Herniation of viscera induced by medical intervention has been described in carnivores, yet occurrence of hernias causing wild carnivore mortality, including in bears, remains unknown. We describe an inguinal hernia, intestinal entrapment and rupture, and peritonitis causing mortality in a male American black bear (Ursus americanus). In the autumn of 2014, a free-ranging, adult bear was housed at Virginia Tech's Black Bear Research Center. After 13 days in captivity, the bear showed signs of lethargy and intermittent inappetence consistent with the onset of hibernating behaviors. However, the bear suddenly displayed rapid deterioration and died before medical assistance could be provided. During necropsy examination, a devitalized portion of small intestine was found entrapped in the left inguinal ring. An intestinal perforation was evident near the entrapment area, which caused a subsequent peritonitis. To our knowledge this is the first report of bear mortality due to inguinal herniation with subsequent perforation and peritonitis.

For >35 years Alaska, USA, has attempted to reduce brown bear (Ursus arctos) abundance through adoption of progressively more liberal hunting regulations. We document these changes in a portion of Alaska we term the Liberal [brown bear] Hunting Area (LHA) constituting 76% of Alaska's area. In most instances, regulation liberalizations were intended to reduce brown bear abundance in the expectation this would reduce predation by bears on wild ungulates and thereby increase hunter harvests of these ungulates. Miller et al. (2011) described the hunting regulation changes in the LHA and corresponding increases in brown bear harvests through 2010. We update the changes in regulations and harvests through 2017 and report a shift in the kinds of regulations liberalized. We also document the expansion of regulations pertaining to brown bear population reduction to the small and isolated population on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula (outside the LHA) that resulted in a 25-fold harvest increase in the year of regulation liberalization. This increase caused a conflict with federal managers of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The result was congressionally imposed constraints on the ability of managers of Alaskan national wildlife refuges to manage wildlife on refuge lands in ways federal managers deemed to be in the U.S. national interest. Ongoing litigation and policy changes may result in the same outcome for Alaskan national parks, preserves, and monuments. In the LHA during 1995–2017, we tabulated 222 regulatory changes in Game Management Subunits making brown bear hunting regulations more liberal and 4 changes making regulations more conservative. Since 2000, the State of Alaska has reported no research in the LHA that would permit evaluation of the impacts of these regulatory changes and correlated harvest increases on bear abundance or demographics.

Harvest by means of hunting is a commonly used tool in large carnivore management. To evaluate the effects of harvest on populations, managers usually focus on numerical or immediate direct demographic effects of harvest mortality on a population's size and growth. However, we suggest that managers should also give consideration to indirect and potential evolutionary effects of hunting (e.g., the consequences of a change in the age, sex, and social structure), and their effects on population growth rate. We define “indirect effects” as hunting-induced changes in a population, including human-induced selection, that result in an additive change to the population growth rate “lambda” beyond that due to the initial offtake from direct mortality. We considered 4 major sources of possible indirect effects from hunting of bears: (1) changes to a population's age and sex structure, (2) changes to a population's social structure, (3) changes in individual behavior, and (4) human-induced selection. We identified empirically supported, as well as expected, indirect effects of hunting based primarily on >30 years of research on the Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus arctos) population. We stress that some indirect effects have been documented (e.g., habitat use and daily activity patterns of bears change when hunting seasons start, and changes in male social structure induce sexually selected infanticide and reduce population growth). Other effects may be more difficult to document and quantify in wild bear populations (e.g., how a younger age structure in males may lead to decreased offspring survival). We suggest that managers of bear and other large carnivore populations adopt a precautionary approach and assume that indirect effects do exist, have a potential impact on population structure, and, ultimately, may have an effect on population growth that differs from that predicted by harvest models based on direct effects alone.

Between 2008 and 2013, 3 female brown bears (Ursus arctos; 2 cubs-of-the-year and 1 2-yr-old) were rescued, rehabilitated in captivity, radiotagged, and released back to the Cantabrian Mountains, northwestern Spain. We characterized their daily and seasonal movements post-release to gain insights into their movement strategies and the viability of bears released in human-dominated environments. The bears exhibited marked diurnal activity and were active throughout winter. Two bears demonstrated behaviors similar to those reported for wild bears, whereas one cub-of-the-year was recaptured after 21 days because she developed signs of habituation to humans.

An animal's body condition provides insight into its health, foraging success, and overall fitness. Measures of body composition including proportional fat content are useful indicators of condition. Isotopic dilution is a reliable non-destructive method for estimating the body composition of live mammals, but can require prolonged handling times. Alternatively, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has promise as a quick method for estimating the body composition of live mammals, but measurements can potentially be affected by field conditions. Body condition indices (BCI) and energy density models can also be used to assess body condition based on morphological measurements, but may not reliably reflect an animal's energy stores. Here we evaluate BIA, BCI, and an energy density model in measuring the energy stores of female polar bears (Ursus maritimus). We examine the relationship between total body fat (TBF) derived from isotopic dilution to these alternative methods for 9 female polar bears from 14 captures on the sea ice of the southern Beaufort Sea in April 2014–2016. An energy density model, BCI, and BIA-derived measures of TBF were poor predictors of TBF derived from isotopic dilution. We suggest energy density, BCI, and BIA may not be predictive of an animal's body fat at fine scales (e.g., among individuals within the same sex, reproductive status, and season). In particular, BIA should provide similar measures of body composition as isotopic dilution, but it failed to reliably measure TBF of individual bears. These limitations in the precision of body condition measures should be considered when planning future studies.

