Bald Eagle Nest Building

Bald Eagle, Kodiak Wildlife, Uncategorized, , ,

Spring is a time for nest building; whether it’s a new nest made from twigs or a hollow spot in a rock needing only a fresh supply of moss for padding, birds know they must prepare their homes for the eggs and chicks that will soon follow.

Our weather is slowly warming here on Kodiak Island. Most days we creep into the forties, but then we drop back into the low thirties at night. I see a few sprouts popping through the ground, but mostly, it still looks like winter here.

Animals are the one, true indication spring is right around the corner. I hear whales exhaling in the pass near our lodge, signaling they are following the krill and small fish into the bay. In turn, the krill and fish are here to feed on the phytoplankton which blooms as the water warms. Yesterday, kittiwakes arrived in a big swarm to repopulate the rookery in front of our lodge. Puffins and arctic terns should be here soon.

The surest promise of spring, though, is the circling eagles high in the sky as they perform their mating ballet. Soon, they will begin repairing their homes as they prepare for their young to be born.

Bald eagles build the largest nest of any North American bird. The nest may be as large as 8 ft. (2.44 m) across and weigh one ton (907 kg). An eagle pair often uses and adds to the same nest every year, causing the nest to grow over time.

Bald eagles build their nests in large trees near the water. In Alaska, nests are usually found along saltwater shorelines or rivers, and in many parts of Alaska, eagles nest in old-growth timber. On Kodiak Island, eagles prefer to nest in black cottonwood trees, but in areas where black cottonwoods are not available, nests can be found on rocky cliffs or at the bases of alder trees on cliffs along the coast.

The nest is usually built in the crotch of the last set of branches one-third to one-quarter of the way down from the top of the tree. Eagles tend to nest in trees with sparse foliage near the edge of a habitat, so they can fly to and from the nest without having to navigate through a canopy of trees.

The nests are built of sticks, and each year the eagle pair adds new branches and other vegetation to the nest to cover over food remains, feathers, and other debris left from the previous year. Branches and twigs are placed on the edge of the nest, while softer vegetation such as leaves, grass, and moss are placed in the center. An eagle pair continues to add branches, moss, and grass to the nest all summer until the chicks are nearly grown. Researchers believe the reason for this may simply be to keep the nest cleaner. Waste, rotting fish, and even the bodies of chicks that have died in the nest are not tossed out of the nest but are buried by moss, grass, and other greenery. It is important to keep the nest clean, so parasites don’t infest the chicks.

An eagle pair usually uses a nest until either the eagles die or something happens to the nest or the tree holding the nest. Mates may build two, three, or even four nests in their breeding territory, and scientists are unsure what the purpose is for these multiple nests.

The average distance between occupied nests is usually 1 to 2 miles (1.6 – 3.2 km), but nest sites are often closer to each other in areas where food is plentiful. A 2007 nesting and productivity study on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge identified 1141 nests with 439 (38%) of those nests active. This was down from a 55% occupancy rate found in a 2002 study. Of the 439 active nests in 2007, 208 of the nests (48%) were successful in producing young. The researchers suspected the harsh spring weather in 2006 and 2007 might have contributed to the reduction of nesting effort.

Nesting and breeding bald eagles are territorial and defend their nests from other animals, including other eagles. Adults spend much of the day perched in prominent trees near the nest, perhaps to make themselves more visible to intruders. A resident eagle will warn an approaching eagle with a loud call consisting of grunts followed by a high-pitched screech. Sometimes the resident eagle quietly escorts an intruder out of the area, but occasionally, one of the two birds will attack the other, resulting in a display known as cart-wheeling, where one eagle descends on the other eagle, and the other bird rolls onto its back while both eagles grasp talons. The two birds then tumble toward the ground, separating just before they crash.

I welcome the birds back after a long winter. They are often noisy neighbors, but their cries herald birth, life, and spring!

___________________________________________________________________________

Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels, Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, and The Fisherman’s Daughter. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

Kodiak Bear Management

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, , ,

Wildlife management most often involves managing humans. Research allows biologists to understand the needs and habits of wildlife, and this research hopefully leads to management policies to enable human populations to better coexist with wildlife. Wildlife management is never easy, and Kodiak is no different from anywhere else. Various user groups attempt to pressure wildlife managers into making decisions to further their particular interest, and managers struggle for a balance to try to accommodate a variety of users while protecting the wildlife and the habitat.

On the Kodiak Archipelago, I am proud to say the management of bears and their habitat is not only done well, but it is done so well, it is considered one of the best models of wildlife management in the world. The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managers, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the native corporations, and the citizens of Kodiak work well together to safeguard bears and protect their habitat.

