Apparent predation of a bison (<i>Bison bison</i>) calf by a Grizzly Bear (<i>Ursus arctos</i>) in southwestern Yukon

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), an important tree of high altitudes in the northern Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada, produces nuts eaten by bears. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and black bear (U. americanus) use of pine nuts was studied in Yellowstone National Park and adjacent areas during 1978 and 1979. Spring use appeared to be correlated with cone produc? tion in the preceding year, while fall use was correlated with the current crop. Most of the nuts eaten by bears came from cones cached by red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Pine nuts were a nutritious food which was often present in early spring and late fall when alternate foods were scarce or low in digestible energy and when nutritional requirements of bears were high. No evidence was found that bears ate the nuts of limber pine (P. flexilis). Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:166-173 The large seeds (pine nuts) of whitebark pine are commonly eaten in the spring (March-May) and fall (September-November) by grizzly and black bears in Yellowstone National Park and ad? jacent areas (Craighead and Craighead 1972, Blanchard 1978, Mealey 1980) and western Mon? tana (Tisch 1961; J.Sumner and J.J.Craighead, unpubl. rep., Montana Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ. Montana, Missoula, 1973). Similar nuts from limber pine are eaten by grizzly bears on the east Rocky Mountain Front of northwestern Montana (Schallenberger and Jonkel, annual rep., Border Grizzly Project, Univ. Montana, Missoula, 1980). The nuts of the European stone pine (P. cembra) are an important food for brown bears (U. arctos) throughout the taiga zone in the Soviet Union (Pavlov and Zhdanov 1972, Ustinov 1972, Yazan 1972). Both the pro? duction of whitebark pine cones (Forcella 1977, Blanchard 1978, Mealey 1980) and the quantity of nuts consumed by bears vary annually (Mealey 1975, Blanchard 1978). Pine nuts are also an important food for red squirrels in whitebark forests. In fall, squirrels remove cones from trees and cache them in middens. Bears as well as other mammalian and avian seed predators compete with squirrels for whitebark nuts (Forcella 1977, Tomback 1977). Confusion about the ripening process of whitebark pine cones has resulted in errors in the literature on the availability of pine nuts as a bear food. Whitebark cones are indehiscent and do not disintegrate (Tomback 1981). Vertebrate for? aging probably leaves few, if any, seed-bearing cones on trees by late fall; the cones remaining abscise sometime thereafter (Tomback 1981). Because cones do not abscise or release their seed in fall, bears may obtain pine nuts in 2 ways. Black bears may climb whitebark pine trees and break off cone-bearing branches to feed on cones (Tisch 1961, Mealey 1975, Forcella 1977); or both black bears and grizzly bears may raid squirrel caches to feed on pine nuts (Tisch 1961, Craighead and Craighead 1972, Blanchard 1978). The purpose of this study was to determine (1) the major source of pine nuts for bears, (2) why cone scales do not appear in bear scat containing pine nuts, and (3) what factors influ? ence bear use of pine nuts. Funding for this study was provided by the Na? tional Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am grateful for the cooperation of per? sonnel from Yellowstone National Park and U.S. Forest Service district offices within the study area. I thank R.R. Knight, T.W.Weaver, H.D. Picton, W.R.Gould, and M. Meagher for their helpful reviews of the manuscript, all the mem? bers of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study (IGBS) who helped me with field work and data reduction, and D.Sizemore for conducting the feeding trials on the Vancouver grizzlies.

We studied the spring use of ungulate carcasses by grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) on ungulate winter ranges in Yellowstone National Park. We observed carcasses and bear tracks on survey routes that were travelled biweekly during spring of 1985-90 in the Firehole-Gibbon winter range and spring of 1987-90 in the Northern winter range. The probability that grizzly bears used a carcass was positively related to elevation and was lower within 400 m of a road, or within 5 km of a major recreational development compared to elsewhere. Carcass use peaked in April, coincident with peak ungulate deaths. Grizzly bears also were more likely to use carcasses in the Firehole-Gibbon compared to Northern Range study area. We attributed the effects of study area and elevation to the fact that grizzly bears den and are first active in the spring at high elevations and to differences in densities of competing scavengers. Probability of grizzly bear use was strongly related to body mass of carcasses on the Northern Range where densities of coyotes (Canis latrans) and black bears (U. americanus) appeared to be much higher than in the Firehole-Gibbon study area. We suggest that additional restrictions on human activity in ungulate winter ranges or movement of carcasses to remote areas could increase grizzly bear use of carrion. Fewer competing scavengers and greater numbers of adult ungulates vulnerable to winter mortality could have the same effect.

