| The goal of my research was to address American black bear ( Ursus americanus; hereafter bears) ecology in and around the city of Aspen, Colorado.;In Chapter 1, I assessed the degree of bear synanthropy, i.e., dependency on anthropogenic resources and subsequent changes to behavior and population dynamics, and its relationship to individual and environmental covariates to test hypotheses about irreversible and fluctuating synanthropy. Synanthropy is likely a continuum that varies among individuals and across time, although in a management context bears are often perceived dichotomously as synanthropic or not, and the degree of synanthropy with its spatial and temporal fluctuations are rarely considered. Understanding such patterns is especially important for managing urban bears and for resolving conflicts with people. I used six years of detailed GPS location and activity data that were collected for bears in Aspen. I modeled space use (home range size, its overlap with human development, and mean human density within home range) and daily activity patterns as a function of individual and environmental covariates, estimated survival using known-fate models and modeled its relationship to covariates, and summarized reproduction in years of good and poor natural food production.;In Chapter 2, I experimentally evaluated efficacy of education and enforcement in changing human behavior to better secure bear attractants. Evidence-based decision-making is critical for implementing management actions, especially for human-bear conflicts. Wildlife managers are recognizing that long-term solutions should include altering human behaviors, and public education and enforcement of wildlife-related laws are two management actions frequently implemented, but with little empirical evidence evaluating their success. I conducted three experiments in Aspen to evaluate: 1) on-site education in communal dwellings and construction sites, 2) Bear Aware educational campaign in residential neighborhoods, and 3) elevated law enforcement at two levels in the core business area. I measured human behaviors as the response including: violation of local wildlife ordinances, garbage availability to bears, and change in use of bear-resistance refuse containers. As implemented, I found little support for education, or enforcement in the form of daily patrolling in changing human behavior, but found more support for proactive enforcement, i.e., dispensing warning notices. More broadly I demonstrated the value of gathering evidence before and after implementing conservation actions, and the dangers of measuring responses in the absence of detailed knowledge of the system (e.g., natural food production, bear movements, etc.). I recommended development of more effective educational methods, application of proactive enforcement, and continued evaluation of tools by directly measuring change in human behavior. I provided empirical evidence adding to the conservation managers' toolbox, informing policy makers, and promoting solutions to human-wildlife conflicts.;In Chapter 3, I demonstrated the application of patch-selection models to examine how changes in energetic costs and benefits that result from management targeting bears and people can influence bear foraging decisions. I used patch selection models (a dynamic, state-dependent modeling approach based on foraging theory) to assess how benefit reduction and cost increase affect bear foraging decisions. I applied the patch selection models to the urban system of Aspen, in which bears forage in human-dominated patches and conflicts are common. I used survival as a fitness currency and body fat reserves as a state variable. I incrementally reduced availability of anthropogenic foods and increased energetic costs of movement in response to aversive management to search for thresholds resulting in avoidance of human-dominated patches. Benefit reduction ≥60% in both human-dominated patches resulted in bears of almost all states avoiding those patches. Cost increases achieving similar results exceeded 1300% in the urban patch and 400% in the urban-interface patch, and are unrealistic to implement. Given modeling results and that control strategies targeting wildlife are unpopular with constituencies, I suggested allocating management resources to strategies that reduce availability of anthropogenic food. (Abstract shortened by UMI.). |
