large carnivores, moose, and humans: a changing …bearproject.info/old/uploads/publications/2003...

ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 SCHWARTZ ET AL. - PREDATOR MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE

41

LARGE CARNIVORES, MOOSE, AND HUMANS: A CHANGINGPARADIGM OF PREDATOR MANAGEMENT IN THE 21st CENTURY

Charles C. Schwartz1, Jon E. Swenson2, and Sterling D. Miller3

1Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division,Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA;2Department of Biology and Nature Conservation, Agricultural University of Norway, Box 5014, N-1432 Ås, Norway; 3National Wildlife Federation, 240 North Higgins, Suite #2, Missoula, MT 59802,USA

ABSTRACT: We compare and contrast the evolution of human attitudes toward large carnivoresbetween Europe and North America. In general, persecution of large carnivores began much earlierin Europe than North America. Likewise, conservation programs directed at restoration andrecovery appeared in European history well before they did in North America. Together, the patternsuggests there has been an evolution in how humans perceive large predators. Our early ancestorswere physically vulnerable to large carnivores and developed corresponding attitudes of respect,avoidance, and acceptance. As civilization evolved and man developed weapons, the balanceshifted. Early civilizations, in particular those with pastoral ways, attempted to eliminate largecarnivores as threats to life and property. Brown bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus)were consequently extirpated from much of their range in Europe and in North America south ofCanada. Efforts to protect brown bears began in the late 1880s in some European countries andpopulation reintroductions and augmentations are ongoing. They are less controversial than inNorth America. On the other hand, there are no wolf introductions, as has occurred in NorthAmerica, and Europeans have a more negative attitude towards wolves. Control of predators toenhance ungulate harvest varies. In Western Europe, landowners own the hunting rights toungulates. In the formerly communistic Eastern European countries and North America, huntingrights are held in common, although this is changing in some Eastern European countries. Wolfcontrol to increase harvests of moose (Alces alces) occurs in parts of North America and Russia;bear control for similar reasons only occurs in parts of North America. Surprisingly, bears andwolves are not controlled to increase ungulates where private landowners have the hunting rightsin Europe, although wolves were originally exterminated from these areas. Both the inability ofscientific research to adequately predict the effect of predator control on ungulate populations anda shift in public attitudes toward large carnivores have resulted in an accelerating number ofchallenges to predator management in places where it is still espoused. Utilitarian attitudes towardswildlife are declining in Western cultures and people now increasingly recognize the intrinsic valueof wildlife, including large predators. In the future, agencies responsible for managing residentwildlife will face increased pressure to balance the needs of the hunting public with the desires ofnon-hunting publics. We suggest that in the next century we will witness a continued shift in howwildlife agencies manage both moose and large carnivores. More attention will be paid tomaintaining and restoring intact ecosystems and less toward sustainable yield of meat.

ALCES VOL. 39: 41-63 (2003)

Key words: Alces alces, brown bear, Canis lupus, gray wolf, grizzly bear, moose management,predator control, Ursus arctos

PREDATOR MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE - SCHWARTZ ET AL. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003

42

There is ample evidence that both wolves(Canis spp.) and bears (Ursus spp.) kill andeat moose. There is also empirical datasuggesting that this predation can limit moosenumbers under certain conditions (Ballardand Van Ballenberghe 1998). Wolf reduc-tion can result in increased numbers ofmoose under some circumstances (Gasawayet al. 1983). However, there are only a fewempirical studies supporting the principlethat bear reduction programs result in en-hancement of moose numbers (Stewart etal. 1985, Ballard 1992). To our knowledge,no study has addressed the long-term ef-fects of bear control on moose numbers.

In only a few places in North Americadoes control or reduction in wolf and bearnumbers continue to be strongly advocatedby some citizens groups and agencies re-sponsible for wildlife management. A simi-lar attitude regarding wolf control for live-stock safety also exists in Europe. How-ever, in the past 2 decades, agencies havewitnessed increasing levels of concern to-ward and criticism of predator control pro-grams by a more vocal public, particularlythe environmental community. These groupsquestion both the scientific validity and thephilosophical basis for carnivore control.Concurrently, there is an apparent shift inhow society in general values large preda-tors, particularly bears and wolves (Duda etal. 1998). In recent times, a larger contin-gent of the public and scientific communityfinds inherent intrinsic value in carnivoresand perceives their role as necessary inecosystem function (Miller et al. 2001); theyoppose predator control that favors the moreutilitarian attitude of “game production” asthe objective of wildlife management. Theseattitudinal shifts are prevalent in both NorthAmerica and Europe despite dissimilar legalsystems of game management.

Here, we review the evolution of preda-tor control in North America and Europe,agency culture and big game management,

the scientific basis of predator manage-ment, and an apparent shift in social valuesin the past decades away from predatorcontrol and toward large carnivore conser-vation and management.

EARLY HUMAN–PREDATORRELATIONSHIPS

Three stages between humans and theirenvironment have been described: hunting,shepherding, and agricultural (Boitani 1995).Human attitudes toward large carnivoreshave been shaped by these relationships.Hunting economies were centered on her-bivores as an important source of food.Large predators were perceived as compe-tition, but not as a threat. Hunters hadrespect for and kinship with predators. Thiswas reflected in attitudes of aboriginal peo-ples. Nomadic shepherds disdained wolvesas threats to their livestock and basis forlivelihood. In contrast, sedentary herdershad more tolerant attitudes toward wolvesbecause they had housing to protect theirlivestock. Farmers, producing crops andlimited livestock, had leeway to be moretolerant. However, agricultural people liv-ing in Latin cultures, characterized by closedvillages, were more tolerant than those liv-ing in Germanic societies, characterized bymore open settlements and solitary farms(Breitenmoser 1998).

Bears and wolves played important rolesin the legends, beliefs, and lives of prehis-toric peoples. Bears were potentially dan-gerous and fearsome creatures to hunt andkill and had physical similarities to man(Rockwell 1991). Like man, bears wereomnivorous, generalists, intelligent animalswith binocular vision. They livedsympatrically with humans and ate many ofthe same foods; when they stood erect orwere skinned out, they shared physical simi-larities to humans (Shepard 1996). Thesecharacteristics may have contributed tomany similar myths and legends involving


43

creatures that were half human and halfbear as a consequence of mating betweenhumans and bears (Rockwell 1991, Shepardand Sanders 1992). Bears disappeared inthe fall and reappeared in the spring givingrise to beliefs that they had a special 2-wayroute to the afterlife and could commutereadily between worlds; an ability worthy ofgreat respect. All these characteristicsgave bears a special importance in earlycultures closely bound to wild animals.Throughout the shared ranges of bears andhumans, people developed elaborate anddetailed rituals to appease the spirits ofbears they killed (Rockwell 1991, Shepardand Sanders 1992, Edsman 1994) and manyof these rituals continue today in some Na-tive American and Eurasian cultures (Black1998). Wolves played a great mythic-reli-gious role because they possessed manysimilar characteristics with humans; theywere great hunters, members of a pack(tribe or clan), defended territories, andhunted cooperatively (Lopez 1978).

Large carnivores were eliminated frommuch of their former range both in Europeand North America. The extermination ofwolves in Europe started in the Middle Agesand continued well into the early part of the20th century (Mallinson 1978, Boitani 1995).In Great Britain, wolves were considered athreat to livestock and exterminated by the17th century. They were exterminated fromNorthern Europe by the beginning of the20th century, but survived in lower numbersin Southern and Eastern Europe (Boitani1995). The extermination of brown bearsfollowed a similar pattern; bears were extir-pated from Denmark before the Middle Ages(Jessen 1929) and from Britain during the10th century (Corbet and Harris 1991).Bears survived in relict populations in North-ern and Southern Europe, and in greaterpopulations in Eastern Europe (Swenson etal. 2000).

The eradication of wolves and bears,

and the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), a preda-tor on small ungulates, was directly causedby persecution, including bounties, and indi-rectly through habitat destruction and elimi-nation of prey. Bounties on wolves wereinitiated in England in the 1500s, on wolvesand bears in Sweden in 1647, and Norway in1733 (Myrberget 1990, Swenson et al. 1995,Elgmork 1996). The destruction of theforests, due to the expansion of cultivationand overgrazing by domestic livestock, wasan important factor, as was the extermina-tion of native herbivores (Breitenmoser1998). For example, by the year 1200, 40%of Switzerland’s forests had been cleared(Breitenmoser 1998). The Hungarian land-scape was converted from 87% forest andwetland around 900 to less than 11% forestby 1920 (Csányi 1997). Also, the Napoleanicwars in the 1800s resulted in the spread ofmodern firearms. The result was the virtualelimination of the remaining big game spe-cies in much of Europe (Breitenmoser 1998),even though over–hunting had contributedto the extinction of the wild boar (Sus scrofa)in England in the 1500s, the capercaille(Tetrao urogallus) in Britain around 1790,and the complete extinction of the auroch(Bos primigenius) by 1627 (Myrberget1990). The famous Swedish taxonomist,Carl von Linné (Linneaus) probably neversaw a wild moose, and his description of thespecies in 1746 was based on a captiveindividual. In 1789, a Swedish law allowedlandowners unrestricted hunting on theirland, with the result that moose were almosttotally exterminated in Sweden by 1825,when the law was repealed (Bergström etal. 1993). With little wild ungulate prey, thelarge carnivores attacked the abundant do-mestic animals, increasing conflicts andpersecution by people.