Abstract: During the past 2 decades, the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) has increased in numbers and expanded its range. Early efforts to model grizzly bear mortality were principally focused within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, which currently represents only about 61% of known bear distribution in the GYE. A more recent analysis that explored one spatial covariate that encompassed the entire GYE suggested that grizzly bear survival was highest in Yellowstone National Park, followed by areas in the grizzly bear Recovery Zone outside the park, and lowest outside the Recovery Zone. Although management differences within these areas partially explained differences in grizzly bear survival, these simple spatial covariates did not capture site‐specific reasons why bears die at higher rates outside the Recovery Zone. Here, we model annual survival of grizzly bears in the GYE to 1) identify landscape features (i.e., foods, land management policies, or human disturbances factors) that best describe spatial heterogeneity among bear mortalities, 2) spatially depict the differences in grizzly bear survival across the GYE, and 3) demonstrate how our spatially explicit model of survival can be linked with demographic parameters to identify source and sink habitats. We used recent data from radiomarked bears to estimate survival (1983–2003) using the known‐fate data type in Program MARK. Our top models suggested that survival of independent (age ≥ 2 yr) grizzly bears was best explained by the level of human development of the landscape within the home ranges of bears. Survival improved as secure habitat and elevation increased but declined as road density, number of homes, and site developments increased. Bears living in areas open to fall ungulate hunting suffered higher rates of mortality than bears living in areas closed to hunting. Our top model strongly supported previous research that identified roads and developed sites as hazards to grizzly bear survival. We also demonstrated that rural homes and ungulate hunting negatively affected survival, both new findings. We illustrate how our survival model, when linked with estimates of reproduction and survival of dependent young, can be used to identify demographically the source and sink habitats in the GYE. Finally, we discuss how this demographic model constitutes one component of a habitat‐based framework for grizzly bear conservation. Such a framework can spatially depict the areas of risk in otherwise good habitat, providing a focus for resource management in the GYE.

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) were observed preying on elk calves (Cervus elaphus) on 60 occasions in Yellowstone National Park, with 29 confirmed kills. Some bears were deliberate predators and effectively preyed on elk calves for short periods e,ach spring, killing up to 1 calf daily. Primary hunting techniques were searching and chasing although some bears used a variety of techniques during a single hunt. They hunted both day and night and preyed on calves in the open and in the woods. Excess killing occurred when circumstances permitted. One bear caught 5 calves in a 15-minute interval. Elk used a variety of antipredator defenses and occasionally attacked predacious bears. The current level of this feeding behavior appears to be greater than previously reported. This is probably related to the increased availability of calves providing a greater opportunity for learning, and the adaptation of a more predatory behavior by some grizzly bears in Yellowstone. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:335-341 Earlier investigators mentioned that grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area preyed on newborn elk calves but reported only briefly on this behavior. Murie (1944) stated that during the calving period bears would occa? sionally seize a calf while it was bedded. Johnson (1951) noted that grizzlies were assoeiated with elk calving grounds but did not report any episodes of predation by them. Craighead and Sumner (1982) reported that during the 1960's some grizzlies followed elk to their calving grounds or returned to these areas each spring. They noted bears appeared to locate calves by scent but gave no further details. Cole (1972) reported that grizzlies preyed on some newborn elk calves but noted his study did not adequately sample the calving period. During a study of grizzly bear behavior that began in the Yellowstone ecosystem in 1983, several episodes of elk calf predation were observed. It appeared to be more common and complex than previously reported, so an investigation of this predatory activity was added to the ongoing behavior study. This paper discusses the preda? tory behavior of bears feeding on newborn elk calves based upon field observations in Yellowstone National Park from 1986-1988. Thanks are extended to J.D. Varley and R.R. Knight for providing logistical support, equipment, and encouragement during this project. Thanks also go to park employees, volunteers, and other bear researchers for their assistance in the field work; and B. Blanchard and R. Knight for reviewing this manuscript. This project was funded by the Yellowstone Grizzly Foundation and per? formed under a research agreement with Yellowstone National Park and in cooperation with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.