History has shown us that protecting wildlife habitat is often the most difficult aspect of wildlife management, whether there is oil to be drilled, copper to be mined, trees to be cut, or roads and houses to be built, economics often wins while wildlife loses huge chunks of critical habitat. Brown bears require large tracts of wilderness to survive, and as the human population grows, it becomes more and more difficult to protect the bears’ home from economic and residential development.

The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is the largest intact, pristine island ecosystem in North America. The Refuge encompasses 16 lakes, 117 salmon streams, wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, Sitka spruce forest, tundra, and alpine meadows. This habitat supports 250 species of fish, birds, and mammals, including 400 breeding pairs of bald eagles. It supports 3000 bears, and an estimated 3500 bears live on the Kodiak Archipelago.

One of the stated purposes of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, including, but not limited to, Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and other marine mammals and migratory birds.

The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1941 in response to concerns by bear hunters for the health and survival of the Kodiak brown bear population. The original mission of the Refuge was “to protect the natural feeding and breeding range of the brown bears and other wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Island.” Without the strong lobbying efforts of hunting groups, it is doubtful the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge would have been formed. The sale of bear hunting licenses and bear tags on Kodiak generates over $250,000 annually, and much of this money is used for research and habitat protection.

Bear hunting on Kodiak today is very tightly regulated. Each year, 4500 people apply for the 495 available bear-hunting permits. Of these 495 hunters, approximately 175 are successful, and 75% of the bears killed are male. All hunters must check in with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game office in Kodiak before going into the field, and they must check out with Fish and Game before leaving the island. Every bear killed must be inspected by an Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist before it can be taken off the island. Because these strict regulations have the overwhelming support of guides and residents, illegal bear hunting on Kodiak is rare.

Perhaps the most telling fact proving the Kodiak bear and its habitat are well managed is the 3500 brown bears currently living on the Kodiak Archipelago. Biologists believe this is the largest the Kodiak bear population has ever been.

___________________________________________________________________________

Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels, Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, and The Fisherman’s Daughter. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

 

Have Kodiak Bears Changed Their Feeding Behavior?

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, , , , , ,

Last week, I discussed a recent scientific study chronicling Kodiak bear feeding behavior during the summers of 2014 and 2015. I pointed out that while the study fascinated me, I was less enthusiastic about the flood of inaccurate leaps in logic following the publication of the research. Please refer to last week’s post if you haven’t read it, so my post this week will make sense to you.

I invited most of the authors of the study, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge officials (the research was in part supported by the Refuge), and other biologists and guides on the island to read my post and share their thoughts on the study. I was curious to know what others who work in the field on Kodiak thought about the flood of publicity over the past few months stating as our climate warms, Kodiak bears are changing their feeding behavior and are abstaining from salmon while they eat their fill of elderberries. While I didn’t get many replies here on my website, I did receive several e-mails, and without mentioning any names, I will share some of those with you.

I know I just said I wouldn’t mention any names, but I do want to state that Dr. Deacy, the lead researcher on the project, sent me a very nice e-mail soon after I asked him to look at my post. He was on a deadline for another project but said he would respond in more detail when he had time. He couldn’t have been nicer, and I exhaled a long, slow breath when I read his response because Dr. Deacy has been generous with his time in explaining this as well as other, recent bear research to me. I didn’t want to anger him or anyone with my critique of the study.

One of the other researchers on the study was not as thrilled with me, and he seemed to think I was personally attacking him and the other biologists. I admit I am partially to blame for his anger because I stated scientists sometimes seem as if they are in a bubble. He equated this statement with me saying scientists never come down from their Ivory Towers – a term I did not, nor would not, use. After his message, I was afraid to look at my e-mail for the next few days, but the rest of the replies I received were positive.
Biologists and guides alike felt the conclusions stated in this study opened the door to the wild, speculative media reports following it. Two people mentioned an important point. Some Kodiak bears spend most of their lives in alpine regions on the island and eat neither elderberries nor salmon. As with humans, what bears eat varies from one area to another and from one individual to the next.

I hope most people who read articles with titles like, “Kodiak bears go vegetarian,” will stop for a moment and question such a wild claim. I applaud wildlife research and think this research is necessary, not only to understand the magnificent wild animals who share this planet with us but also because this research points the way to appropriate wildlife management decisions. I don’t, however, believe research should ever be done to prove a case. The point of research should be the search for truth.

Speaking of wildlife management, next week I will write about bear management on Kodiak Island. Thank you for reading my post.