When Europeans colonized the NorthAmerican continent, they brought their oldworld culture and traditions with them, in-cluding a view of wilderness as “something


44

alien to man–an insecure and uncomfort-able environment against which civilizationhad waged an unceasing struggle” (Nash1982:8). To early settlers, wilderness wasvillainous as were the wild animals andIndians living in it. Taming wilderness meantthe extermination of large carnivores, par-ticularly wolves and bears. The prevailingattitude of colonial America was summa-rized in a quote from John Adams in 1756:“The whole continent was one continuingdismal wilderness, the haunt of wolves andbears and more savage men. Now theforests are removed, the land covered withfields of corn, orchards bending with fruitand the magnificent habitations of rationaland civilized people” (Kellert 1996:104).The difference between European colonizersand the American Indians in attitude to wildlands and wild places was eloquently phrasedby Sioux Chief Luther Standing Bear (1932,from Deloria 2001): “We did not think of thegreat open plains, the beautiful rolling hills,and winding streams with tangled growth as‘wild.’ Only to the white man was nature a‘wilderness’ and only to him was the land‘infested’ with ‘wild’ animals and ‘savage’people. To us it was tame. Earth wasbountiful and we were surrounded with theblessings of the Great Mystery.”

As civilization moved westward, thepioneers viewed predators much like thenomadic shepherds described by Boitani(1995). Since the prevailing form of live-stock husbandry was to allow large herds ofcattle and sheep to graze freely over vastareas, carnivores, particularly wolves andgrizzly bears, were considered an economicthreat. The pervasive attitudes of the timewere captured in 2 salient quotes (fromNRC 1997:135). Historian and trapperStanley Young wrote: “There was sort of anunwritten law of the range that no cow manwould knowingly pass by a carcass of anykind without inserting in it a goodly dose ofstrychnine sulfate, in the hope of killing one

more wolf” (Young 1946:27). An earlydirector of the U.S. Biological Society, E.A. Goldman, wrote, “Large predatory ani-mals destructive of livestock and game, nolonger have a place in our advancing civili-zation” (Dunlap 1988:51). An early Ameri-can stockman had similar views: “Thedestruction of these grizzlies is absolutelynecessary before the stock business…couldbe maintained on a profitable basis.” (Bai-ley 1931 cited in USFWS 1993).

With the exception of extreme northernMinnesota, wolves were eliminated fromthe conterminous 48 states by the 1900s(Boitani 1995). Between 1800 and 1975,grizzly bears were eliminated from nearly98% of their historic range (USFWS 1993,Mattson et al. 1995). At the time of theLewis and Clark expedition, grizzly bearsinhabited most of the western United Statesand extended out into the Great Plains(Servheen 1999). They flourished wherePacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) wereabundant far inland into eastern Idaho.Today, they exist as only 5 remnantpopulations south of Canada. Three ofthese populations contain 350 individuals (Servheen1999). One population, in the north Cas-cades along the Pacific coast, is highlyendangered in both the United States andCanada. No bears have been verified onthe United States side of the border inrecent decades.

Bears and wolves faired better north ofthe 49th parallel. The chronology of wolfextirpation in southern Canada followed thepattern of agricultural and industrial settle-ment (Hayes and Gunson 1995). Wolveswere extirpated from many areas in theeastern provinces by the early 1900s, andsignificantly reduced in the western prov-inces by the 1930s (Carbyn 1987, Hayesand Gunson 1995). Grizzly bears followeda similar pattern. They were extirpatedfrom part of their historic range in Mani-


45

toba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, primarilyin the prairies and boreal plains and arescarce in southern Alberta and British Co-lumbia, where human populations are con-centrated (Macey 1979, Banci 1991, Banciet al. 1994, McLellan and Banci 1999).

Even in Alaska, where wolves andbrown and black bears are still abundant,there were several attempts to eliminatethem. According to Sherwood (1981:24)“Periodically Alaskan civic leaders advo-cated the extermination of the animals[brown bears] and make Ursus the symbolof an alleged colonialism that they claimedwas inspired by conservationist sentimentand directed by bureaucrats in WashingtonD.C., working in concert with vested ab-sentee interests. This colonialism, theybelieved, prevented resident Alaskan en-trepreneurs from exploiting the Territory’snatural resources and prevented residentpoliticians from setting the terms of thatexploitation.”

Brown bears were perceived as a di-rect threat to the fledgling cattle industry onKodiak Island (Van Daele 2003). Politicalpressure from the industry resulted in regu-lations in 1929 allowing Kodiak cattlemen tokill bears at any time they were considereda menace to livestock or property. Accord-ing to Sherwood (1981:59) one rancher’sadvice to anyone encountering a brownbear was, “shoot them in the guts, in thefoot, any place, but get a bullet into them.”

Prior to statehood in 1959, wolves inAlaska were targeted in a major predatorcontrol program led by the United StatesGovernment. Wolf control was pervasivewith the intent to increase moose and cari-bou populations. Strychnine and cyanidewere commonly used and later aerial gun-ning was employed as a very effectivetechnique. Following statehood, state man-agement eventually evolved to where thewolf was listed as a game animal in 1963(NRC 1997).

As civilization expanded and humandensities increased, predators were eithersignificantly reduced or eliminated frommuch of their range in both North Americaand Europe (Woodroffe 2000). As we shallsee, these early attitudes toward large car-nivores have persisted, to varying degrees,around the world.

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OFWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMSThroughout most of the historical record,

wildlife managers have targeted predatorsand have had a significant impact on theirnumbers, distribution, and more recently,conservation. Because wildlife has valuefor recreation and food, there are signifi-cant economic incentives for individuals,such as landowners, to acquire propertyrights to wildlife. Thus, the system ofwildlife management in a country can con-tribute to the attitudes towards predation bylarge carnivores on big game (Lueck 1995).

EuropeIn most of Europe, the Kings and their

chieftains controlled most of the lands andhunting rights during this feudal period, whichwas at its peak around 1000. The oldestgeneral game law, introduced by King Knutof Denmark in 1016, established that no oneowned wild animals, but that the king hadsome hunting privileges. This system de-clined as a result of corruption and theBlack Death, and around 1348-49, huntingprivileges, especially for big game, weretransferred to the large landowners. Thiswas completed in Europe by the 17th and18th centuries. In some countries, such asFinland, Norway, and Switzerland, smallfarmers and others held many hunting rights(Myrberget 1990). The Norwegian Parlia-ment transferred all hunting rights, exceptfor killing large carnivores, to landowners in1899 (Søilen 1995).


46

Landowners often lost exclusive hunt-ing rights following changes in political sys-tems, such as the revolutions in France andRussia and the introduction of communismin Eastern Europe. Interestingly, the deci-sion that hunting rights in the United Stateswould not be held by the landowner, as is thecase in Britain, was made following theAmerican Revolution. After World War II,Europe had essentially 2 systems, with land-owners having the hunting rights in WesternEurope and governments managing huntingin the communistic Eastern Europe. Hunt-ing remained open to all citizens of Portugal,Italy, Greece, and Turkey (Myrberget 1990).Since the fall of communism, countries ofEastern Europe have been in flux aboutwhether to revert to the former system oflandowners owning hunting rights, as Hun-gary has, or to retain state control overwildlife management, independent of landownership, as has Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine,and Romania (Csányi 1997, Salvatori et al.2002).

North AmericaIn North America, prior to European

colonization, the American Indian tribesclaimed rights to wildlife by protecting hunt-ing and fishing territories (Carlos and Lewis1995). “The ownership of game amongNative Americans had an uncanny resem-blance to current United States institutions.Indian tribal societies, like state agencies,controlled wildlife stocks by enforcing therights to hunting and fishing territories andrestricting the time and method of harvestby tribal members.” (Lueck 1995:3).

American game laws are rooted in thepast history of English common law. How-ever, today’s American and English wildlifelaws are markedly different. In the UnitedStates, ownership of wildlife resides withthe people and is administered on theirbehalf by government, primarily the stategovernments. In Great Britain, the law

places nearly all control in the hands ofprivate landowners. In Canada, wildlife ismanaged by the Provincial Governments onbehalf of the people similar to the UnitedStates, but ownership is vested in the Crownuntil the wildlife is legally killed. At thispoint property rights transfer to the hunter.The states and provinces have retainedcontrol over most wildlife management, butthey have lost some authority to the federalgovernments with international treaties (e.g.,the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and MarineMammal Protection Act) and, in the UnitedStates, with the Lacey Act (controls inter-state transportation of game) and the En-dangered Species Act. But the states andprovinces have vigorously fought to retainthe authority to manage wildlife (Peek 1986).

CONFLICTS SURROUNDINGPREDATOR CONTROL TO

IMPROVE HARVEST OF WILDUNGULATES

In his classic book “Game Manage-ment,” Leopold (1933:3) defined game man-agement as “the art of making land producesustained annual crops of wildlife for rec-reational use.” This definition espoused autilitarian philosophy of game managementthat established the direction of wildlifemanagement for the next half century.Wildlife agencies “managed” gamepopulations for a “sustained yield.” Theirprimary clients were the hunting public, andup until the 1970s virtually all state andprovincial wildlife agencies operated pri-marily under the principle of sustained use.Most universities that trained students inthe field of wildlife management were LandGrant or Agricultural colleges with a focuson production and emphasized sustainableyield concepts.

