Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) COSEWIC assessment and update update status report: chapter 9
9. Special significance of the species and 10. Summary of status report
9. Special significance of the species
In the cultures of many First Nations groups, the grizzly bear was, and remains, one of the most powerful, popular, revered, or feared icons (Shepard and Sanders 1986; Rockwell 1991). Many Native groups ascribed human attributes to bears, and they were commonly worshiped or ritualized. Grizzly bears were hunted and were important sources of food, pelts, and ornaments. Throughout recorded history, spiritual aspects of the bear image have pervaded most cultures that were sympatric with it (Black 1998).
The grizzly bear aura persists widely today, and the bear has assumed a highly symbolic role for environmental groups throughout North America. Few species typify Canadian wilderness in as many minds as the grizzly. Grizzly bears also interact directly with humans and cause real and perceived conflicts over property and livestock. Humans are also occasionally injured or killed--and even eaten--by grizzly bears, and this image absolutely vilifies the bear for many people. It is doubtful that any wild species in Canada conjures impressions and emotions more vivid, heartfelt, divisive, and polarized than the grizzly bear.
Grizzly bears are popular. Public attitude surveys (e.g., review in LeFranc et al. 1987; Bath 1989; Kellert 1994; Province of British Columbia (BC) 1995; Miller et al. 1998) indicate that most people feel enriched from observations of bears, or even just knowing they exist. Conversely, to some extent perceptions of danger or nuisance influence some people toward a negative view.
Although few people hunt grizzly bears compared to most ungulate species, grizzlies are a highly prized trophy. In British Columbia, as of 1995, an annual average of $2.8 million was spent on grizzly bear hunting by 1200 to 1400 provincial residents and 500 to 700 non-residents (Province of British Columbia 1995).
The grizzly bear is commonly considered a flagship species for conservation planning (Carroll et al. 1999). Grizzly bears are generally highly sensitive to habitat and population perturbations and have relatively low resilience (Weaver et al. 1996), and have therefore been widely considered as clear indicators of ecosystem integrity. Because of their large land-area requirements and use of a broad array of habitats, and the complexity of their relationships with other species, they have frequently been considered an umbrella species. Providing for the habitat needs of a top-level carnivore such as the grizzly ensures that elements of lower trophic levels are preserved as well. Conservation of the grizzly bear will be proof of our commitment to preserving biodiversity throughout western and northern Canada.
Others are counting on this commitment too. Persistence and recovery of threatened and endangered grizzly bear populations in the conterminous 48 United States is, in part, dependent on their connectivity to Canadian populations.
10. Summary of status report
There are fewer than 25 000 adult grizzly bears in Canada, and estimates of past or projected declines of up to 10% over 5 generations (50-75 years) are not unreasonable. General uncertainty and poor precision pertaining to most estimators of demography dictate a high degree of caution in management of all populations of grizzly bears.
Nearly all Canadian grizzly bears occupy a continuous population unit, but at least 8 isolated units have been identified in southern BC (Section 6.3). The isolation that has defined these population units is typical of the process responsible for the decline in grizzly bear populations throughout North America and elsewhere. That process involves the erosion of occupied bear habitat from 1 or more sides as a consequence of human activities or, potentially, catastrophic natural events. An intermediate step is the resultant peninsular nature of bear distribution, as is currently the case in southern BC and Alberta (Figure 4). From this state, the viability of the peninsular population is threatened because the length of the front of conflict and elevated mortality risk is greater relative to the area of habitat than in more continuous, block habitats.
The final step in population isolation is the fragmentation of the peninsula, typically by anthropogenic activities. This has 2 primary consequences: it further increases direct threats to resident bears by increasing the relative length of the bear-human interface, as the front is now continuous around the unit’s periphery, and it eliminates demographic and genetic immigration. Unless the population locked within the unit is large enough to remain viable in perpetuity, its slow extinction is ensured. This process is exemplified by the chronicle of grizzly bear extirpation from most of the contiguous lower 48 United States. In 1800, grizzly bear distribution was virtually continuous across all of the western states. By 1922, bears were confined to 37 isolated population units, representing a loss of more than 75% of their historic distribution (Servheen 1999a). Over the following 80 years, 31 of those populations were eliminated (Figure 16), leaving grizzlies in only 2% of their historic range. From an estimated population in 1800 of 50 000 bears, remnants now total about 1 000 (Servheen 1999a).
Figure 16. Estimated distribution of grizzly bears in the contiguous lower 48 United States in 1922 (left) and 1999 (right).
From Merriam (1922) and Servheen (1990, 1999a).
Recognition of this process and its role in the extirpation of grizzly bears from nearly all of Europe and the lower U.S.A., as well as much of Canada and Asia, is critical to establishment of countermeasures. The isolated southern grizzly bear population units represent the front lines--the current southern fringe of the bear’s distribution in Canada. Preventing the slow northward migration of this line depends on active steps to conserve these insular and peninsular populations.
Although Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) criteria stipulate that all extant grizzly bears in Canada comprise a single population unit, the threats and limiting factors across this enormous area are not consistent. Bears in parts of the Arctic are relatively vulnerable due to their natural occurrence at very low densities, and the rapid and intensive growth in resource extraction activity. Bears living in portions of the southern fringe of Canadian distribution are far from secure from the consequences of burgeoning human populations and activities. The genetic and geographic continuity that currently prevents their identification as distinct population units is at risk.
Page details
- Date modified: