive the population to be at highest density
(Frawley 2008). There are alternative views to present BMU boundaries with respect to bear
distribution and distributing hunter harvest. Some hunters request that the size of BMUs be
reduced to address perceived localized bear density. Others contend that BMU boundaries
should be representative of bear ecology and natural landscape features as opposed to the desires
of hunters.
24
Recommendations regarding the establishment or expansion of BMUs must take into account
land ownership, the landscape or eco-region, bear home-range size, the ability to collect
meaningful population level data, and clearly defined boundaries for easy identification by
hunters, biologists and law enforcement personnel. Potential future expansion or creation of new
BMUs in southern Michigan (areas presently closed to bear hunting) may also need to consider
hunting methods or season dates to affect a desired bear harvest in a landscape dominated by
private ownership.
Baiting/Disease Issues
Baiting for bear is defined as, “a site where food or lure is placed that attracts bear.” Bear baits
may include meat and meat products, fish and fish products, and bakery/confectionery products
(see 2008 Michigan Bear Hunting Guide for a list of products) without quantity restrictions in
both peninsulas. Additionally, prior to October 1 in the UP, baits may include up to 2 gallons of
grains, fruits, vegetables, salt and minerals per bait station provided these materials are made
inaccessible to deer. After October 1 these items may be used, accessible to deer, provided
hunters abide by deer baiting regulations (quantity and distribution of bait). Grains, fruits,
vegetables, salt and minerals are no longer permitted for baiting bears in the LP because since
the discovery of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in a deer in the LP. This discrepancy in legal
materials for baiting between the UP and NLP may cause confusion among bear hunters using
bait.
In the past, there have been some concerns expressed to the DNR regarding the possibility of
poisoning of wildlife with chocolate at baits established for bears. Theobromine or Chocolate
poisoning has been observed in Michigan in the past, occurring in raccoons in 2002 and 2005.
These poisonings occurred at bear bait sites in Alpena, Otsego, and Dickinson counties and in all
cases involved finding multiple dead raccoons on the bait sites. It may be possible for a bear to
be poisoned by chocolate, but due to the size of the animal and the amount of chocolate that
would need to be consumed, mortalities have not been observed and would not be likely. This
and additional future disease issues may require further changes to bear baiting regulations in
Michigan.
Bear Participation/No Kill Tag License
In the late 1980’s, a concern was voiced by Michigan bear hunters regarding group hunting for
bears by non-resident hunters using dogs. In 1989, an Opinion of the Attorney General clarified
that “A person shall not hunt bear without a bear license,” and further “hunt and hunters means
the pursuing, capturing, shooting, killing, or taking of wild animals, and including attempting to
take a wild animal.” The Attorney General concluded that all persons engaged in hunting—or
pursuing—bear must possess a bear hunting license. This opinion also concluded “that any
person who pursues a bear with dogs must have a valid bear hunting license …, regardless of
whether the individual is carrying a firearm, and regardless of whether the person intends to kill
the bear or is merely engaged in the training of dogs.” Based on this Opinion of the Attorney
General, a valid license is required to actively participate in “pursuing” bears with dogs during
the open season. For hunters not in possession of a valid kill tag, this license became known as a
“participation license.” In 2008 the reference to “participation license” was dropped and the
25
license is now known as a “No Kill Tag Bear License.” Currently, hunters pursuing bear are
required to possess a no kill tag bear license or a bear license with a kill tag. This is a statutory
requirement in Public Act 451 of 1994 and is not within the authority of the NRC.
Guides
Some bear hunters hire a bear hunting guide. Hunters typically have an expectation that, for a
fee or compensation provided to the guide, they will experience a quality hunt with an
opportunity to harvest a bear. Guides can assist bear hunters in a number of ways including
scouting for bear sign, finding a hunting location, providing dogs and setting and maintaining
baits. Often, guides are hired by bear hunters that live outside of their hunt area, are unfamiliar
with the hunt location, or are not able to scout and set up a bait site in preparation for the hunt.
Guides must follow all applicable bear hunting regulations. However, although individual bear
hunters are permitted to establish no more that three bait stations per hunter, an authorized
representative (i.e., bear guide) can maintain multiple baits for multiple hunters without limit.
For example, an authorized representative for ten hunters could establish and maintain thirty total
baits. The issue of “territoriality over bait sites” has the potential to be further magnified by
commercial bear guides who may represent multiple clients and whose source of income is in
part dependent on providing an undisturbed, quality hunting experience, often on public land.
Similar issues may also arise for bear guides using dogs.
26
Literature Cited
Albert, D. A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a
working map and classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North
Central Forest Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
250 pp.
Alt, G.L. 1977. Home range, annual activity patterns, and movements of black bears in
northeastern Pennsylvania. M.S. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania. 67pp.
Alt, G.L. 1978. Dispersal patterns of black bear in northeastern Pennsylvania: a preliminary report.
Proceedings of the Eastern Black Bear Workshop on Bear Management and Research
4:186-199.
Alt, G.L. 1980. Rate of growth and size of Pennsylvania black bears. Pennsylvania Game News
51(12):7-17.
