Credit: NPS / Adams As summer approaches the Tetons, many animals enjoy the increased bounty of available food. Bears descend from backcountry dens to graze on fresh vegetation. Around the same time, another key species in the park–humans–arrive in greater numbers. When a bear feeds in a roadside meadow, visitors often pull their cars over to watch. A wildlife jam forms when traffic congests around an animal sighting. National Parks have always been striking places to observe the human-wildlife interface. As recovering bear populations have grown in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), their interactions with humans have become more common, especially within roadway corridors. The concurrent increase and changes in park visitation have contributed to these interactions, namely wildlife jams. The way wildlife jams are managed is the product of park history and the long-evolving science of human-wildlife interactions. Park biologists are constantly considering how to minimize human impacts on these animals, while maintaining opportunities to safely view them. Brief History of Bear ManagementGrizzly bear populations faced near decimation in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as settlers suppressed predator populations. By the 1920s and 1930s they occupied only 2% of their historic range in the contiguous United States. By the 1950s, the GYE hosted one of the few isolated populations remaining in the lower 48 states. These grizzlies were concentrated almost entirely within Yellowstone National Park. In 1975 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed them as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Grizzly bear recovery has been a long, collaborative process. The theories of grizzly bear and wildlife management have changed drastically in that time. Up until the 1970s, it was common practice for park visitors to feed bears or watch them rummage through garbage at open dump sites. This kind of interaction causes food conditioning, a behavior that can put people in danger. A food-conditioned bear may seek out humans and developed areas in search of human foods, leading to risky encounters and an overall lower chance of survival for those bears. Before taking stricter management actions against food conditioning, Yellowstone averaged 48 bear-inflicted injuries per year. The decision to close dump sites and crack down on feeding was controversial, as local bear populations were dependent on unnatural food sources. Populations declined initially, but by 1979 food-conditioned bears were considered absent in the region. Subsisting on natural resources, their numbers slowly began to increase. The growing bear population presented new challenges for park management. Beginning in the 1980s, grizzly bears could be seen grazing in roadside meadows. Distinct from the food-conditioned bears, these grizzlies expressed a degree of tolerance towards people. They were habituated, a process in which bears and other wildlife acclimate to certain human behaviors that are non-threatening and predictable. The roadside bears became a visitor attraction, and park managers took steps to avoid this proximity leading back to food conditioning. At first, park managers attempted to remove these bears, or discourage them from approaching roadside areas through hazing. This strategy proved unsuccessful as bears took advantage of seasonally-abundant natural foods available in roadway corridors. The roadside bears kept returning and wildlife jams continued to occur. In 1990 the bear management paradigm shifted. Food Conditioning Versus Habituation 
Left image
Right image
Modern Bear ManagementThe modern method of management focuses on human behavior, along with keeping unnatural food sources inaccessible to bears. It uses education and proactive measures to mitigate the effects of human presence and behavior in the ecosystem. In the early 2000s, the grizzly bears’ recolonization extended into Grand Teton, and they became a common sighting along the park’s roadways. In 2007, park managers established the Wildlife Brigade to increase the park’s ability to manage human-wildlife interactions. The Wildlife Brigade is a seasonal ensemble composed of a bear biologist, two seasonal wildlife-management rangers, and over 30 volunteers. They employ adaptive management practices on a daily basis: they manage human interactions with wildlife to create safe and ethical viewing experiences; they oversee crowds and traffic at wildlife jams; they patrol campgrounds and developed areas for unsecured bear attractants; they offer education opportunities on the park’s wildlife and other natural resources. They also collect data on bear sightings and wildlife jams, which helps the park monitor the human-wildlife interface. Tyler Brasington, a wildlife management ranger who has worked on the brigade for several seasons, said, “When we’re thinking about wildlife management, it’s not wildlife management, it’s people management... we’re letting the bears be bears.” The current bear management plan in Grand Teton tolerates bears using most roadside habitats. It focuses on managing visitors to provide space for wildlife to forage on natural foods and move unimpeded across the landscape. This prevents the exclusion of bears from a large area of available habitat. But managing the human-bear interface near park roadways requires significant personnel capacity; In 2023, the brigade managed 262 black bear jams and 269 grizzly bear jams. 
Credit: NPS / Adams Anatomy of a Wildlife Jam
Credit: NPS Like any wildlife encounter, wildlife jams are context-dependent and can change at a moment’s notice. The Wildlife Brigade is trained to manage the human-wildlife interface based on a core set of adaptive strategies and adjust operations depending on the context of the encounter. All park wildlife has a minimum viewing distance. For bears and wolves, this distance is 100 yards. For other wildlife, it is 25 yards. But minimum distances are just that, minimums. A variety of factors could make it necessary to give an animal, or group of animals, more space. For instance, pairs of mating grizzlies are known to chase one another, which can add a degree of unpredictability to a viewing scenario. Additionally, female bears with cubs tend to be more reactive when they perceive a threat to their offspring. Unmanaged, wildlife jams can become chaotic. The most dangerous part of a jam isn’t the animal, but the traffic. If pulling over, drivers are asked to park their vehicle entirely out of the travel lane, either in a designated pullout or to the right of the white line. For safety and to allow animals to move unimpeded, wildlife viewers must stay on the adjacent shoulder of the roadside. In some cases—due to the animal’s behavior, low visibility, or blind roadway curves—stopping and/or exiting vehicles might be unsafe. The brigade will try to facilitate a safe viewing opportunity whenever possible.If it is not safe to exit the vehicle, visitors can generally still view wildlife from their stationary vehicle, or in the slowed flow of traffic. When parking is unsafe, the brigade will often set up places to turn around, so visitors can pass through the area repeatedly. In many viewing opportunities, wildlife might naturally maintain distance from the roadway. Visitors may watch bison congregate in a field, or a mama bear trek past with cubs in tow. But their habitat does not end at the road; bears and other wildlife often need to cross. Brigade members are trained to recognize when an animal intends to cross a road and will take steps to provide them a safe path to do so. By establishing crossing corridors—brackets of at least 100 yards, free from human interference—the brigade prevents conflict between visitors and wildlife, avoids traffic collisions, and helps the animal feel secure in crossing. Just like viewing distances, the bracket may be widened based on the context of the crossing. Certain behaviors, such as surrounding a bear on multiple sides or leaving the roadway shoulder to approach the bear, can be dangerous. The brigade is dedicated to providing visitors a fulfilling and educational viewing experience, but their number one priority is always safety. Crowding a bear can change its behavior and prevent that bear from accessing important natural foods. This can also result in a missed viewing opportunity for other park visitors. Visitors travel from around the world to see the park’s wildlife, and some of the best bear viewing in the lower 48 can be found in Grand Teton. This requires extra care on the part of park staff and visitors to keep bears wild and people safe. While it is easy to fixate on getting a glimpse or a great photo of a bear, it is important to keep situational awareness when navigating a wildlife jam and remember the overall objective of protecting bear populations in perpetuity. Campsite Care
Credit: NPS Negative human-bear interactions often don’t involve a direct encounter. It is too common that someone leaves human foods unsecured, and a curious bear takes advantage of that poor decision, often requiring park staff to take action against the bear. Taking precautions in campsites and developed areas is necessary to prevent food-conditioning in bears. Bears have extraordinary senses of smell. A grizzly’s nose is 2,100 times more powerful than that of a human. Anything that produces an odor can be an attractant. They also have an extensive spatial memory that allows them to recall for decades where to find valuable food sources. If human food is readily accessible in an area, it will only teach a bear will return and continue seeking out food rewards from people and high-traffic places. If bear attractants are not being used, they need to be stored in a hard-sided vehicle or a bear-resistant storage locker. Stumbling on an abandoned picnic or barbeque can dramatically alter a bear’s life path for the worst. Examples of Attractants
HazingExceptions to human-focused management are sometimes necessary. Due to high human activity, developed areas have increased potential for a human-bear conflict; bears walking along roadway surfaces are more likely to be struck by vehicles. When a bear wanders into a developed area or lingers on an asphalt surface, park staff often using a variety of hazing tools to encourage the bear out of the area. Hazing is an opportunistic technique wherein trained wildlife biologists use deterrents to immediately, but temporarily, modify a bear’s behavior. Hazing methods are robust. They use a wide range of deterring stimuli to encourage a bear out of a situation when its safety, or that of visitors or staff, might be at risk. Light hazing methods are most common. They can include loud noises or pressure from an approaching vehicle. Hard hazing methods are used conservatively, only as it is safe to do so. They may be used when a bear is actively exhibiting undesirable behavior, has a clear path to escape the situation, and when nearby crowds are manageable. Hard hazing generally involves an orange-colored shotgun and either loud noise-making rounds or less-than-lethal contact rounds, such as bean bags or rubber bullets. Bears have a high pain tolerance but are responsive to dominant behaviors. Hard hazing is typically accompanied with light hazing. If the bear associates the two, light hazing alone may be more effective in the future. Bears are opportunistic and choose their food based on ease of access. Hazing, along with proper food storage, reinforces the idea that natural food sources are easier to obtain and thus preferable to human-based ones. But hazing cannot prevent food conditioning on its own, whereas proper food storage can. 