Peek (1986:25), discussed 2 groups ofconservationists as defined by Harry et al.(1969): those with a conservation-utilizationemphasis, and those with a conservation-


47

preservation emphasis. Both groups wereconcerned with the perpetuation of naturalresources and therefore could be classed asconservationists. However, people with autilization emphasis were oriented towardthe goal of resource exploitation, such ashunting, with aims of producing sustainedyields by cropping surpluses. “Wise use”was the doctrine of those with conserva-tion-utilization emphasis and their philoso-phy was adopted by most wildlife and natu-ral resource management agencies. Thiswas encouraged by the importance of feespaid by hunters that were vital to manage-ment activities including the salaries of themanagers. Conservationist-preservation-ists, by contrast, were not oriented towards“wise use” but rather espoused an appre-ciative interest in the resource, preferablyin its “natural state” (Harry et al. 1969).State wildlife agencies were slow to ac-knowledge this doctrine in part, perhaps,because there was no mechanism for con-servation-preservationists to regularly sup-port wildlife management efforts with theirfees.

The conservationist-preservationistmovement in North America greatly in-creased in influence in the early 1970s andbecame a major part of the biopoliticalscene during the 1980s. It was largelyresponsible for broadening activities of wild-life and land management agencies innongame management and has evolved intowhat is termed environmentalism (Peek1986). Conservation-preservationists wereand still are largely responsible for chal-lenging predator control programs.

Alaska has carried out a program ofwolf control with the specific goal of in-creasing ungulate populations for huntersduring the same period that conservationand enhancement programs were underwayelsewhere in the United States. The historyof predator control in Alaska provides agood example of the conflicts between the

wise use and the conservation-preservationgroups. During the decade of the 1980s,controversy grew around the state’s wolfcontrol programs (Stephenson et al. 1995),and environmental groups filed several courtcases against the states in an attempt tostop wolf control. These conflicts reacheda peak in the early 1990s. By 1994, thegovernor of Alaska suspended the state’swolf control program because it was judgedto be an unacceptable treatment of wolves(NRC 1997). The governor called for ascientific review and indicated that he wouldnot reinstate predator control unless it met3 criteria: (1) it was based on solid science;(2) a full cost-benefit analysis showed itmade economic sense for Alaskans; and (3)it had broad public support. Similar con-frontations over wolf control programs havealso occurred in Canada (Hayes and Gunson1995).

Alaska began efforts to reduce grizzlybears in some areas in 1980 in response toindications that moose numbers in certainareas were being maintained at chronicallylow levels by bear predation on neonates.Moose numbers declined in the 1970s as aconsequence of a series of severe wintersand overharvest by hunters, in addition tosignificant predation on moose calves bybears (Ballard et al. 1981). Unlike effortsto control wolves, grizzly bear control ef-forts in selected areas were done by liber-alization of hunting regulations instead of bytrapping and shooting by state employees.Bear reductions started in 1980 and ulti-mately included elimination of requirementsthat residents buy a special tag to hunt bearsand generous bag limits that allowed hunt-ers to take bears more frequently in tar-geted areas than elsewhere in Alaska.Moose numbers increased during the 1980sand 1990s but calf survival remained low.Available evidence indicated that increasesin moose numbers were unrelated to theincreased bear harvests (Miller and Ballard


48

1992).Efforts are ongoing in targeted areas of

Alaska to reduce bear numbers in order toprovide more moose for hunters. Unlikeefforts to reduce wolf abundance to accom-plish the same objective, bear reductionefforts have generated less controversy,perhaps because control efforts are donegradually by legal sport hunters instead ofby government agents using trapping andaerial gunning techniques. Also, unlike thegovernment sponsored control efforts in theUnited States south of Canada in the early20th century, bear reduction by hunters hasnot yet resulted in measurable declines inbear density in the portions of Alaska whereit is ongoing, although it has caused changesin population composition (Miller 1997).

Control of wolves to enhance huntingopportunity is supported by 48% of Alaskanvoters and by 65% of Alaskan hunters(Miller et al. 1998). The most vehementopposition to wolf control efforts comesfrom conservation groups outside of Alaska,but these groups have been effective atstopping or curtailing active wolf reductionprograms. It is possible that the generalpublic may be more amenable to reductionsin bear abundance than to reductions in wolfabundance because, unlike wolves, bearsoccasionally attack humans, resulting in afear of bears in a significant proportion ofthe population. A survey of Alaska votersindicated that 34% had concerns about bearsthat sometimes kept them from going intothe countryside (Miller et al. 1998).

Similar to the grizzly bear case inAlaska, black bears (Ursus americanus)and mountain lions (Puma concolor) werethought to be reducing recruitment of elk(Cervus elaphus) in the Clearwater areaof central Idaho. In 2000, a research pro-gram was proposed to evaluate the biologyof this relationship through predator reduc-tion efforts accomplished by liberalized hunt-ing regulations as well as control by govern-

ment officials. Predator advocacy groupsorganized a national campaign against theproposed research similar to that conductedagainst the wolf reduction effort in Alaska.Idaho officials modified their research pro-posal to accomplish targeted reductions usingonly liberalized regulations for hunting ofpredators. Subsequently, objections to theresearch have largely dissipated even thoughthe liberalized hunting regulations have beenexpanded beyond the boundaries of theoriginally proposed research area. Difficul-ties in convincingly documenting trends inblack bear and mountain lion abundance arelikely to confound interpretation of anychanges in elk recruitment or abundancefound in the Idaho study.

We know of no case of planned reduc-tion in bear densities in Europe to increaseungulate numbers. The European brownbear is much less aggressive towards hu-mans than the North American brown/griz-zly bear (Swenson et al. 1996), which mayalso influence people’s attitudes. The per-secution of wolves in recent times has beenjustified partially by the reduction of preda-tion on ungulates in some areas. Neverthe-less, we are unaware of any case where thiswas the primary justification, as reductionsof livestock losses seem to be the primaryobjective (Promberger and Schröder 1993).We expected that planned reductions ofthese predators would have occurred in thecountries where landowners own the eco-nomic rights to hunting. However, in suchcountries, bears seem to be popular enoughfor hunting in their own right that owners ofthe hunting rights accept this tradeoff. Nocountry with this system has a huntablepopulation of wolves, which might not be acoincidence. However, wolves recentlyhave been established in Norway and Swe-den, where this system exists. In Norway,the state pays compensation for the loss ofhunting income due to wolf predation, but itis a country where conflicts surrounding


49

depredation on free-grazing sheep are veryintense. In Sweden, where there are almostno free-grazing sheep, large forest compa-nies are contributing to the funding of wolfresearch because they want to know ifwolves can help reduce forest damagecaused by high moose densities.

STUDIES OF PREDATOR–PREYRELATIONSHIPS

Ballard and Larsen (1987), VanBallenberghe (1987), Boutin (1992), NRC(1997), and Ballard and Van Ballenberghe(1998) all provide thorough reviews of therecent studies of predator-prey dynamics ofmoose in North America; only 1 intensivestudy has been conducted in Europe(Swenson et al. 2001). Wolves, brownbears, and American black bears are theprincipal predators of moose. There isgeneral agreement that predation is a limit-ing factor for moose populations, but thereis controversy regarding the magnitude ofthis limitation and if the evidence supportsthe hypothesis that predation regulatesmoose numbers (Boutin 1992). Many of thepredator-prey studies dealing with carni-vore- (wolves and bears) moose relation-ships were not designed to answer specificquestions about the impacts of predatorcontrol on moose demographics. Addition-ally, the full impact of wolf predation andwolf control on moose demographics hasreceived considerably more attention thansimilar impacts from bears. Few studiesdetail the influences of both bear and wolfpredation on moose in the same system atthe same time (Table 1). Even fewerstudies have been conducted long enough todetermine the long-term impacts of preda-tor control on moose population dynamics.In a review of predator control in Alaska,the NRC (1997) came to 3 conclusions: (1)predator control experiments provide onlynegative evidence for the existence of analternative stable state with relatively high

numbers of both predators and prey. Only2 studies were monitored long enough toreveal the existence of such a state, and theevidence from those studies was negativeor equivocal. Existing evidence suggeststhat if predator control is to be used as a toolto increase ungulate populations, controlmust be both intensive and relatively fre-quent. There is no factual basis for theassumption that a period of intensive controlfor a few years can result in long-termchanges in ungulate population densities;(2) experiments that resulted in increases inmoose populations were conducted wherewolves were relatively numerous, wherebears were relatively uncommon and werenot preying heavily on ungulate calves, wherehabitat quality was high, and weather wasrelatively benign. The evidence is inconclu-sive, but there is reason to believe that anintensive control effort, during which wolfpopulations are greatly reduced for severalyears and other factors are favorable, canresult in short-term increases in moosepopulations; and (3) control experimentsthat appeared to have had some successused methods, such as aerial shooting, thatare not currently politically acceptable.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, wolfremoval had strong support among manage-ment agencies in Alaska and the Yukon asa means of increasing moose densities(Gasaway et al. 1983, Ballard and Larsen1987). However, some wolf control experi-ments met with limited success, and telem-etry studies during the same period(Franzmann et al. 1980, Ballard et al. 1981,Franzmann and Schwartz 1986, Boertje etal. 1988, Ballard and Miller 1990) impli-cated bears as a limiting factor in calfsurvival. Consequently, emphasis shiftedtoward both wolf and bear control pro-grams, yet there was little empirical data tosupport bear control as a long-term man-agement tool to increase moose numbers(Table 1). Current science allows manag-


50

Tab

le 1

. Pre

dato

r red

uctio

n ex

peri

men

ts (f

rom

NR

C 1

997)

.