Alt, G.L. 1982. Reproductive biology of Pennsylvania black bears. Pennsylvania Game News
53(2):9-15.
Alt, G.L. 1989. Reproductive biology of female black bears and early growth and development of
cubs in northeastern Pennsylvania. Ph.D. Dissertation, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, West Virginia. 127pp.
Baker, R.H. 1983. Michigan Mammals. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
Beckmann, J.P. and C. W. Lackey. 2008. Carnivores, urban landscapes, and longitudinal
studies: a case history of black bears. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2:168-174.
Bostick, D.P., D.R. Etter, T.F. Reis, and L.G. Visser. Michigan Status Report, 18
th
Eastern Black
Bear Workshop. Tallahassee, Florida, 2005.
Briscoe, N., J.G. Humphreys, and J.B. Dubey. 1993. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii infections
in Pennsylvania black bears, Ursus americanus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29:599-601.
Bunnell, F.L. and D.E.N. Tait. 1981. Population dynamics of bears-Implications in C.W. Fowler
and T.D. Smith ed. Dynamics of large mammal populations. John Wiley and Sons, NY,
NY.
Carter, N.H. 2007. Predicting ecological and social suitability of black bear habitat in Michigan’s
Lower Peninsula. M.S. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 135
pp.
27
DeBruyn, T. D. 1997. Habitat use, food habits and population characteristics of female black
bears in the central upper peninsula of Michigan: a geographic information system
approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan Tech. Univ., Houghton. 123pp.
Dreher, B.P., S.R. Winterstein, K.T. Scribner, P.A. Lukacs, D.R. Etter, G.J.M. Rosa, V.A. Lopez,
S.V. Libants, and K.R. Filcek. 2007. Noninvasive estimation of black bear abundance
incorporating genotyping errors and harvested bear. J. Wildlife Manage. 71:2684-2693.
Dubey, J.P., J.G. Humphreys, and P. Thulliez. 1995. Prevalence of viable Toxoplasma gondii
tissue cysts and antibodies to T. gondii by various seralogic tests in black bears (Ursus
americanus) from Pennsylvania. Journal of Parasitology 81:109-112.
Etter D.R., and S.L. Mayhew. 2008. 2005 Northern Lower Peninsula bear genetic capture-
recapture survey. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report
No. 3490.
Etter, D. R., L. G. Visser, C. M. Schumacher, E. Carlson, T. Reis, and D. Rabe. 2002. Black bear
population management techniques. Final Report. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Project W-127-R-17, 18, 19. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
Michigan, USA.
Folk, G.E., A. Larson, and M.A. Folk. 1976. Physiology of hibernating bears. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management 3:373-380.
Folk, G.E., M.A. Folk, and J.J Monor. 1972. Physiological condition of 3 species of bears in
winter dens. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 2:107-124.
Frawley, B.J. 2008. 2007 Michigan black bear hunter survey. MDNR, Wildlife. Div. Report No.
3488. 30 pp.
Garshelis, D. L. and L.G. Visser. 1997. Enumerating mega populations of wild bears with an
ingested biomarker. J. Wildlife Manage. 61: 466-480.
Garshelis, D. L. and W. Snow. 1988. Minnesota black bear population model. User manual,
version 1.1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, unpublished report.
Garshelis, D.L., and M.R. Pelton. 1981. Movements of black bears in the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. J. Wildlife Manage. 45: 912-925.
Gerstell, R. 1939. The growth and size of Pennsylvania black bears. Pennsylvania Game News
10(8): 4-7.
Hamilton, R.J. 1978. Ecology of the black bear in southeastern North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, Univ.
Georgia, Athens.
28
Hellgren, E.C. and M.R. Vaughan. 1989. Demographic analysis of a black bear population in the
Great Dismal Swamp. J. Wildlife Manage. 53:969-977.
Hildebrandt, T. D. 1976. Age determination in Michigan black bear by means of cementum
annuli. Mich. Dept. Nat. Res., Wildlife Div. Report No. 2758. 9pp.
Jonkel, C.J. and I. McT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildlife Mono.
No. 27.
Karasek, Gina L.B. 1998. 1996 Michigan black bear hunter survey. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report No. 3275.
Kasbohm, J.W., M.R. Vaughan and J.G. Kraus. 1996. Effects of gypsy moth infestation on black
bear reproduction and survival. J. Wildlife Manage. 60:408-416.
Kordek, W.S., and J.S. Lindzey. 1980. Preliminary analysis of female reproductive tracts from
Pennsylvania black bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management
4:159-161.
Lancia, R.A., J.D. Nichols, and K.H. Pollock. 1996. Estimating the number of animals in wildlife
populations. Pages 215-253 in T.A. Bookhout, ed. Research and management techniques
for wildlife and habitats. Fifth ed., rev. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.
Leonard, J. 2008. Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State
Economies in 2006. Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Report 2006-1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arlington, VA.
Lopez, V. 2004. spatial genetic structure and the assumption of geographic closure in a mark-
recapture study of black bear (ursus americanus) in michigan. Project Report. Michigan
State University.
Lyons, A. J. 2004. Activity patterns of an urban black bear population in the San Gabriel
Mountains of Southern California. Proc. 15th Intern. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage.