______________________________________________________________________


Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels, Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, and The Fisherman’s Daughter. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

Elderberries, Salmon, or Both?

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, Plants, , , ,

Bears are omnivores, and on Kodiak, they eat a large buffet of food items, including elderberries and salmon, two of their favorite foods. What happens, though, if a bear has a choice between elderberries or salmon? Which will he choose, or will he choose both? More importantly, why does it matter?

I’m sure you have controversies in your neighborhood. It may be a fight over a bill to fund a new school, a fight over a tougher crime initiative, or something as simple as whether or not to put a stop sign at the end of your street. In my neighborhood here in the wilderness, the recent research I’ll discuss in this post is what we call controversy. I’ve avoided writing about this scientific article until now because I know I will irritate several people, some of them friends. I finally decided, though, I couldn’t continue to avoid voicing my opinion on something this significant. I have invited some of the biologists involved in this study, other biologists, and local guides to read my blog, and I hope they will weigh in on the issue by leaving comments. I am sorry this post is long, but I didn’t want to break it into two parts.

The study I will discuss is titled, “Phenological synchronization disrupts trophic interactions between Kodiak brown bears and salmon.” It was published in the July 18th edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I think it is an excellent study, and more importantly, other biologists must think it is an excellent study. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a prestigious scientific journal, and to be accepted by this journal, a research paper must be peer-reviewed at the highest level. I do not disagree with the methods or the results of the study. What I do have a problem with are the broad, far-reaching conclusions drawn from what is, in my opinion, a preliminary field study.

Let me do my best to explain the focus and significance of this study. A large body of research concerns what happens due to global warming when coevolved species shift out of synch with each other. For example, consider a plant that is only pollinated by one bee species, and these two species co-evolved so the plant flowers at the exact same time the bee is ready to gather its nectar and pollinate it. What happens, if the bees hatch earlier each year due to a warming environment, but the flowers bloom at the same time because their cue for blooming is based on the amount of daylight, not temperature. The two species will slowly grow out of synch with each other, and the plant species may go extinct when the bees are no longer available to spread its pollen.

In this study, though, lead researcher William Deacy and his colleagues set out to investigate the opposite situation: what happens when warming temperatures cause climate-induced synchronization? In this case, when elderberries fruit several weeks earlier than usual on Kodiak Island during the middle of the sockeye salmon run, will bears choose to eat salmon or berries?

The Karluk River on Kodiak Island, where this research was done, supports a large sockeye salmon run lasting from June to early August. On a normal year, bears on the Karluk River feast on sockeye and other salmon until late August, when they begin eating elderberries and salmonberries which are just then ripening. Once the berries are gone, bears return to the river and side streams to eat other species of salmon.

When William Deacy worked on another research project in the Karluk area in 2013, he noted typical bear behavior. Throughout July, bears ate their fill of salmon and left the scraps for birds and other animals to scavenge. In 2014, after a warm spring, elderberries ripened two weeks earlier than usual, and plants produced ripe berries longer than normal. Deacy noted that bears in late July were eating berries instead of fish. Why, he wondered, would bears opt for elderberries over sockeye salmon? The winter and spring of 2015 were also warm, and Deacy again observed bears ignoring sockeye salmon while they ate berries.

Deacy and Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge biologist Bill Leacock gathered a team of scientists from several universities and organizations, including Oregon State University, the University of Montana, Washing State University, and the National Park Service, to examine this surprising bear behavior.

From meteorological records, the biologists determined the temperature on Kodiak is slowly getting warmer, and 2014 was the warmest year on record. When the winter and the spring are relatively warm, elderberries ripen earlier than normal, and when elderberries ripen earlier, bears seem to eat berries instead of salmon. What, they wondered, will happen when temperatures continue to warm? If the berries are ripe all summer, will bears only eat berries and ignore salmon? If this happens, what will the birds and small animals eat? They depend on bears to leave them scraps of salmon on the banks of streams. Not only do animals depend on bears for leftover salmon, but salmon carcasses provide fertilization for riparian vegetation. Another point of concern is if bears only eat berries and avoid salmon, will bears get enough nutrition?

Deacy and his colleagues headed for the lab to determine if elderberries are nutritious enough to sustain bears, and why bears like berries better than salmon. Fortunately, elderberries are protein-rich compared to other berries. They don’t have as much protein as a salmon, but a bear would do fine if he ate elderberries instead of salmon. I won’t discuss the part of the study suggesting why bears prefer elderberries over salmon because I believe this conclusion is based on a very shaky assumption.

