Grizzly population in Montana now considered "Robust"

[LongDraw]

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/art...NTPAGECAROUSEL

I wonder how they count bears in Montana???

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by MAV

I wonder how they count bears in Montana???

1,2,3,4... j/k.

[TreeGuy]

Originally Posted by MAV

I wonder how they count bears in Montana???

Perhaps by entering into studies without pre-concieved biases or political/media drivers furthering such biases. You're not going to continue to get paid if you're telling the boss what he doesn't want to hear............

Tree

[AxeMan]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

1,2,3,4... j/k.

Or maybe 2,4,6,8.....

[LongDraw]

So US Fish and Wildlife biologists find it encouraging that the grizzlies are moving east towards the Missouri breaks. They view eastward sightings as another indication that grizzly populations are increasing. The population is now considered "robust" in Montana....

And in Alberta the same thing is happening. More bears are being sighted east of the Athabasca river in the north, and east of highway 22 in the south. The biologists that study the bears here dismiss these sightings as bears that are being pushed east because of recreational use and development. They don't consider sightings as a sound way to gauge the population. The claim is populations are actually on the decrease in Alberta and the increase in sightings in historic grizzly range to the east of the present range are dismissed for the most part.

I hunt elk less than 10 minutes west of Nanton - well east of hiway 22. Talking to 3 different ranchers they conclude that there are 6 different grizzlies in this area, including 3 yearlings, rolling hills and willows. These bears live in the area, not just moving through. 10 more km's east and we have grizzlies on the prairies in Alberta, around Nanton anyhow.

More Grizzly's are being sighted in the present grizzly range, and now bears are moving east, or being seen where they have not been seen for many decades, yet the population is on the decrease- but only in Alberta?

[ww2269]

I think the F&W will wake up in the next few years and open it up again. Im sure that # are up. Iwould hope draws will be available soon. I had a fairley high priority when it got shut down but did that hold?

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by AxeMan

Or maybe 2,4,6,8.....

Yeah, and up here they count them .5, 1, 1.5, 2....

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

Yeah, and up here they count them .5, 1, 1.5, 2....

Matt, you've got it all wrong! They use 'modern' math now.

They count; 1, 2, 3, 2.5, 2.75, 3, 4, 1.5, 3.25, 0.5, 2, 1.5, . . .

It's ^ all about mathamatical derivatives and matrices

TF

[Dr Death]

I recently read an artice in the Waterton Parks paper (I believe it is called the Boundary?) about the recent Montana grizz pop. estimates. It was in the mid 700's in an area from the international border to just north of Missoula. They apparently used DNA capture using baits and wires. Sounds similar to the Alberta model. The biologist piloting the the study was a lady with the US Geological Survey, can't remember her name. It would be interesting to actually compare the methods used there vs. here. I have been told that many of the baits used for DNA capture here in Alberta were placed in some very non traditional grizz areas. In speaking with some of the Ranchers near Pincher Creek, they indicated the researchers put baits anywhere but where local landowners suggested. Living in Pincher and hunting the area all I can say is there is no shortage of grizzlies down here.

[Young Eldon]

Her name is Kate Kendall. They (Montana) use volunteers and backcountry workers to collect hair and scat samples from trails, rub trees, captured bears, etc. It is not a randomized sample (can have biases built in and thus is hard to get beyond being an index rather than an absolute value of the population present) from each type of habitat. The sampling system being used in Alberta relies on sampling from sites that are selected randomly from the survey area in order to provide confidence limits when the final population estimate is calculated. This requires many sampling sites and results in horrendous costs for flying time and sampling at many sites that may or may not be very good spots for grizzlies to visit.
I’m not a statistician but I think that an index value is pretty reliable if your able to identify and count individual animals (which DNA samples now allow) and you count a high percentage of the actual population (most of the bears) on a regular basis. This is likely the survey system we should be using here in Alberta - rather than the very costly, slow and apparently flawed system we have been working with for the past 10 years.

[Dr Death]

I could not agree more Young Eldon. Regardless of methods of collection, DNA does not lie! It sure would be nice if Alberta could have a similar type study that would be a fraction of the cost and actually better reflect grizzly numbers!

[AB2506]

I can't help but think that the Alberta system is flawed. Just read the Banff/Canmore paper and all the articles about the recent grizzly sightings and captures etc. Regardless that this is mostly in or adjacent to a national park, grizzlies require large territories, and to have such high incidents/sightings in such a compressed period of time (7-10 days), in a small area (Castle Junction to Dead Man's Flats), indicate that the population is fairly robust, especially considering the train fatalities this year.

There has to be more grizzlies in Alberta than what the government has released. I don't trust their science.