Weights and/or measurements of 151 grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) captured 261 times were recorded from 1975 to 1985. Males were consistently heavier than females within all age classes beginning at age 2. Mean weight for 65 adult males (5+ years old) was 192 kg and 135 kg for 63 adult females (5 + years old). Mean monthly weights by sex and age class indicated adults lost weight from den emergence through July, generally regaining emergence weight by August. Weaned yearlings lost weight July-September, whereas unweaned yearlings gained weight during the same period. Sexual dimorphism in body measurements within age classes was apparent in cubs and became significant in all body measurements by age 3. Girth was the measurement most closely correlated with weight for both males and females. Adults feeding at garbage dumps weighed more than bears relying on natural food sources. Bears were smaller and weighed less in this study than during the period 1959-70, when major dumps were available as a food source. Mean annual weights of nondump females were highly correlated with annual habitat productivity indices for Yellowstone Park. Correlations between mean adult female weight and cub litter size (r = 0.92) and mean age at 1st cub production (r = ?0.52) were apparent. In general, females with reliable high-energy foods tended to attain larger body sizes, mature at an earlier age, and have larger cub litters than females using relatively low-energy foods. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:99-107 Differences in size, weight, and growth patterns have been reported for several populations of grizzly bears in North America (Pearson 1975; Reynolds 1976, 1981; Ballard 1980; Glenn 1980; Spraker et al. 1981; Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Nagy et al. 1984). Nutrition has been suspected to be the major factor producing these differences in grizzly bears (Rausch 1963) and black bears (U. americanus) (Rogers et al. 1976, Beecham 1980). The Yellowstone grizzly bear population was intensively studied from 1959 to 1970 by Frank and John Craighead (Craighead et al. 1974). During that period, major dumps were available to grizzly bears and provided a stable seasonal food source. Closure of those dumps in 1970 and 1971 eliminated that food supply for bears within Yellowstone National Park. Dumps serving communities adjacent to the Park were closed in 1982. Eliminating these food sources seriously affected the distribution and dy? namics of the population (Knight and Eberhardt 1985). Effects of food supply changes on the size, weight, and growth patterns of bears from that pop? ulation are reported here.

Trichinella spp. nematodes are commonly found in bear species (Ursidae) and can pose severe health risks to humans when infective first-stage larvae are ingested in meat. Samples of tongue or masseter muscle from 22 male and 11 female American black bears (Ursus americanus; mean age 6.5 yr, range 1-16 yr) and 22 male, eight female, and one unknown sex grizzly bears (Ursus arctos; mean age 8.8 yr, range 2-28 yr), from Yukon, Canada, were tested to determine prevalence and intensity of Trichinella spp. infection. For black bears, prevalence was 20% and mean intensity was 401 larvae per gram of tissue (LPG), whereas for grizzly bears, prevalence was 71%, and mean infection intensity was 35 LPG. Isolates from all positive samples were identified as genotype Trichinella-T6 by multiplex PCR. For black bears, prevalence is the highest reported in Canada and infection intensity the highest recorded in North America. One black bear had a larval burden of 1,173 LPG, the second highest recorded in any host species. The prevalence in grizzly bears was the highest reported in Canada for this host. In total, 90% (27 of 30) of infected bears had infection burdens above the human food safety threshold of ≥1 LPG, reinforcing the importance of communicating the health risks to people consuming bear meat.

Radiotelemetry was used to locate 101 grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) dens from 1975 to 1980; 35 dens were examined on the ground. Pregnant females denned in late October, and most other bears denned by mid-November. Duration of denning averaged 113, 132, and 170 days for males, females, and females with new cubs, respectively. Males emerged from mid-February to late March, followed by single females and females with yearlings and 2-yearolds. Females with new cubs emerged from early to mid-April. Den sites were associated with moderate tree cover (26%-75% canopy cover) on 30?-60? slopes. Dens occurred on all aspects, although northerly exposures were most common. Grizzly bears usually dug new dens but occasionally used natural cavities or a den from a previous year. Males usually dug larger dens than females with young. Eight excavated and 2 natural dens of the 35 examined dens were used for more than 1 year. Int. Conf Bear Res. and Manage. 6:111-117 The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team has studied grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone Na? tional Park since 1973. One major objective was to identify grizzly bear habitat requirements. Grizzly bears occupy dens in the Yellowstone area for up to 6 months of each year and dens are therefore an important segment of the habitat. Intelligent man? agement decisions depend on knowing dates of den entry and emergence, general areas of denning, and site selection. We gathered data pertaining to these factors from fall 1975 through 1980. Craighead and Craighead (1972) did the original work on grizzly bear dens and denning habits in this area between 1963 and 1968. Since the completion of those studies, the Yellowstone grizzly bear pop? ulation has dispersed considerably because garbage dumps within the park have closed (Judd and Knight 1980). We acknowledge the assistance of many seasonal employees in investigating den sites, especially D. Burrup, L. Cayot, C. Hancock, C. Hunt, and H. Ihsle. M. Duffy piloted the helicopter when we marked den sites, and D. and R. Stradley piloted the planes used to gather data on den locations and denning and emergence dates. J. Beecham reviewed this manu? script.