Do bears prefer elderberries over salmon, and if provided with both, would they choose the berries? I don’t know the answer to this question, and neither does William Deacy or any other biologist. As I said earlier, I think this is a well-done, interesting, thought-provoking study, but let ’s not get carried away. This is a preliminary study consisting of three years of data taken over a fairly small geographical area. It is unprofessional for any biologist to draw sweeping conclusions from a limited, preliminary study.

I would like to believe the media is responsible for jumping to wild conclusions regarding this research. I corresponded with Dr. Deacy after the research was published and asked him if he was trying to say bears are now eating berries instead of salmon. I may have misunderstood him, but I thought he said he was only suggesting what might happen as our climate warms. Then I found articles titled, “Alaskan grizzly bears choose berries over salmon—thanks to climate change,” “Kodiak bears found to switch to eating elderberries instead of salmon,” “Grizzly bears go vegetarian due to climate change, “Climate change is luring Kodiak bears away from their iconic salmon streams,” and “As a warming climate changes Kodiak bears’ diets, impacts could ripple through ecosystems.” Deacy, himself, wrote this last article. In it, he claims, “climate change dramatically altered bear behavior.”

The researchers state the ecosystem on Kodiak Island has been disrupted. I have lived in the Kodiak wilderness and have helped my husband guide bear viewers for 35 years. My husband has lived in the Kodiak wilderness all his life. Warm springs and big berry crops are not unusual, and when the berries, especially salmon berries and elderberries, ripen, we know we will see fewer bears on the rivers feeding on salmon where we can show them to our eager bear viewers. The bears will instead be in the bushes eating berries. I seriously doubt bears prefer berries to salmon, though! Berries are an easier food source than salmon because all the bear has to do is sit on his rear end and eat them. He is required to expend energy to chase down a salmon.

I believe either from instinct or learned behavior, bears know that when berries ripen, they are usually only available for a short period. Salmon, though, can be eaten from June into November. One fact I feel these researchers did not stress enough is that five species of Pacific salmon return to spawn each year in the streams and rivers on Kodiak Island. Pink salmon, not sockeye salmon, are by far the most prevalent of these species, and I have thousands of photos to prove how much bears love to eat pink salmon. Pinks are in the rivers until late September, and Coho salmon remain in the rivers until November.

Yes, the spring and summer of both 2014 and 2015 were warmer than usual, and the berries were plentiful. Once the berries began to decline, though, bears were back on the rivers eating their fill of salmon and leaving scraps for the birds and other animals. I suspect when these warm springs and summers become the norm, bears will learn they have a longer period to eat berries and will split their time between berries and salmon. I may be wrong, and bears may choose berries, but I know it should take more than a two-year study before biologists begin telling reporters that Kodiak bears have abandoned salmon for berries.

The spring and summer of 2017 were cool. The berry crop was poor, and the salmon run on Kodiak was better than it has been in several years. Bears packed the salmon streams, and we wondered whether they would eat enough berries to gain the necessary calories they need to carry them through hibernation. A biologist arriving at Karluk Lake last summer observing abundant salmon and few berries might have designed a very different research study from the one I’ve been discussing in this post.

What worries me, is that as the planet warms, salmon populations will drastically decline because salmon are sensitive to even a small increase in water temperature. As this research suggests, though, when salmon are no longer available, perhaps bears will maintain a healthy diet by eating berries.

I would like to make one more comment before I get off my soapbox. Why must biologists live in a bubble? Why didn’t the researchers in this project talk to guides who have been watching bears for decades? I realize they can’t use anecdotal evidence in their study, but perhaps we could have offered possibilities in addition to the conclusions Dr. Deacy made.

___________________________________________________________________________

Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels, Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, and The Fisherman’s Daughter. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

 

 

Genetic Studies and More Kodiak Bear Research

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, , , , , ,

Last week, I discussed early studies on Kodiak bears, and this week I want to continue by talking about more recent research, including some troubling genetic studies.

A 1996 genetic study questioned whether Kodiak bears should be considered a separate subspecies from other Alaskan brown bears. A 1998 study on the genetic diversity of North American brown bears indicated genetic diversity among Kodiak bears is much less than it is for other populations of North American brown bears. Several of the bears sampled on Kodiak had identical genotypes. A study by Paetkau and colleagues further explored the genetic isolation of Kodiak bears from other Alaskan brown bear populations.

A 2006 report for the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge illustrates that Kodiak bears have extremely low levels of genetic variation at neutral nuclear microsatellite markers. The level of genetic variation in Kodiak bears is much lower than the variation found in any other brown bear population. Furthermore, this low level of variation is not only found at neutral markers but also in nuclear-functional genes. While the Kodiak bear population is presently healthy, this low genetic variability makes this population susceptible to novel parasites and pathogens that may somehow reach Kodiak and infect bears.