Pred

ator

redu

ctio

nM

etho

d an

dlo

catio

nW

olve

sB

ears

Res

ults

Air

-ass

iste

dE

ast-c

entra

lW

olf

popu

latio

n re

duce

dN

ot d

one

AK

to 5

5-80

% b

elow

pre

-con

trol

(GM

U 20

A)

num

bers

for 7

yrs

(197

6-82

).

Finl

ayso

n,49

-85%

of w

olf p

opul

atio

nN

ot d

one

Yuk

onre

mov

ed fo

r 6 y

rs (1

983-

89);

hum

an h

arve

st ra

te o

f moo

sean

d ca

ribo

u re

duce

d by

90%

.

Sout

hwes

tW

olf n

umbe

rs re

duce

d by

Bea

r pop

ulat

ion

Yuk

on40

-80%

for 5

yea

rsre

duct

ion

estim

ated

(Ros

e Lak

e; 1

982-

87).

at 7

-9%

(198

2-87

).

Ais

hihi

k,A

ppro

xim

atel

y 76

% o

f wol

fN

ot d

one

Yuk

onpo

pula

tions

rem

oved

ove

r4

yrs (

1993

-96)

. M

oose

and

cari

bou

hunt

ing

curt

aile

d.

Nor

ther

n B

C1,

000

wol

ves r

emov

ed in

Not

don

e10

yea

rs (1

978-

87);

alm

ost

800

of w

hich

wer

e rem

oved

in th

e la

st 4

yrs

of

rem

oval

.

Qué

bec

Wol

f po

pula

tion

redu

ced

toA

tota

l of 8

1 be

ars

rem

oved

48-6

2% o

ver 4

yea

rs (1

982-

85).

over

a 3

yr p

erio

d in

adi

ffer

ent a

rea (

1983

-198

5).

Ave

rage

ann

ual r

ate

of in

crea

se o

f moo

se p

opul

atio

ns w

as 1

5% d

urin

gw

olf c

ontr

ol, a

nd 5

% fo

r 12

yrs

afte

r the

end

of w

olf c

ontr

ol.

Ave

rage

annu

al ra

te o

f inc

reas

e of

car

ibou

pop

ulat

ions

was

16%

dur

ing,

and

6%

for 7

yrs

aft

er th

e en

d of

wol

f con

trol

.

Incr

ease

d su

rviv

al o

f adu

lt ca

ribo

u; in

crea

sed

num

bers

of c

alve

s/10

0co

ws

for b

oth

moo

se a

nd c

arib

ou.

Ave

rage

ann

ual r

ate

of in

crea

se fo

rm

oose

and

car

ibou

abo

ut 1

6-18

%.

Hun

ting

succ

ess

incr

ease

d. S

even

year

s af

ter w

olf c

ontr

ol e

nded

, moo

se a

nd c

arib

ou n

umbe

rs b

egan

tode

clin

e. N

o su

bsta

ntia

l inc

reas

e in

moo

se p

opul

atio

ns o

r cow

:cal

f rat

ios

duri

ng p

reda

tor r

emov

al.

No

subs

tant

ial i

ncre

ase

in m

oose

pop

ulat

ions

or c

ow:c

alf r

atio

s du

ring

pred

ator

rem

oval

.

Incr

ease

d nu

mbe

rs o

f car

ibou

cal

ves/

100

cow

s. R

espo

nse

of m

oose

high

ly v

aria

ble

and

not c

lear

ly re

late

d to

wol

f red

uctio

n. C

ontr

ol e

nded

in 1

996,

too

rece

ntly

to a

sses

s lo

ng-t

erm

tren

ds.

Cal

f sur

viva

l rat

es a

nd p

opul

atio

n si

zes

appa

rent

ly in

crea

sed

for a

llun

gula

tes

in th

e ar

ea.

Whe

n w

olf c

ontr

ol e

nded

, wol

f num

bers

incr

ease

dra

pidl

y an

d ca

lf s

urvi

val d

ecre

ased

to p

re-c

ontr

ol le

vels

.

No

appa

rent

cha

nge

in m

oose

cal

f sur

viva

l rat

e in

eith

er w

olf o

r bea

rre

mov

al ar

ea.


51

Eas

t-cen

tral

Wol

f po

pula

tion

was

red

uced

Not

don

eA

K b

y 28

-58%

for 3

yrs

(198

1-84

).(G

MU

20E)

Sout

h-ce

ntra

lE

xten

sive

aer

ial s

hoot

ing

Pois

onin

g pr

obab

lyA

Kan

d po

ison

ing

redu

ced

also

red

uced

bea

r(G

MU

13)

wol

f num

bers

dra

mat

ical

lynu

mbe

rs.

(194

8-19

54).

Wol

ves

wer

e re

duce

d by

Aft

er w

olf c

ontr

ol42

-58%

for 3

yrs (

1976

-78)

.en

ded,

60%

of t

hebe

ar p

opul

atio

nw

as tr

ans-

loca

ted

orre

duce

d by

libe

raliz

edhu

ntin

g re

gula

tions

.G

roun

d-ba

sed

Ken

aiR

ecre

atio

nal

harv

ests

Peni

nsul

a,in

crea

sed

for 4

yrs

AK

(197

6-79

).

Van

couv

erW

olf

dens

ity w

as r

educ

edN

ot d

one

Isla

nd, B

Cov

er a

4-yr

per

iod

(198

3-86

)to

abo

ut 1

0% o

f pre

-con

trol

leve

ls.

Sask

atch

ewan

Not

don

eU

nkno

wn

prop

ortio

n of

bla

ckbe

ar p

opul

atio

n w

as re

mov

edin

spri

ng o

f 198

3, a

nd fr

oman

othe

r are

a in

spri

ng o

f 198

4.

Tab

le 1

. con

tinu

ed.

Pred

ator

redu

ctio

nM

etho

d an

dlo

catio

nW

olve

sB

ears

Res

ults

Wol

f con

trol

had

no

mea

sura

ble

effe

ct o

n ca

lf s

urvi

val.

Dur

ing

and

afte

r thi

s pr

edat

or re

duct

ion

peri

od, c

arib

ou n

umbe

rsin

crea

sed

and

had

mor

e th

an d

oubl

ed b

y th

e ea

rly

1960

s. T

his

coin

cide

d w

ith fa

vora

ble

wea

ther

and

rang

e co

nditi

ons

and

low

harv

est

by h

uman

s.

Wol

f con

trol

did

not

resu

lt in

hig

h an

nual

incr

ease

s in

the

moo

sepo

pula

tion.

Cal

f sur

viva

l inc

reas

ed a

fter

bea

r rem

oval

, but

bea

rsre

turn

ed to

the

area

aft

er s

umm

er a

nd m

oose

cal

f sur

viva

l ret

urne

d to

leve

ls b

efor

e be

ar re

mov

al.

No

chan

ge in

cal

f num

bers

cou

ld b

eat

trib

uted

to in

crea

sed

bear

har

vest

s.

Wol

f re

duct

ions

wer

e as

soci

ated

with

incr

ease

d m

oose

pop

ulat

ions

,bu

t the

hig

hest

num

ber

of m

oose

occ

urre

d in

are

as th

at h

ad b

urne

d10

-25

year

s ear

lier r

egar

dles

s of t

he e

xten

t of w

olf r

educ

tions

.

Dee

r pop

ulat

ions

incr

ease

d fo

llow

ing

wol

f con

trol

. H

unte

r eff

ort

appe

ared

to b

e en

hanc

ed b

y w

olf c

ontr

ol.

Incr

ease

d ca

lf:c

ow ra

tios a

fter

bea

r rem

oval

. T

he fo

llow

ing

year

,pr

opor

tion

of y

earl

ings

in th

e m

oose

pop

ulat

ion

was

hig

her t

han

befo

re p

reda

tor c

ontr

ol.


52

ers to predict with reasonable confidencethat predator removal at low moose densi-ties can improve calf survival, but increasedrecruitment and subsequent growth of themoose population may or may not occur.Data are generally unavailable on long-terms effects of predator reduction.

TIMES CHANGE: FROMPREDATOR EXTERMINATION TO

PREDATOR CONSERVATIONEurope

Because of the degradation of forestsand loss of indigenous large herbivores, theattitudes of Europeans towards the environ-ment were changing by the end of the1800s. In Switzerland, laws requiring refor-estation, banning livestock from forests,restricting hunting, and establishing gamesanctuaries were passed in 1876(Breitenmoser 1998). Similar laws, and anincrease in effort to reintroduce ungulatesinto former habitats, occurred throughoutEurope. The first modern law regulatinghunting and protection of game in Norwaywas passed in 1845 (Søilen 1995). TheSwedish Hunter’s Association, the Norwe-gian Association of Hunters and Anglers,and the Swiss League for the Protection ofNature were founded in 1830, 1877, and1909, respectively. During this same timeperiod when forests and ungulate populationswere increasing, human numbers were de-clining in rural areas as people migrated toindustrial cities or emigrated to NorthAmerica. As a consequence, numbers oflivestock also declined (Breitenmoser 1998).Efforts to increase ungulate populations havebeen spectacular, and at present, manyEuropean countries have high densities. Forexample, in the mid-1980s, nearly 250,000moose were harvested annually in the Nor-dic countries, compared with about 72,000in all of North America (Haagenrud et al.1987, Kelsall 1987). Most of these greatincreases occurred in the absence of large

carnivores. Today, forest damage causedby abundant ungulates is a widespread prob-lem in Europe (Bergström et al. 1993,Breitenmoser 1998) and this over-browsinghas reduced the biodiversity of plants andinvertebrates (Suominen et al. 1999).