Credit: NPS / Adams Monitoring SuccessPark staff collect a variety of data on the human-wildlife interface to assess management strategies. This includes documenting bear sightings, wildlife jams, human-bear conflicts, and wildlife-vehicle collisions. Such data allows park staff to monitor the effectiveness of certain management strategies and adapt as necessary. Park biologists also collect data on how bears navigate the landscape and the timing of their movements using GPS radio-collar telemetry. Telemetry methods were pioneered by Frank and John Craighead, whose research on Yellowstone grizzly bears in the 1960s and 1970s set the course for modern wildlife monitoring. The resulting GPS data from collars can help delineate individual home ranges, assess reproductive success, document survival, and estimate total population size. To monitor grizzly bear recovery, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team tries to maintain at least 25 collars on reproducing females and a representative sample of males across the GYE. 
Credit: NPS To deploy GPS radio collars, park biologists have to capture and handle bears in accordance with strict protocols that prioritize animal safety and wellbeing. When handling a bear, biologists also collect a variety of biological samples, including blood and hair, to analyze genetics, diet, and health. A small, vestigial tooth may also be extracted to age the bear. Wildlife biologists also perform routine flight surveys to corroborate and contribute GPS data. These flights are especially useful for monitoring the survival of cubs and yearlings, who usually aren’t individually collared when still with their mamas. Park biologists may also place remote cameras in known movement corridors or other high-use areas to monitor how bears are using their habitat, whether near development or in the backcountry. This often provides biologists with more detail on how bears are using an area. A major source of bear sighting data comes from visitor reports, describing bears they see while in the park. This data is crucial in identifying unique females with cubs (the basis for estimating population size), documenting bears in unique areas (such as in talus at high elevations), monitoring bears exhibiting concerning behaviors, and recording human-bear conflicts. Any instance where a bear accesses unnatural foods, causes property damage, or inflicts human injury or fatality is considered a human-bear conflict. In the average year, black bears will have more reported conflicts than grizzly bears. Most conflicts involve a bear damaging property or accessing human food or garbage. Any of these conflicts can be life-altering for a bear. Successful grizzly bear recovery is based on demographic factors beyond population counts, namely the survival and distribution of reproductive females. Researchers are also using this data to address other inquiries relevant to both grizzly and black bears. For instance, little is known about the long-term generational effects of habituation. Park biologists are concerned that cubs of habituated bears, raised near developed areas, could be more prone to food conditioning upon setting out on their own. Current and future research projects will provide data to better understand this possibility. Looking to the Future
Credit: NPS / Adams Humans are still the number one cause of mortality for bears in the GYE. Specifically, unsecured bear attractants continue to result in numerous bear deaths in the park and across the ecosystem every year. Bear removal, by relocation or euthanasia, is almost always avoidable through proactivity. Park managers and informed visitors have been widely successful in preventing unwanted behaviors. But it takes everyone doing their part to be successful. Just one major food reward can lead a bear to become food conditioned, which often results in the bear’s demise. The Wildlife Brigade has grown significantly in recent years to provide sufficient personnel trained to manage the growing number of human-wildlife interactions. But this growth remains disproportionate to the increasing number of visitors coming to Grand Teton, specifically to see and photograph bears. Park biologists have determined that the local grizzly population has reached biological carrying capacity, but the rise in visitation is expected to continue. Currently, the brigade manages several hundred wildlife jams every year, mostly between the months of May and September. The park continues to implement and assess new strategies to lower the impacts of visitation on wildlife, especially bears. Temporary and seasonal closures of high-quality bear habitats give bears room to wander naturally and prevent them from being blocked from their full range. Park biologists also establish no stopping zones as a way to allow bears to cross roadways unimpeded. The placements of these no-stopping zones are based on historical crossings and bear ecology. Successful management of the human-bear interface requires everyone’s help. By securing all bear attractants, giving bears adequate space, and slowing down when driving park roadways, visitor actions help maintain a healthy bear population. By proactively reducing the odds of human-bear conflicts, bears can remain wild, and people can be kept safe, while still allowing for incredible wildlife viewing opportunities. As of 2023, the GYE contains an estimate between 850 and 1201 grizzly bears and an unknown, but likely much larger, number of black bears. Each has their own fascinating and unique story. It’s a privilege to see these animals at any stage of their life journey. Just as they have an impact on us, we have an impact on them. ReferencesHopkins, J. B., Herrero, S., Shideler, R. T., Gunther, K. A., Schwartz, C. C., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2010). A proposed lexicon of terms and concepts for human–bear management in North America. Ursus (International Association for Bear Research and Management), 21(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-10-00005.1
|
Last updated: August 13, 2024