Bear research is ongoing on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Yearly intensive aerial surveys yield population counts, and aerial stream surveys determine the number of bears on certain streams and study the population profiles of the bears on each stream (the percentage of single bears, sows with newborn cubs, sows with one-year-old cubs, etc.).

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is studying the population characteristics and habitat use of brown bears on Afognak Island since the movements and ecology of Afognak bears are not well-understood.

In 2010, William Leacock headed a two-year project near Karluk Lake on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge to collar and track several Kodiak bears. Each bear in the study was fitted with a GPS collar to broadcast the bear’s location at hourly intervals. A Refuge pilot with an antenna attached to the wings of his plane flew over the bears and picked up the GPS signal from the radio collars of each bear being tracked. A crew member then downloaded these GPS points onto a laptop. From this information, the researchers were able to study the detailed movements of each bear and record the preferred habitat, food preferences, and bedding choices of each animal. Once the GPS data were collected in the field, volunteers hiked to the exact locations where each bear had been and recorded the types of food plants available in the area as well as other pertinent information. The goal of this study was to quantify behavioral responses of Kodiak bears to resources that vary in time and space (such as salmon runs and berry production). Dr. Leacock and his associates also studied how fluctuations in abundance of salmon at various streams near Karluk Lake influenced bear movements and exploitation of those streams.

Next week, I’ll discuss a new study that is both fascinating and controversial. I hope to invite the researchers on the study as well as guides who have been watching bears and their behavior for years to read my post and comment on it. Maybe I can get a lively discussion started! Be sure to check back often.

__________________________________________________________________________

Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels, Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, and The Fisherman’s Daughter. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

Kodiak Bear Research

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, Uncategorized, , , ,

Biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge are responsible for most of the research on Kodiak bears, and much of this research has concentrated on denning behaviors and home ranges of Kodiak bears, with an emphasis on management applications. Today, the Kodiak Brown Bear Trust funds a portion of bear research. The trust was established in 1981 to compensate for potential impacts on Kodiak bears by the construction and operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project. The trust funds bear research, management, habitat protection, and educational outreach projects. The Kodiak Brown Bear Trust relies on tax-deductible contributions to carry out its mission. If you would like to support Kodiak bear research and habitat protection, please visit www.kodiakbrownbeartrust.org to learn more about the trust and how you can donate.

In 1896, C.H. Merriam visited Kodiak and confirmed reports that Kodiak bears were the largest bears in the world. He named the species in honor of Russian naturalist Dr. A. Th. Von Middendorff. Merriam divided the North American brown and grizzly bears into eighty-six forms based on slight variations in size, fur color, and skull shape. Scientists now know physical differences in these categories can occur within populations and even within family groups. Today, all North American brown bears, grizzlies, and Eurasian brown bears are grouped into the single species Ursus arctos. Kodiak bears are classified Ursus arctos middendorfi, and all other brown and grizzly bears are listed as Ursus arctos horribilis.

The first scientific studies of Kodiak bears were simple hunting and collecting trips to document their size. In the early 1900’s, research was concerned with determining how many cattle and salmon bears were killing and eating. A study by W.K. Clark in 1955 showed although bears are very effective at catching salmon in a stream, they catch few unspawned salmon, making their impact on the salmon run much less than originally believed. 

As the Kodiak bear became a valued trophy for big game hunters, the focus of the research shifted to learning more about the physiology and behavior patterns of bears. Biologists refined techniques for capturing and marking bears and began to use radio telemetry to track the movements of specific bears. This jump in technology provided biologists with information on home ranges, densities, gender and age ratios, and litter sizes.

Most of the early research on Kodiak bears was conducted on the south end of Kodiak Island, but in 1982, construction began on the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project on the north end of the island, and funds were made available to study if this project would affect bears in the vicinity of the proposed dam. Biologists were surprised when studies on the bears near Terror Lake showed bears in this area had different denning behaviors and preferences than did bears on the south end of the island, indicating that Kodiak bears have adapted well to the slightly different habitats on opposite ends of the island.

In the 1970’s, a study investigated Kodiak brown bear use of alpine habitat during the summer months and preferred plant foods of bears, while a study published by Victor Barnes in 1990 examined the influence of salmon availability on the movements of brown bears.  A 1994 study by Barnes investigated the impact deer hunters have on Kodiak bears, and a 2006 paper by Barnes discussed his study on the impact of bear viewers and photographers at O’Malley River on Kodiak Island. This study showed that while a regimented bear-viewing program impacted bears less than a non-regimented program, bears were still affected much more by a regimented bear-viewing program than they were when the area was closed to public use. I think the important lesson to learn from this study is that any time you step into the bears’ habitat, you are impacting them to some degree.

