Grizzly Bear Management in the Kananaskis Valley: Forty Years of Figuring It Out

Case studies offer rich insight into the way knowledge is gathered, understood, and applied (or not) in parks and conservation contexts. This study aims to understand how knowledge and information have been used to inform decision-making about human-wildlife co-existence—specifically what knowledge has informed decisions related to grizzly bear management in the Kananaskis Valley. Focus groups of decision-makers involved in the valley’s bear program painted a rich account of decision-making since the late 1970s that was coded thematically. Our findings suggest there are typical impacts on knowledge mobilization, such as management support (or lack thereof), other agencies, capacity, and social and political pressures. In addition, the special context of the Kananaskis Valley and the forty-year timespan explored in focus group conversations provide unique lenses through which to understand knowledge mobilization. This case study reflects the barriers identified in the literature. However, the findings also include unique aspects of decision-making, such as the evolution of decision-making over a period of time in a multi-use landscape, the successful creation of networks to mediate knowledge and practice, and the creation of knowledge by practitioners.

Is the Swedish Brown Bear Management in Compliance with EU Biodiversity Law?

As with many biodiversity laws, the Habitats Directive allows for exemptions. While it can be argued that flexibility is necessary for handling dynamic ecosystems, the associated lack of legal clarity on the room to derogate can risk impairing both the effectiveness and the uniform application of EU-law. This study aims at clarifying the conditions to derogate from the strict protection of species under Article 16(1)(e), a provision which has been interpreted to provide a legal basis for hunting species with a favourable conservation status in several Member States. One such controversial case is the hunting of brown bears in Sweden. The Swedish brown bear management will thus be used as an illustrative example to discuss Member States’ discretion to derogate under Article 16(1)(e).

Animal learning may contribute to both problems and solutions for wildlife–train collisions

Transportation infrastructure can cause an ecological trap if it attracts wildlife for foraging and travel opportunities, while increasing the risk of mortality from collisions. This situation occurs for a vulnerable population of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) in Banff National Park, Canada, where train strikes have become a leading cause of mortality. We explored this problem with analyses of rail-associated food attractants, habitat use of GPS-collared bears and patterns of past mortality. Bears appeared to be attracted to grain spilled from rail cars, enhanced growth of adjacent vegetation and train-killed ungulates with rail use that increased in spring and autumn, and in areas where trains slowed, topography was rugged, and human density was low. However, areas with higher grain deposits or greater use by bears did not predict sites of past mortality. The onset of reported train strikes occurred amid several other interacting changes in this landscape, including the cessation of lethal bear management, changes in the distribution and abundance of ungulates, increasing human use and new anthropogenic features. We posit that rapid learning by bears is critical to their persistence in this landscape and that this capacity might be enhanced to prevent train strikes in future with simple warning devices, such as the one we invented, that signal approaching trains. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Linking behaviour to dynamics of populations and communities: application of novel approaches in behavioural ecology to conservation’.

Inuit Attitudes towards Co-Managing Wildlife in Three Communities in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, Canada

We explored Inuit attitudes towards co-managing wildlife in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, Canada, working in partnership with the hunters and trappers’ organizations of Igluligaarjuk (Chesterfield Inlet), Tikirarjuaq (Whale Cove), and Qamani’tuaq (Baker Lake). In mixed-methods interviews, study participants in the two coastal communities described dissatisfaction with polar bear (Ursus maritimus) management outcomes, in contrast to a general satisfaction with (or indifference to) the management of other species. Interviewees expressed concern about grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and, more prominently, caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) populations in Qamani’tuaq, the inland community. Researchers have predicted that conflicts specific to polar bear management could lead to regulations being ignored or even defied and endanger the entire system of wildlife co-management. Our results indicate that dissatisfaction over decisions is specific to polar bear management outcomes and does not necessarily apply to the broader system of wildlife co-management. The results suggest that the Nunavut wildlife co-management system is quite functional: polar bear issues aside, Inuit in Qamani’tuaq, Tikirarjuaq, and Igluligaarjuk are largely content with the current functioning of the wildlife co-management regime.