During this period, steps were taken inseveral countries to save the remainingbrown bears. In Sweden, for example,official requests to remove the bounty onbears were made in 1889 and 1891, thesecond by a chapter of the Swedish Hunt-er’s Association. Parliament approved theserequests in 1893 (Lönnberg 1929). In 1905the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciencesissued a statement saying, “it is a matter ofhonor for our country that this interestinganimal be protected from complete exter-mination.” Several measures were taken toprotect bears, including complete protec-tion in national parks, which were first es-tablished in 1910. This effort was success-ful, and hunting was reintroduced in 1943(Swenson et al. 1995). Brown bears re-ceived protection in Poland in 1932 and inItaly in 1939 (1992 in the Abruzzo area).But, the bear received protection muchlater in other countries: 1955 in France,1967 in Spain, and 1972 in Norway (Servheenet al. 1999). Efforts to save and increasebear populations in Europe have been suc-cessful in many areas, and there are nowabout 50,000 brown bears in Europe (ca.14,000 outside of Russia) with increasingand expanding, or at least stable, populationsfound in Northeastern Europe, theCarpathian Region, the Dinaric MountainRange in former Yugoslavia, and Scandina-via (Zedrosser et al. 2001). In many in-stances, bears are returning to countriesthat exterminated them because of suc-cessful conservation efforts in neighboringcountries. In addition, the population hasbeen increasing in most of Russia, with thegreatest increase in the European part(Chestin et al. 1992). However, 8 of the 12


53

European populations are less than 500bears and are decreasing. Efforts to savethe brown bear have concentrated on pro-tection, and the species is protected or is agame animal in all of Europe (Zedrosser etal. 2001). Additionally, 2 reintroductionshave been attempted, and 2 populationshave been augmented. The first reintroduc-tion attempt in the world was in Poland in1938-44 and was unsuccessful. A secondoccurred in the central Pyrenees of Francein 1996-97. Augmentations have occurredin Austria in 1989-93 and an ongoing projectin Italy that started in 1999.

Brown bears are an important and prizedbig game animal in many countries. This isprobably why Swedish hunters worked ac-tively for the species’ protection in the1800s. It is also an important game speciesin many Eastern European countries(Salvatori et al. 2002). Zedrosser et al.(2001) concluded that communism in East-ern Europe was not nearly as destructive tobear populations as the political systems inWestern Europe, possibly because bearswere managed for hunting by a few hunters,including foreign hunters with convertiblecurrency, and because gun ownership wasstrictly limited. The extreme consequenceof this was the situation in Romania, wherethe dictator Nicolae Ceausescu allowed thebear population to increase to the highestdensities in Europe to provide hunting op-portunities, such as shooting 24 bears in onehunt, and trophies for himself only (Crisan1994). Romania is the only European coun-try that has decided to reduce its brownbear population, from 8,000 to 6,000 byhunting, in order to reduce loss of human lifeand livestock losses (Servheen et al. 1999,Swenson et al. 2000).

The situation for the wolf is quite differ-ent, even though some Russian scientistsbegan writing about the importance of thewolf’s place in nature at the end of the 19thand beginning of the 20th centuries (Bibikow

1990). Protection came much later: 1966 inSweden, 1973 in Norway, 1976 in Italy,1993 in France, and 1995 in Croatia andGreece (Promberger and Schröder 1993,Boitani 2000). It is fully protected in 11 of27 European countries and has no protec-tion at all in 9 countries. The total Europeanpopulation outside of Russia is estimated tobe over 18,000, but only 6 countries havemore than 1,000 wolves, 11 have more than500, and 8 have less than 50 (Boitani 2000).Wolves are increasing in many Europeancountries and, like bears, are expanding intocountries where they were formerly extir-pated. In the Soviet Union, wolves weremanaged by zones, with extermination inintensive agricultural and reindeer (Rangifertarandus) husbandry areas, controlled atlow density in areas with fewer people andagriculture, management as a hunted spe-cies in the largest zone, and complete pro-tection in reserves (Bibikow 1990).

We know of no efforts to reestablishwolves in Europe by reintroductions. How-ever, in addition to the reintroductions andaugmentations of bear populations, lynx havebeen reintroduced into many parts of Eu-rope, and more are planned (Breitenmoseret al. 2000).

Both the brown bear and the wolf areprotected and managed according to na-tional legislation. In addition, most Euro-pean countries are signatories of the BernConvention, undoubtedly the most impor-tant agreement protecting large carnivoresin Europe. The Bern Convention was rati-fied on 19 September 1979 in Bern, Switzer-land. Its goal is to preserve wild animalspecies and their natural habitats. Membercountries must pay special attention to en-dangered, and potentially endangered, spe-cies listed in different appendices, eachrepresenting a different stage of endanger-ment. The brown bear and wolf are listedin Appendix II (strictly protected faunaspecies) requiring that actions must be taken


54

to protect them; forbidden are the captureor killing; wilful disturbance, and possessionand trade. In addition, the recolonization ofindigenous species must be promoted ifdoing so will enhance the likelihood of pres-ervation. Member countries can make res-ervations to the Bern Convention regardingmeans or methods of killing, capture, orother exploitation of listed species. Sevencountries have made reservations regard-ing protection of the brown bear (Bulgaria,Czech Republic, Finland, Slovenia, Slovakia,Ukraine, and Turkey) and 10 regarding thewolf (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland,Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia,Spain, and Turkey) (Boitani 2000, Swensonet al. 2000).

In addition, Council Directive 92/43/EEC, Conservation of Natural and WildFauna and Flora (ABL L 206, 22.07.1992),binds member states of the European Union(EU). The main goal of the so-called Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive is to secure spe-cies diversity by protection of habitats andprotection of wild flora and fauna. Actionsmust be taken by member countries to pre-serve all species and their habitats. Thebrown bear is a priority species of the EU.It is listed in Appendix II (species needingspecially protected areas, except thepopulations in Finland and Sweden) andAppendix IV (strictly protected species;capture, killing, and wilful disturbance notpermitted). Possession, transport, and tradeof Appendix IV species are strictly prohib-ited. The wolf is listed in Appendix II andIV (in both cases except for somepopulations in Spain, Greece, and Finland).Exemptions are given when it can be estab-lished that there is no negative impact tospecies preservation, to prevent seriousdamage to culture and livestock, for publichealth, sanitary, and safety reasons, and forscientific, restocking, and re-colonizationpurposes.

The European Parliament requests that

members of the EU consider their resolu-tions, although they are not legally binding.Those relevant to large carnivores are: (1)European Parliament Resolution, 24 Janu-ary 1989 (A2-0377/88, Ser. A), which callsfor immediate steps to favor wolf conserva-tion in all European countries, adopts theInternational Union for Conservation ofNature Wolf Manifesto, and invites theEuropean Commission to expand and pro-vide financial means to support wolf con-servation; (2) European Parliament Resolu-tion, 17 February 1989 (A2-339/88, ABL C69/201, 20.3.1989), which states that theEuropean Commission should promote orcontinue programs to protect the brownbear in the EU. Actions for socio-economicdevelopment should be promoted in returnfor communities with protective measuresfor the brown bear. Systems for beardamage prevention and damage compensa-tion should be developed. A network ofconnected reserves and specially protectedareas should be established (called the“NATURA 2000 Network”); and (3) Euro-pean Parliament Resolution, 22 April 1994(A2-0154/94, ABL C 128/427, 09.05.1994),which states that the European Commissionshould not support and finance developmentthat would have a negative effect on bearpopulations. Protected areas and corridorsfor genetic exchange should be establishedto correct actions that have had negativeimpact on bear populations. Measures toprevent the killing and capture of bears andprotect bear habitat should be undertaken.Financial support for damage compensa-tion, and compensation for economic re-strictions due to bear conservation, shouldbe provided.

North AmericaWolves and grizzly bears were among

the first species to be protected under theEndangered Species Act (ESA) in the UnitedStates, signed in 1973. Wolves were listed


55

as endangered in 1974 and grizzly bears asthreatened in 1975. The ESA is probablythe most significant law in any nation de-signed to preserve and maintain biodiversity.The ESA establishes that preservation ofanimal and plant species is a national prior-ity that takes precedence over local inter-ests in wildlife management, over economicinterests, and even over certain rights ofowners of private property (Czech andKrausman 2001). Although the intent of theESA to apply to private lands is clear, thelegal basis for this remains controversialand unresolved to some degree (Sax 2001).Distinct population segments can be listedunder the ESA for species like wolves andbears that are reduced in significant propor-tions of their former range but remain abun-dant elsewhere (e.g., wolves and grizzlybears are not listed in Alaska, only south ofCanada). This national priority for speciesrecovery mandated by the ESA has workedwell in the United States to recover largepredators, like wolves and grizzly bears,which sometimes conflict, or are thought toconflict, with local economic or hunter in-terests. The ESA was amended in 1982, toinclude Section 10(j) designed to reducelandowner opposition to restoration of con-troversial species, like wolves and bears, toportions of their former range from whichthey were extirpated. This is accomplishedby designating such reintroduced populationsas “experimental”. Populations restored as“experimental” are permitted more man-agement flexibility on issues such as takingof nuisance individuals, permitting multipleuses of habitat, and reducing the require-ment for federal review of land manage-ment and use activities (such as logging)that could adversely affect the species inexperimental populations. This “experi-mental” provision was successfully used torestore wolves in Yellowstone National Parkand central Idaho. It was also the key to thereintroduction of red wolves (Canis rufus)

to the southeast and of Mexican wolves (C.l. baileyei) to the southwest of the UnitedStates. So far, however, Section 10(j) pro-visions have been inadequate to accomplishgrizzly bear restoration in the wildernessareas of central Idaho, which, even with thismanagement flexibility, was opposed bykey politicians in Idaho. This oppositionwas based largely on misguided concernsover the level of physical danger grizzlybears posed to humans; a reprise of miscon-ceptions that existed a century ago.