Next week, I will tell you about recent research on Kodiak bears. As always, thank you for visiting my blog.

__________________________________________________________________________

Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels, Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, and The Fisherman’s Daughter. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

Relationships between Kodiak Island Refuge Users and Bears

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, Mountain Goat, Sitka black-tailed deer, , , , , , , ,

How have deer and goat hunters and bear viewers impacted Kodiak bears? This is my third and final post about the complex relationship between humans and bears on Kodiak Island.

Deer Hunters

In the early 1980s, the Sitka black-tailed deer population exploded throughout the Kodiak Archipelago. As a result, the length of the deer-hunting season as well as the bag limit for deer increased. For several years, each hunter was allowed to shoot seven deer. Bears quickly adapted to this new, easy source of food, and conflicts between bears and deer hunters increased in frequency. A questionnaire filled out by hunters indicated 21% of all deer hunters had threatening encounters with bears, and as many as 26% lost deer meat to bears. A heightened emphasis on hunter education and ways to avoid bear encounters has helped solve this problem. Today, the bag limit is three deer per hunter, but bear/deer-hunter encounters still occur.

Goat Hunters

The mountain goat population on Kodiak has also rapidly increased within the last decade, and in many areas, permits for hunting mountain goats have gone from a restricted drawing to an open registration. Several goat-hunter/bear conflicts have occurred in the last few years, but goat habitat is difficult to reach, so there are fewer goat hunters than deer hunters and therefore fewer goat-hunter/bear conflicts than deer-hunter/bear conflicts.

 

Bear Viewers and Photographers

The interest in bear viewing and photography has steadily increased on Kodiak since the 1980’s. The Refuge classifies bear viewing as “non-consumptive” use as opposed to “consumptive” use by bear hunters, but “non-consumptive” is a misleading term. Bear viewers can be very disruptive to bears and the habitat, and their impact or potential impact is not easy to measure or predict. The challenge the Refuge has faced in recent years is to learn how to limit the impact of non-consumptive users on bears while allowing as many people as possible the thrill of watching a Kodiak bear in its natural habitat.

Bear viewing on Kodiak occurs almost exclusively in the summer months when bears are concentrated on streams or in shallow, saltwater areas at the heads of bays, feeding on salmon. Bears must consume large amounts of protein and fat in the summer to sustain them through the following winter’s hibernation. It is especially critical for sows with cubs and pregnant sows to receive adequate nutrition.

Bear viewers can force bears away from prime feeding areas. This impact is difficult to measure, and it is likely bear viewers or photographers will not even realize they are impacting the bears, because some bears are more tolerant of humans and will stay and feed in their presence, while other bears will leave the area as soon as they detect humans nearby. These less-tolerant bears may then be forced to fish in less-productive areas or at different times of the day when tides and light conditions are not as good.

Management Decisions

Biologists are now studying and trying to understand the impacts bear viewers, sport fishermen, rafters, and hikers have on Kodiak bears, and they hope to use what they learn to develop regulations to manage these impacts on Kodiak bears and their habitat.

Over the next few weeks, I plan to cover past and present scientific research on bears, including one recent controversial study.

___________________________________________________________________________

Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

 

Humans and Bears on Kodiak Island from the 1960s through the 1980s

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, , , , , ,

Last week, I wrote about the early relationship between humans and bears on Kodiak Island. Over the next two weeks, I’ll tell you the rest of the story.

Over the 1940s and 50s, the government of Alaska denied ranchers’ requests for stricter predator-control measures against bears, but policies changed in the 1960s when the Alaska Department of Fish and Game worked with ranchers to pursue and kill bears suspected of killing cattle. The Department of Fish and Game went so far as to quietly hire two WWII fighter pilots to shoot bears with a semi-automatic M-1 Garand rifle mounted on a Piper Super Cub aircraft. A group of irate Kodiak hunting guides informed Outdoor Life, and the magazine ran a sensational cover story titled “The Kodiak Bear War.” In 1970, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game decided it was not appropriate for the agency to be involved in a predator-control program on brown bears and it ceased its relationship with the ranchers.

Also in the 1960s, the number of sport-killed bears greatly increased, causing the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge to enact stricter hunting regulations and seasons, and by the mid-1970s, a well-regulated permit system was in place.