Protected areas may provide insufficient protection for carnivores such as bears (Ursidae) with large home ranges and extensive seasonal movements. Even in protected areas, harvest can be the main cause of mortality if parks are small or individuals live close to the boundary. At >7,600 km², Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) is the largest protected area in southern Ontario, Canada, yet wolves (Canis lycaon c.f.) experienced increased mortality when leaving APP to hunt white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). American black bears (Ursus americanus; hereafter, bears) also undertake seasonal movements, and may incur increased risk of harvest related mortality if they leave the park. We fitted 72 bears with Global Positioning System or Very High Frequency radiocollars during 2006–2014 to determine overall and cause-specific mortality rates, and whether risk of mortality changed when bears left APP or during years of low natural food availability. Further, we compared the abundance of resident bears with harvest rates in Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) surrounding APP to determine whether harvest was higher in areas surrounding the park compared with WMUs farther from the park boundary. Hazard analysis showed annual mortality for radiocollared bears in APP was 15%. Harvest mortality was double that of all other causes combined. Bears were 7 times more likely to die outside the park. Years of lower natural food availability inside the park, or higher red oak (Quercus rubra) availability outside the park did not significantly alter the risk of mortality. Male bears were 6 times more likely to be harvested than females, and 4 times more likely to die from other causes. High harvests of bears in WMUs near APP contrasted with low abundance of resident bears, suggesting that APP acts as a source population for harvest that occurs near park boundaries. Meaningful maintenance of the integrity of bear populations in protected areas should be undertaken at the landscape scale.

There is a salient belief that bears (Ursidae) using the wildland–urban interface (WUI) are not vulnerable to harvest, and therefore, hunting is an ineffective management tool for bears in the WUI of the eastern United States; however, this question remains untested. We fit and monitored 116 American black bears (Ursus americanus; hereafter, black bear) with Global Positioning System–Global System for Mobile Communications collars in 9 municipalities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, USA, during 2010–2013 to determine (1) whether bears in the WUI were vulnerable to harvest; (2) if so, at what rates are they harvested; and (3) what are other cause-specific mortalities in the WUI. Harvest mortality did occur on the monitored bears in the WUI during our study. Harvest mortality rates were lower than statewide tag-return harvest rates from New Jersey and higher 3 of 4 years in Pennsylvania. The proportion of bears that was harvested was similar for juvenile males (30%), adult males (36%), and adult females (29%). Annual survival was variable (range = 40–92%), but was similar among adult males and females. Euthanasia accounted for 8–19% of the total mortality in New Jersey and West Virginia but only 3% in Pennsylvania. Black bears in the WUI were vulnerable to harvest; therefore, we consider regulated harvest to be a viable management tool. Agencies may prefer that hunters act as a compensatory mortality mechanism by harvesting problem bears that would otherwise be euthanized or killed in bear–vehicle collisions.

American black bear (Ursus americanus; hereafter, bear) depredation on cattle is a rare occurrence. Our study population of bears normally coexists with cattle ranching operations in Serranias del Burro, Coahuila, Mexico. However, we observed unusually high incidences of depredation upon cattle during a severe drought in 1999–2000. We documented >60 reports of calf kills among 3 herds; we were able to locate exact kill-site locations for 16 of these cases. Of the 16 kills, 15 were of calves and 1 was of a cow giving birth, which resulted in the death of both cow and calf. We used logistic regression to quantify how landscape features (i.e., grassland vs. woody habitats, distance to screening cover, and distance to water source at 16 kill sites and 26 random sites) influenced probability of cattle kills. Of known kill locations, 88% of kills (n = 14) took place in woody vegetation while 12% (n = 2) took place in grassland. Our analysis indicated that habitat type (woody vs. grassland) and distance to water source were important factors in predicting bear depredation on cattle. Mean probability of depredation was 2–3 times greater in woody vegetation than in open grassland and was highest near water tanks. The probability of encounter between bears and cattle likely increased as they localized movements around watering areas, which happened to coincide with calving areas and season. Bears utilized screening cover to approach and drag off calves while mother cows were foraging. Supervising and keeping cattle in grassland areas until calves are ≥1 month old and providing alternate water sources outside of calving areas may reduce the potential for conflict. Drought may increase the potential for conflict, so cattle management strategies during periods of low rainfall should be altered to minimize losses.