A number of programs began in the1990s, directed at long-term conservationand enhancement of large carnivores. Muchof this activity in North America was di-rected at areas where both wolves andbears had either been extirpated by earlycolonization or significantly reduced anddeclared threatened or endangered underthe ESA. Wolves were reintroduced intothe Yellowstone Ecosystem and to centralIdaho in 1995 and have recovered throughimproved management and natural disper-sal in the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin,Michigan). In both places, recovery goalsin terms of population number have beenachieved and proposals are pending todownlist and, ultimately, delist the species.Thanks to the emphasis placed on the spe-cies under the ESA, grizzly bear populationshave also increased in the Yellowstone andNorthern Continental Divide Ecosystemsand proposals to delist the species in andaround Yellowstone National Park are ex-pected as numerical population objectiveshave been achieved.

In much of North America, there ap-pears to be widespread recognition of thevalue of restoring healthy populations ofpredators like wolves and grizzly bears (Dudaet al. 1998, 2001). However, these attitudesare not universal and some states, notablyIdaho and Alaska, retain strong sentimentsagainst predators in favor of aggressivepredator management designed to reduce


56

or eliminate depredations on livestock andthe wild ungulates favored by hunting inter-ests. These attitudes mirror the anti-preda-tor attitudes that resulted in the near extir-pation of predators in the previous century.Such local opposition from political leadershas, temporarily, blocked efforts to restoregrizzly bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem incentral Idaho. The 14,800-km2 reintroduc-tion area is designated wilderness and rep-resents the best and largest place to restorea significant new population of grizzly bearsin North America. The reintroduction pro-posal provided an unprecedented level oflocal participation and experimental desig-nation of the restored grizzly population(Fischer and Roy 1998, USFWS 2000,Schoen and Miller 2002). It received wide-spread national and local support from thepublic (Duda et al. 1998, Roy 2001) andfrom all professional wildlife managementgroups who commented. We believe it islikely that public support will ultimately re-sult in grizzly bears being restored to thishabitat. Restoration and recovery for con-troversial and environmentally sensitive spe-cies like grizzly bears requires a collabora-tive approach to build popular support(Servheen 1998). However, as the IdahoBitterroot example demonstrates, even suchapproaches are sometimes insufficient toachieve success because of local negativeattitudes about bears.

CHANGING SOCIAL VALUESWildlife management evolved originally

as a means to assure continuation of huntingopportunities. Frequently, attitudes of wild-life managers as well as of hunters reflectthese origins and result in policies, such aspredator control, that conflict with the con-cerns and preferences of the general publicover the conservation of predators. Thechanges in official attitudes towards largecarnivores, from policies of extermination,to those of conservation and enhancement,

reflect changes in the attitudes of the gen-eral populace (Duda et al. 1998, 2001).Obviously, conflict will arise if the manag-ing authorities are seen to be out-of-stepwith the prevailing public attitudes. Oneexample of this was the liberalization ofblack bear hunting regulations, includingspring hunting, hunting with hounds, andbaiting, in Colorado. Citizens objected tothese regulations based on concerns theywere inhumane, but an intransigent bureauc-racy failed to respond. The result was anoverwhelmingly approved citizens’ initia-tive that set aside these regulations (Beckand Gill 1995, Beck et al. 1995). Similarinitiatives passed in Oregon (Boulay et al.1999) and, for mountain lions, in California.In Alaska, voters approved a citizens’ initia-tive that overturned a regulation that al-lowed persons to take wolves by landingaircraft and shooting them. In British Co-lumbia, opponents of hunting grizzly bearssucceeded in getting a moratorium on griz-zly bear hunting implemented in 2001. Themoratorium on hunting has since been liftedbut it is clear that citizens threaten thecontinuation of grizzly bear hunting withconservation-preservationist attitudes to-ward bears.

Citizens’ initiatives are not practiced inEuropean countries, but there is an obvioustrend towards more protection of large car-nivores. Also, the killing of a few wolves byState employees shooting them from a heli-copter in Norway in winter 2000-2001 re-sulted in enormous European media cover-age and negative public reactions from otherparts of Europe. Some in Europe are ques-tioning the wisdom of the high densities ofungulates, which cause traffic accidents,forest damage, and reductions in forestbiodiversity.

These examples, and those providedearlier about opposition to predator controlprograms in Alaska, illustrate aspects of atrend that sociologists have been observing;


57

that utilitarian attitudes towards wildlife aredeclining in Western cultures (Decker et al.1992, 2001). A recent metaanalysis(Williams et al. 2002) of 38 studies aboutpeople’s attitudes towards wolves showedthat people were generally positive to wolves(61%), that age, residence, occupation, edu-cation, and income influenced one’s atti-tude, and that about one-fourth of the peo-ple are neutral. The analysis also found thatwolves are less popular in Europe than inNorth America, as is also suggested by ourreview, based on levels and dates of protec-tion. In Europe, this may be influenced bya historical fear of wolves as a carrier ofrabies that dates back to the Middle Ages(Bibikow 1990), or a fear of the wolf as apotential killer of humans, which has morehistorical support from Europe than NorthAmerica (Linnell et al. 2002). Also, atti-tudes towards wolves vary within Europe(Boitani 1995), even in adjacent areas, asNorwegians have more negative attitudestowards wolves than Swedes (Bjerke et al.2001).

Wolf biologists working in Scandinaviahave reported the impression of an increasedsupport for wolves, although they could notsubstantiate it (Wabakken et al. 2001).However, the metaanalysis, which coveredstudies from the period 1972 – 2000, did notfind any trend in support for wolves.Williams et al. (2002) predicted increasingsupport for wolves over time due to increas-ing education and urbanization, but stressedthat positive attitudes towards wolves in thegeneral public are often weak and have thepotential to shift rapidly if linked to otherstronger attitudes.

SUMMARYHuman attitudes toward large carni-

vores have been shaped by centuries ofcoexistence. These attitudes have changedmarkedly as human civilizations maturedand industrialized. Early peoples lacked the

appropriate weapons to effectively controllarge predators. These cultures adaptedways to live with carnivores. As manacquired modern weapons, large predatorsand native ungulates were exterminated.We witnessed this first in Europe wheremodern civilization first developed. How-ever a second wave of extermination fol-lowed with the European colonization ofNorth America. Old World values weretransported to the New World. In NorthAmerica, attitudes of predator control werealso adopted as part of the evolving profes-sion of wildlife management, where largecarnivores were still abundant in northernenvironments. Carnivores were perceivedas competitive and a threat to ungulatesharvested by hunters.

Through history, human values towardlarge carnivores seem to be inversely pro-portional to carnivore abundance. Societytends to value them more when they be-come rare or endangered. Because preda-tors were largely eliminated or reduced toremnant population in Europe, social atti-tudes away from extermination and towardsprotection evolved more quickly. Theseattitudinal shifts are reflected in therecolonization of carnivores back into his-toric habitats. Many citizens and scientistsview this reoccupation as a valuable contri-bution to society and ecological processes.A similar transition has come more slowlyto North America and even today there is anapparent inability by some members of thepublic and some wildlife managers to en-gender the changing social dimension thatvalues predators in a broader context ofecosystem function, rather than an impedi-ment to ungulate management for the hunt-ing public.

Agencies in North America responsiblefor the management of ungulates and carni-vores are currently faced with conflictingvalues and differing demands. If we canuse information about the wolf as a guide, it


58

is possible to make some general conclu-sions. On the one hand, old values prevailwith a continued emphasis on predator con-trol. However, there appears to be a gradualshift toward carnivore conservation, espe-cially among the more highly educated, ur-ban, youth (Williams et al. 2002). Extrapo-lation of these results into the future suggestthat there will likely be a gradual shift awayfrom negative attitudes toward more posi-tive attitudes as the older population is re-placed (Williams et al. 2002). Game man-agement agencies will need to shift towarda more modern construct that recognizesthe intrinsic value of wild ecosystems andthe wildlife they contain, including largepredators. Today’s biologists and moosemanagers face a difficult challenge of bal-ancing biological principles with a diversearray of social and economic values often inconflict with principles of optimum or maxi-mum sustained yield harvest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe thank K. West and R. Jachowski

for reviews of the manuscript. H. Reynoldsfor providing literature detailing the Alaskaexperience, and organizers of the Norwayconference for kindly inviting the seniorauthor to present this topic.

REFERENCESBAILEY, V. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico.

North American Fauna 53. U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Biological Sur-vey. Washington, D.C., USA.