During the 1970s and 1980s, concern and research focused more heavily on Kodiak-brown-bear habitat. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was signed into law on December 18, 1971. As a result of ANCSA, local native groups on Kodiak selected as their land much of the coastline of Kodiak, the Karluk River drainage, and several other smaller islands in the archipelago, causing the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge to lose control of 310,000 acres of prime bear habitat.

In 1979, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission began working on an environmental impact statement for a proposed hydroelectric project and dam at Terror Lake on the north end of Kodiak Island. The public and various agencies were concerned the project would disturb bear denning and feeding areas, and finally, a settlement was reached in 1981, providing funds to support research on project impacts on salmon, mountain goats, and bears. This agreement established The Kodiak Brown Bear Trust, which is still a source of funds for brown bear research and habitat protection. Research indicated the hydroelectric project had few long-term negative impacts on bears, and the project supported highly beneficial research.

On March 24th, 1989, the Exxon Valdez spilled eleven million gallons of crude oil in Prince William Sound. As the oil spread, ocean currents carried it to Kodiak, killing seabirds, eagles, sea otters, harbor seals, and killer whales. Oil washed onto the beaches, causing habitat destruction and resulting in reduced salmon runs in the following years. I have read several articles stating no bears were directly killed by eating oiled birds or animal carcasses, but I believe this statement is inaccurate. I personally saw two dead bears on remote beaches during the summer of 1989, and while necropsies were not performed on the animals, it is unusual to see a dead bear on the beach, and I think it is likely their deaths were directly linked to the contaminated beaches and the oiled bird and animal carcasses that had drifted onto those beaches. Furthermore, if I saw two dead bears, it is not only possible but probable there were more. The vegetation on Kodiak is very dense in the summer, so it would be difficult to spot a sick bear if it wandered into the brush and died. One positive development from the oil spill was that much of the money from the Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund was used to buy back Refuge lands and critical bear habitat previously lost due to ANCSA.

Next week, I will explore how deer and goat hunters and bear viewers affect Kodiak bears. The debate over how much humans should be allowed to impact wildlife will never end. While it would be wonderful if animals could roam free with no interference from humans, consumptive and non-consumptive human users provide the necessary funds to protect wildlife and the habitat.

__________________________________________________________________________

Robin Barefield is the author of three Alaska wilderness mystery novels. To download a free copy of one of her novels, watch her webinar about how she became an author and why she writes Alaska wilderness mysteries. Also, sign up below to subscribe to her free, monthly newsletter on true murder and mystery in Alaska.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

 

The History of the Relationship between Humans and Kodiak Bears

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, , ,

According to archaeological evidence, Kodiak Island has been inhabited by humans for the last 7500 years, and bears were already on the island when humans arrived. The earliest human occupants are referred to as the Ocean Bay tradition, and while little is known about the relationship Ocean Bay people had with bears, bear bones have been found in archaeological digs of sites dating from this period, indicating they did hunt bears. Interestingly, though, few bear skulls have been found in excavations of Ocean Bay sites, suggesting that the head may have been left in the field as part of a ceremonial practice or a sign of respect for the animal. If the Ocean Bay culture was similar to other early northern cultures, then it is likely bears were revered and perhaps even viewed as emissaries between man and the spirit world.

The Ocean Bay tradition lasted 4000 years and was replaced by the Kachemak tradition which lasted approximately 3200 years and was gradually replaced, beginning 900 years ago, by Alutiiq (Koniag) society. As time progressed, the human population on Kodiak grew, and conflicts between humans and bears undoubtedly increased as well. Excavations at Koniag village sites uncovered a greater number of bear skulls than were found in more ancient sites, indicating either bears were more heavily hunted, or the humans had abandoned the practices that forbade bringing skulls into the villages.

Russian explorers arrived on Kodiak in the early 1760s, and while the Russians were impressed by the huge bears inhabiting the archipelago, their main interest was harvesting sea otters and shipping the valuable pelts to China. Bears were also hunted, but a bear hide was only worth two percent as much as a sea otter pelt. Once the Russians depleted the sea otter population, they more actively sought out other fur-bearing animals including bears, and between 1821 and 1842, 268 bear hides per year were shipped from the Alaska colonies. In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from Russia, and the brown bear harvest more than doubled, with an average of 548 hides shipped per year from 1867 to 1880.

Russians brought livestock to Kodiak, and when bears began killing the livestock, especially cattle, they were considered a nuisance to be eliminated. At nearly the same time, more efficient methods of fishing by commercial fishing operations on the island led to a depletion of salmon stocks and created greater competition between humans and bears for the fish. Although the U.S. government never set an official bounty on bears as they did on eagles and Dolly Varden, bears were routinely shot, and some canneries offered private bounties on bears.