MacDonald J.E., Fuller D.P., Fuller T.K., and Cardoza J.E. 1994. The influence of food
abundance on success of Massachusetts black bear hunters. Northeast Wildlife 51:55-60.
Masterson, L. 2006. Living with bears: a practical guide to bear country. PixyJack Press,
Masonville, CO.
Mayhew S.L. and D. R. Etter. 2008. An evaluation of the black bear tetracycline survey for
estimating Michigan’s Upper Peninsula bear population. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. Wildlife Division Report No.3489
29
McConnell P.A. J.R. Garris, E. Pehek, and J.L. Powers. 1997. State of New Jersey, Dept. Environ.
Protect, Div. Fish, Game, and Wildlife Black Bear Manage. Plan. 116 pp.
McLaughlin, C.R. 1998. Modeling effects of food and harvests on female black bear populations.
Ph.D. Diss., Univ. of Maine, Orono.
O’Brien, D.J., S.M. Schmitt, S.G. Fitzgerald, D.E. Berry, and G.J Hickling. 2006. Managing the
wildlife reservoir of Mycobacterium bovis: The Michigan, USA, experience. Veterinary
Microbiology 112: 313-323.
O’Pezio, J., S.H. Clarke, and C. Hackford. 1983. Chronology of black bear denning in the
Catskill region of New York. Int. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 5:87-94.
Pelton, M.R. 1992. Black Bear (Ursus americanus). Pages 504-514 in J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer eds. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics.
The John Hopkins University Press, USA. 1147 pp.
Peyton, R. B., P. Bull, T. F. Reis, and L. G. Visser. 2001. An assessment of the social carrying
capacity of black bears in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources.
Powell, M.C. 2004. Winter Severity, Deer Nutrition and Fawning Characteristics. PhD
Dissertation. The University of Minnesota. 182 pp
Quinn, R. 1981. Parasites of black bears in Pennsylvania. M.S. Thesis, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 70 pp.
Rogers, L.L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive
success of black bears. Trans. North Am. Wildlife and Natural Resource. Conf. 41:431-
438.
Rogers, L.L. 1977. Social relationships, movements, and population dynamics of black bears in
northeastern Minnesota. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 194pp
Rogers, L.L. 1987a. Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements and
population growth of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Mono. No. 97.
Rogers, L.L. 1987b. Factors influencing dispersal in the black bear. Pages 75-84 in B.D.
Chepko-Sade and Z.T. Haplin , editors. Mammalian dispersal patterns. The Univ. of
Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Roseberry, J.L. and A. Woolf. 1991. A comparative evaluation of techniques for analyzing white-
tailed deer harvest data. Wildlife Mono. No. 117.
30
Schad, G.A., D.A. Leiby, C.H. Duffy, K.D. Murrell, and G.L. Alt. 1986. Trichinella spiralis in the
black bear (Ursus americanus) of Pennsylvania: distribution, prevalence and intensity of
infection. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 22:36-41.
Schwartz, C.C. and A.W. Franzmann. 1992. Dispersal and survival of subadult black bears from
the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J. Wildlife Manage. 56:426-431.
Ternent, M.A. 2005. Management Plan for Black Bear in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game
Commission, Harrisburg, PA. 72pp.
VDGIF. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2002. Virginia black bear
management plan (2001-2010), 103 pp.
Visser, L. G. 1993. Black bear index. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Pittman-
Robertson Report. W-127-R-11, Job 51.1.
Visser, L. G. 1995. Black bear index. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Pittman-
Robertson Report. W-127-R-13, Job 51.1.
Visser, L. G. 1996. Black bear population studies. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Pittman-Robertson Report. W-127-R-14, Job 51.3.
Visser, L. G. 1997. Black bear population management techniques. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources Pittman-Robertson Report. W-127-R-15, Study 127-109.
Visser, L. G. 1998. Black bear population management techniques. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources Pittman-Robertson Report. W-127-R-16, Study 127-109.
Vreeland, J.K. 2002. Survival Rates, Cause-Specific Mortality, And Habitat Characteristics Of
White-Tailed Deer Fawns In Central Pennsylvania. MS Thesis. The Pennsylvania State
University. 101 pp.
Willey, C. H. 1974. Aging black bears from first premolar tooth sections. Journal of Wildlife
Management 38:97–100.
Wimsatt, W.A. 1963. Delayed implantation in the Ursidae, with particular reference to the black
bear (Ursus americanus Pallus). Pages 49-76 in A.C. Enders, editor. Delayed implantation.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois
Winterstein, S.R. and K.T. Scribner. 2004. DNA hair snaring population estimation techniques
for bears. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Pittman-Robertson Report. W-147-
R-2, Study 147-109.
Wolgast, L.J., Ellis, W.S., and J. Vreeland. 2005. Comprehensive Black Bear (Ursus
americanus) Management Policy. New Jersey Fish and Game Council, Trenton, NJ.
31
Young, B.F. and R.L. Ruff. 1982. Population dynamics and movements of black bears in east
central Alberta. J. Wildlife Manage. 46:845-860.