BALLARD, W. B. 1992. Bear predation onmoose: a review of recent North Ameri-can studies and their management im-plications. Alces Supplement 1:1-15.

, and D. G. LARSEN. 1987. Implica-tions of predator-prey relationships tomoose management. Swedish WildlifeResearch Supplement 1:581-602.

, and S. D. MILLER. 1990. Effectsof reducing brown bear density on

moose calf survival in south-centralAlaska. Alces 26:9-13.

, T. H. SPRAKER, and K. P. TAYLOR.1981. Causes of neonatal moose calfmortality in south central Alaska. Jour-nal of Wildlife Management 45:335-342.

, and V. VAN BALLENBERGHE. 1998.Predator/prey relationships. Pages 247-272 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C.Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Man-agement of the North American Moose.Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-ington, D.C., USA.

BANCI, V. 1991. The status of the grizzlybear in Canada in 1990. Committee onthe Status of Endangered Wildlife inCanada, status report. Ottawa, Canada.

, D. A. DEMARCHI, and W. R.ARCHIBALD. 1994. Evaluation of thepopulation status of grizzly bears inCanada. International Conference onBear Research and Management 9:129-142.

BECK, T. D. I., and R. B. GILL. 1995.Colorado Status Report. Pages 9-12 inJ. Auger and H. L. Black, editors. Pro-ceedings of the Fifth Western BlackBear Workshop, Human-Black BearInteractions, Provo, Utah, USA, 22-25February 1994.

, D. S. MOODY, D. B. KOCH, J. J.BEECHAM, G. R. OLSON, and T. BURTON.1995. Sociological and ethical consid-erations of black bear hunting, a paneldiscussion. Pages 119-133 in J. Augerand H. Black, editors. Proceedings ofthe Fifth Western Black Bear Work-shop, Human-Bear Interactions, Provo,Utah, USA, 22-25 February 1994.

BERGSTRÖM, R., H. HULDT, and U. NILSSON.1993. Sverige, jakten och EG. SvenskaJägareförbundet, Almqvist & WiksellTryckeri, Uppsala, Sweden. (In Swed-ish).

BIBIKOW, D. I. 1990. Der Wolf. A. Ziemsen


59

Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, DDR.(In German).

BJERKE, T., B. P. KALTENBORN, and C.THRANE. 2001. Sociodemographic cor-relates of fear-related attitudes towardthe wolf (Canis lupus); a survey insoutheastern Norway. FaunaNorvegica 21:25-33.

BLACK, L. T. 1998. Bear in human imagi-nation and in ritual. Ursus 10:343-347.

BOERTJE, R. R., W. C. GASAWAY, D. V.GRANGAARD, and D. G. KELLYHOUSE.1988. Predation on moose and caribouby radio collared grizzly bears in east-central Alaska. Canadian Journal ofZoology 66:2492-2499.

BOITANI, L. 1995. Ecological and culturaldiversities in the evolution of wolf-hu-man relationships. Pages 3-11 in L. N.Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip,editors. Ecology and Conservation ofWolves in a Changing World. CanadianCircumpolar Institute, OccasionalPublication No. 35, University of Al-berta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

. 2000. Action plan for the conser-vation of wolves (Canis lupus) in Eu-rope. Nature and Environment, No.113. Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, France.

BOULAY, M. C., D. H. JACKSON, and D. A.IMMELL. 1999. Preliminary assessmentof a ballot initiative banning two meth-ods of bear hunting in Oregon: effectson bear harvest. Ursus 11:179-184.

BOUTIN, S. 1992. Predation and moosepopulation dynamics: a critique. Jour-nal of Wildlife Management 56:116-127.

BREITENMOSER, U. 1998. Large predators inthe Alps: the fall and rise of man’scompetitors. Biological Conservation83:279-289.

, C. BREITENMOSER-WÜRSTEN, H.OKARMA, T. KAPHEGYI, U. KAPHYGYI-WALLMANN, and U. M. MÜLLER. 2000.

Action plan for the conservation of theEurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe.Nature and Environment, No. 112.Council of Europe Publishing, Stras-bourg, France.

CARBYN, L. N. 1987. Gray wolf and redwolf. Pages 378-393 in M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch,editors. Wild Furbearer Managementand Conservation in North America.Ontario Trappers Association, Toronto,Ontario, Canada.

CARLOS, A. M., and F. D. LEWIS. 1995.Strategic pricing on the fur trade: theHudson’s Bay Company, 1700-1763.Pages 61-88 in T. L. Anderson and P.J. Hill, editors. Wildlife in the Market-place. Rowman and Littlefield Publish-ers, Incorporated, Lanham, Maryland,USA.

CHESTIN, I. E., Y. P. GUBAR, V. E. SOKOLOV,and V. S. LOBACHEV. 1992. The brownbear (Ursus arctos L.) in the USSR:numbers, hunting and systematics.Annales Zoologici Fennici 29:57-68.

CORBET, G. B., and S. HARRIS, editors. 1991.The handbook of British mammals. Thirdedition. Blackwell Scientific Publica-tions, Oxford, U.K.

CRIsAN, V. 1994. Jäger? SchlächterCeausescu. Verlag Dieter Hoffmann,Mainz-Ebersheim, Germany. (In Ger-man).

CSÁNYI, S. 1997. Challenges of wildlifemanagement in a transforming society:examples from Hungary. Wildlife Soci-ety Bulletin 25:33-37.

CZECH, B., and P. R. KRAUSMAN. 2001. Theendangered species act. History, Con-servation Biology, and Public Policy.John Hopkins University Press, Balti-more, Maryland, USA.

DECKER, D. J., T. L. BROWN, N. A. CONNELLY,J. W. ENCK, G. A. POMERANTZ, K. G.PURDY, and W. F. SIEMER. 1992. To-ward a comprehensive paradigm of


60

wildlife management: integrating thehuman and biological dimensions. Pages33-54 in W. R. Mangun, editor. Ameri-can Fish and Wildlife Policy: The Hu-man Dimension. Southern Illinois Uni-versity Press, Carbondale, Illinois, USA.

, , and W. F. SIEMER, editors.2001. Human Dimensions of WildlifeManagement in North America. TheWildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland,USA.

DELORIA, V., JR. 2001 American Indiansand the wilderness. Pages 25-35 in T.Kerasote, editor. Return of the Wild,the Future of Our Natural Lands. Is-land Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

DUDA, M., S. J. BISSELL, and K. C. YOUNG.1998. Wildlife and the American mind:public opinion on and attitudes towardfish and wildlife management. Respon-sive Management, Harrisonburg, Vir-ginia, USA.

, P. E. DE MICHELE, S. J. BISSELL, P.WANG, J. HERRICK, A. LANIER, W.TESTERMAN, J. YOUDER, and C. ZURAWSKI.2001. Public attitudes toward grizzlybear management in Wyoming. Ap-pendix 1 in L. Kruckenberg, editor.Special Report – Draft Wyoming Griz-zly Bear Management Plan. WyomingGame and Fish Department, Cheyenne,Wyoming, USA.

DUNLAP, T. 1988. Saving America’s Wild-life. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

EDSMAN, C.-M. 1994. Jägaren och makterna,samiska och finska björnceremonier.Dialekt- och folminnesarkivet, Almqvist& Wiksell Tryckeri, Uppsala, Sweden.(In Swedish).

ELGMORK, K. 1996. Historic review ofbrown bears and wolves in central-south Norway 1733-1845. Fauna49:134-147. (In Norwegian with Eng-lish summary).

FISCHER, H., and M. ROY. 1998. New

approaches to citizen participation inendangered species management: re-covery in the Bitterroot ecosystem.Ursus 10:603-606.

FRANZMANN, A. W., and C. C. SCHWARTZ.1986. Black bear predation on moosecalves in highly productive versus mar-ginal moose habitats on the Kenai Pe-ninsula. Alces 22:139-153.

, , and R. O. PETERSON.1980. Moose calf mortality in summeron the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Jour-nal of Wildlife Management 44:764-768.

GASAWAY, W. C., R. O. STEPHENSON, J. L.DAVIS, P. E. K. SHEPHERD, and O. E.BURRIS. 1983. Interrelationships ofwolves, prey, and man in interior Alaska.Wildlife Monographs 84.

HAAGENRUD, H., K. MOROW, K. NYGRÉN, andF. STÅLFELT. 1987. Management ofmoose in Nordic countries. SwedishWildlife Research Supplement 1:635-642.

HARRY, J., R. GALE, and J. HENDEE. 1969.Conservation: an upper-middle classsocial movement. Journal of LeisureResearch 1:246-254.

HAYES, R. D., and J. R. GUNSON. 1995.Status and management of wolves inCanada. Pages 21-34 in L. N. Carbyn,S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip, editors.Ecology and Conservation of Wolves ina Changing World. CanadianCircumpolar Institute, Occasional Pub-lication No. 35, University of Alberta,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

JESSEN, K. 1929. The bear (Ursus arctosL.) in Denmark. Meddelelser fra DanskGeologisk Forening 7:273-286. (In Dan-ish with English summary).

KELLERT, S. R. 1996. The Value of Life:Biological Diversity and Human Soci-ety. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,USA.

KELSALL, J. P. 1987. The distribution and


61

status of moose (Alces alces) in NorthAmerica. Swedish Wildlife ResearchSupplement 1:1-10.

LEOPOLD, A. 1933. Game Management.University of Wisconsin Press, Madi-son, Wisconsin, USA.