The Boone and Crockett Club, a wildlife conservation organization, was formed in 1887, and one of its goals was to work for the preservation of wild game in the United States. Thanks to the efforts of the Boone and Crockett Club, the Game and Wild Bird Preservation and Disposition Act, or the Lacey Act as it is commonly called, was signed into law in 1900. This important law provided the first legal protection for wildlife, including the Kodiak bear, in the U.S.

When exotic big-game hunters learned about the huge bears on Kodiak Island, many journeyed to Kodiak in pursuit of a trophy, and the Kodiak bear gained a reputation as one of the ultimate trophy animals in the world. As interest in guided Kodiak bear hunts increased, the Alaska territorial government set strict limits on commercial hunting and selling of bear hides. In 1925, the Alaska Game Commission required any nonresident hunter in Alaska to be accompanied in the field by a registered big-game guide. In the late 1920s and 1930s, commercial and sport hunting were strictly regulated on Kodiak, while shooting bears to protect cattle was not only encouraged but was government sanctioned.

On August 19th, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8857, creating the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge which encompassed Uganik Island and most of the southwestern portion of Kodiak Island. The purpose of the refuge was to preserve the natural feeding and breeding range of the Kodiak bear and other wildlife.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, cattle ranchers and those involved in the salmon industry fought for stricter predator-control measures against Kodiak bears, while bear hunters and conservationists from across America voiced loud opinions against the concept of bear control, alarmed that the Kodiak bear could easily be wiped out in a few years. After considering all opinions, the Alaska Game Commission in the late 1950s opted against any form of bear control and did not increase the length of the hunting season on Kodiak.

This interesting, complex relationship between humans and bears continues to this day. I’ll tell you more about this relationship over the next two weeks, beginning with the battle between ranchers and Kodiak bears in the 1960s.

As always, I would love to hear your comments and opinions. If you would like to receive my free newsletter on true murder and mystery from Alaska, sign up on the following form.

My publisher recently released a webinar about how I became a published author and why I write Alaska wilderness mysteries. I invite you to watch it and to download a free copy of one of my novels at the end of the webinar. The link is: http://bit.ly/2pcCOo6 .

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.

How Do Bears Regulate Their Body Temperature, And What Diseases Do They Get?

Kodiak Bear, Kodiak Wildlife, , , ,

 

TEMPERATURE REGULATION

A bear’s body temperature is similar to a human’s and ranges between ninety-eight and ninety-nine degrees Fahrenheit (36.7- 37.2C).  Bears do not have sweat glands, though, and the lack of sweat glands coupled with their insulating fur can make staying cool on a hot, sunny day a challenge. Bears employ a variety of techniques to solve this problem, including resting in the shade, stretching out on their bellies on the cool ground, panting like a dog, sitting or lying in a cold stream or the ocean, sprawling on snow patches, and shaking off water when they emerge from a stream. They are also able to dissipate heat through their paws which are well supplied with blood vessels, and they lose heat through areas with minimal fur such as the face, ears, nose, belly and the insides of the legs. To cool down, bears sometimes recline on the ground and spread their legs wide.

 

DISEASES

Bears are susceptible to a variety of diseases and parasites. Internal parasites include the trichinella worm (trichinosis), trematodes, nematodes, lungworms, hookworms, flukes, blood parasites, intestinal worms, and tapeworms. Tapeworms are especially prevalent in Kodiak bears because they eat large quantities of raw fish. It is not uncommon to see a bear in the summer months with a several-foot-long tapeworm trailing from its anus. Notice the tapeworm in this photo.
Bears can also suffer from many of the same ailments that affect other mammals, including arthritis. Traumatic injuries can be very devastating to a bear, especially if the injuries affect the bear’s ability to procure food or protect himself. Poor teeth can directly impact a bear’s ability to eat, and any factor leading to inadequate fat reserves before hibernation can result in starvation.

______________________________________________________________________

The Kodiak Archipelago is home to 3500 bears and 13,600 humans, so how do the bears and humans interact? Next week,  I’ll tackle the topic of bears and humans.

I invite you to watch my webinar about how I became a published author and the true-life adventures that provide the inspiration for my Alaska wilderness mysteries. Stay until the end of the webinar and receive a free e-book of one of my novels. This is the link : http://bit.ly/2pcCOo6 . Also, please sign up below for my real-life mystery newsletter.

Mystery Newsletter

Sign Up for my free, monthly Mystery Newsletter about true crime in Alaska.