L INNELL , J. D. C., R. ANDERSEN, Ž.ANDERSONE, L. BALCIAUSKAS , J. C.BLANCO, L. BOITANI, S. BRANINERD, U.BREITENMOSER, I. KOJOLA, O. LIBERG, J.LØE, H. OKARMA, H. C. PEDERSEN, C.PROMBERGER, H. SAND, E. J. SOLBERG, H.VALDMANN, and P. WABAKKEN. 2002.The fear of wolves: a review of wolfattacks on humans. Oppdragsmelding731, Norwegian Institute for NatureResearch, Trondheim, Norway.

LÖNNBERG, E. 1929. Björnen i Sverige1856-1928. Almqvist & WiksellTryckeri, Uppsala, Sweden. (In Swed-ish).

LOPEZ, B. H. 1978. Of Wolves And Men.Charles Scribner’s and Sons, New York,New York, USA.

LUECK, D. L. 1995. The economic organi-zation of wildlife institutions. Pages 1-24 in T. L. Anderson and P. J. Hill,editors. Wildlife in the Marketplace.Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, In-corporated, Lanham, Maryland, USA.

MACEY, A. 1979. The Status of the GrizzlyBear in Canada. National Museum ofNatural Science, Ottawa, Ontario,Canada.

MALLINSON, J. 1978. The Shadow of Ex-tinction: Europe’s Threatened WildMammals. Macmillan, London, U.K.

MATTSON, D. J., R. G. WRIGHT, K. C.KENDALL, and C. J. MARTINKA. 1995.Grizzly bears. Pages 103–105 in E. T.Laroe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D.Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. OurLiving Resources: A Report to the Na-tion on the Distribution, Abundance,and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, andEcosystems. U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Biological Service,Washington, D.C., USA.

MCLELLAN, B. N., and V. BANCI. 1999.Status and management of the brownbear in Canada. Pages 46-50 in C.Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton,compilers. Bears: Status Survey andConservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSCBear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cam-bridge, U.K.

MILLER, B., B. DUGELBY, D. FOPREMAN, C.MARTINEZ DEL RIO, R. NOSS, M. PHILLIPS,R. READING, M. E. SOULÉ, J. TERBORGH,and L. WILLCOX. 2001. The importanceof large carnivores to healthy ecosys-tems. Endangered Species Updates18:202-210.

MILLER, S. D. 1997. Impacts of heavyhunting pressure on the density anddemographics of brown bear populationsin southcentral Alaska. Federal Aid inWildlife Restoration, Research FinalReport, Grants W-24-2, W-24-3, W-24-4, Study 4.26, Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA.

, and W. B. BALLARD. 1992. Analy-sis of an effort to increase moose calfsurvivorship by increased hunting ofbrown bears in south-central Alaska.Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:445-454.

MILLER, S. M., S. D. MILLER, and D. W.MCCOLLUM. 1998. Attitudes towardand relative value of Alaskan brownand black bears to resident voters, resi-dent hunters, and nonresident hunters.Ursus 10:357-376.

MYRBERGET, S. 1990. Wildlife managementin Europe outside the Soviet Union.Utredning 18, Norwegian Institute forNature Research, Trondheim, Norway.

NASH, R. 1982. Wilderness and the Ameri-can Mind. Yale University Press, NewHaven, Connecticut, USA.

(NRC) NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 1997.Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in


62

Alaska: Biological and Social ChallengesIn Wildlife Management. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C.,USA.

PEEK, J. M. 1986. A Review of WildlifeManagement. Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

PROMBERGER, C., and W. SCHRÖDER. 1993.Wolves in Europe, status and perspec-tives. Munich Wildlife Society, Ettal,Germany.

ROCKWELL, D. 1991. Giving Voice to theBear, North American Indian Myths,Rituals and Images of the Bear. RobertsRinehart Publishers, Niwot, Colorado,USA.

ROY, J. 2001. Bitterroot NOI to reevaluateROD: summary of all comments re-ceived 6/21/2001-8/21/2001. Tallied bystate and whether they agree or disa-gree with selection of no action alterna-tive. Unpublished U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service document dated 17 Sep-tember 2001. Missoula, Montana, USA.

SALVATORI, V., H. OKARMA, O. IONESCU, Y.DOVHANYCH, S. FINÏO, and L. BOITANI.2002. Hunting legislation in theCarpathian Mountains: implications forthe conservation and management oflarge carnivores. Wildlife Biology 8:3-10.

SAX, J. L. 2001. Legal and policy chal-lenges of environmental restoration.Pages 109-127 in V.A. Sharpe, B.Norton, and S. Donnelley, editors.Wolves and Human Communities: Biol-ogy, Politics, and Ethics. Island Press,Washington, D.C., USA.

SCHOEN, J., and S. D. MILLER. 2002. Newstrategies for bear conservation: col-laboration between resource agenciesand environmental organizations. Ursus13:361-367.

SERVHEEN, C. 1998. The grizzly bear recov-ery program: current status and futureconsiderations. Ursus 10:591-596.

. 1999. Status and management ofthe grizzly bear in the lower 48 UnitedStates. Pages 50-54 in C. Servheen, S.Herrero, and B. Peyton, compilers.Bears, Status Survey And Conserva-tion Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Bear andPolar Bear Specialist Groups, Gland,Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K..

, S. HERRERO, and B. PEYTON, com-pilers. 1999. Bears, Status Survey AndConservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSCbear and polar bear specialist groups,IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cam-bridge, U.K.

SHEPARD, P. 1996. Traces of an Omnivore.Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

, and B. SANDERS. 1992. The Sa-cred Paw: The Bear in Nature, Mythand Literature. Penguin, New York,New York, USA.

SHERWOOD, M. 1981. Big Game in Alaska:A History of Wildlife and People. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, Con-necticut, USA.

SØILEN, E. 1995. Sportsmenn i veideland.Norges jeger- og fiskerforbund, Askerog Bærums Budstikke, Billingstad, Nor-way. (In Norwegian).

STEPHENSON, R. O., W. B. BALLARD, C. A.SMITH, and K. RICHARDSON. 1995. Wolfbiology and management in Alaska,1981-1992. Pages 43-54 in L. N.Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip,editors. Ecology and Conservation ofWolves in a Changing World. CanadianCircumpolar Institute, Occasional Pub-lication No. 35, University of Alberta,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

STEWART, R. R., E. H. KOWAL, R. BEAULIEU,and T. W. ROCK. 1985. The impact ofblack bear removal on moose calf sur-vival in east-central Saskatchewan.Alces 21:403-418.

SUOMINEN, O., K. DANELL, and R. BERGSTRÖM.1999. Moose, trees, and ground-livinginvertebrates: indirect interactions in


63

Swedish pine forests. Oikos 84:215-226.

SWENSON, J. E., B. DAHLE, and F. SANDEGREN.2001. Brown bear predation on moose.Fagrapport 48, Norwegian Institute ofNature Research, Trondheim, Norway.(In Norwegian with English summary).

, N. GERSTL, B. DAHLE, and A.ZEDROSSER. 2000. Action plan for theconservation of the brown bear in Eu-rope (Ursus arctos). Council of Eu-rope, Nature and Environment, No. 114.

, F. SANDEGREN, M. HEIM , S.BRUNBERG, O. J. SØRENSEN , A.SÖDERBERG, A. BJÄRVALL, R. FRANZÉN,S. W IKAN , P. WABAKKEN, and K.OVERSKAUG. 1996. Is the Scandinavianbrown bear dangerous? Oppdrag-smelding 404, Norwegian Institute ofNature Research, Trondheim, Norway.(In Norwegian with English summary).

, P. WABAKKEN, F. SANDEGREN, A.B JÄRVALL , R. FRANZÉN , and A.SÖDERBERG. 1995. The near extinctionand recovery of brown bears in Scandi-navia in relation to the bear manage-ment policies of Norway and Sweden.Wildlife Biology 1:11-25.

(USFWS) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula,Montana, USA.

. 2000. Grizzly bear recovery in theBitterroot ecosystem. Final Environ-mental Impact Statement, U. S. De-partment of the Interior Fish and Wild-life Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

VAN BALLENBERGHE, V. 1987. Effects ofpredation on moose numbers: a reviewof recent North American studies.Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement1:431-460.

VAN DAELE, L. 2003. The history of bearson the Kodiak Archipelago. AlaskaNatural History Association, Anchor-age, Alaska, USA.

WABAKKEN, P., H. SAND, O. LIBERG, and A.BJÄRVALL. 2001. The recovery, distri-bution, and population dynamics ofwolves on the Scandinavian peninsula,1978-1998. Canadian Journal of Zool-ogy 79:710-725.

WILLIAMS, C. K., G. ERICSSON, and T. A.HEBERLEIN. 2002. A quantitative sum-mary of attitudes toward wolves andtheir reintroduction (1972-2000). Wild-life Society Bulletin 29:1253-1259.

WOODROFFE, R. 2000. Predators and peo-ple: using human densities to interpretdeclines of large carnivores. AnimalConservation 3:165-173.

YOUNG, S. 1946. The Wolf in North Ameri-can History. Caxton Printers, Caldwell,Idaho, USA.

ZEDROSSER, A., B. DAHLE, J. E. SWENSON,and N. GERSTL. 2001. Status andmanagement of the brown bear in Eu-rope. Ursus 12:9-20.

large carnivores, moose, and humans: a changing …bearproject.info/old/uploads/publications/2003...

Documents