A 5-year double-blind test was conducted to test the predictive capability ofa previously published (Picton 1978) regression (Y =2.01 + 0.042*), which described the relationship between the litter size of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) and an index of climate plus carrion availability (climatecarrion index). This regression showed an efficiency in excess of 99% in predicting the observed grizzly bear litter size. The predictions made using the climate-carrion index had a mean absolute error of less than 25% of forecasts using other methods. The updated climate-carrion index regression, which includes all of the 16 years for which data are available, is Y = 2.009 + 0.042.x (r = 0.78; P < 0.01; N = 16). We concluded that the climate-carrion index can be a helpful tool in predicting grizzly bear litter size. The relation of this information to the effects of the closure of Yellowstone Park garbage dumps is discussed. Int. Conf Bear Res. and Manage. 6:41-44 The prospect of a carbon dioxide induced climate change (Hansen et al. 1981) has increased the need to sharpen the tools of predictive ecology. Effective tools would make it possible to develop and take corrective management actions before the Yellow? stone grizzly bear population is severely affected by the new climate regime. Evidence for such a climate change has been increasing, and it will likely consti? tute the major environmental impact of the next 50 years (Dickinson and Cicerone 1986). The impact of such climate changes increases as one moves toward the poles. Therefore the climate impact at the latitude of Yellowstone National Park would be more severe than the global average (Kellogg and Schware 1981). This study represents a test of the predictive ability ofa regression (Picton 1978) relating the mean litter size of grizzly bears observed during the summer in Yellowstone National Park to a modified Lamb cli? mate index (1963) which includes precipitation and temperature covering the previous October to May period. This project was supported by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team and the Mont. Agric. Exp. Sta. (Journal Series 1374).

The Central Interior and Sub-Boreal Interior ecoprovinces of British Columbia represent an important transitional population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos L.) occupying the area between two major mountain systems (Coastal Ranges and Central Rockies), as well as defining the boundary of extirpated range in the Fraser Plateau South. To assist ecoregional planning in the area, grizzly bear habitat models were produced for density, mortality risk, and source-sink habitat. Bear density was based on population estimates for each management unit and downscaling approaches using local habitat suitability rankings; mortality risk was modelled using 339 mortality locations from 2004 to 2007 and a suite of environmental and anthropogenic factors as predictors. Both models were combined to form a two-dimensional framework of habitat states representing source-like and sink-like habitats that help prioritize areas for protection and restoration (road decommissioning), respectively, as well as provide a basis for comparing with other biodiversity features. Irreplaceability values based on rare biota and unique habitats measured as the sum of runs in Marxan were significantly higher in grizzly bear source habitats than sink habitats suggesting that protection of grizzly bear source habitats would confer an umbrella or surrogate effect to other biodiversity. keywords: biodiversity; British Columbia; ecoregional planning; grizzly bears; habitat modelling; sourcesink habitats; Ursus arctos.

The tradition of early elk (Cervus elaphus) hunting seasons adjacent to Yellowstone National Park (YNP), USA, provides grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) with ungulate remains left by hunters. We investigated the fall (Aug–Oct) distribution of grizzly bears relative to the boundaries of YNP and the opening of September elk hunting seasons. Based on results from exact tests of conditional independence, we estimated the odds of radiomarked bears being outside YNP during the elk hunt versus before the hunt. Along the northern boundary, bears were 2.40 times more likely to be outside YNP during the hunt in good whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) seed-crop years and 2.72 times more likely in poor seed-crop years. The level of confidence associated with 1-sided confidence intervals with a lower endpoint of 1 was approximately 94% in good seed-crop years and 61% in poor years. Along the southern boundary of YNP, radiomarked bears were 2.32 times more likely to be outside the park during the hunt in ...

Wild American plains bison (Bison bison) populations virtually disappeared in the late 1800s, with some remnant animals retained in what would become Yellowstone National Park and on private ranches. Some of these private bison were intentionally crossbred with cattle for commercial purposes. This forced hybridization resulted in both mitochondrial and nuclear introgression of cattle genes into some of the extant bison genome. As the private populations grew, excess animals, along with their history of cattle genetics, provided founders for newly established public bison populations. Of the US public bison herds, only those in Yellowstone and Wind Cave National Parks (YNP and WCNP) appear to be free of detectable levels of cattle introgression. However, a small free-ranging population (~350 animals) exists on public land, along with domestic cattle, in the Henry Mountains (HM) of southern Utah. This isolated bison herd originated from a founder group translocated from YNP in the 1940s. Using genetic samples from 129 individuals, we examined the genetic status of the HM population and found no evidence of mitochondrial or nuclear introgression of cattle genes. This new information confirms it is highly unlikely for free-living bison to crossbreed with cattle, and this disease-free HM bison herd is valuable for the long-term conservation of the species. This bison herd is a subpopulation of the YNP/WCNP/HM metapopulation, within which it can contribute significantly to national efforts to restore the American plains bison to more of its native range.

IN THE 1960S AND 1970S, the Mackenzie Delta region of the Northwest Territories in Canada’s Western Arctic was on the brink of an oil and gas “boom”; however, pipeline construction was delayed following Thomas Berger’s recommendation for a 10-year moratorium so that Native land claims could be settled. Today, the Mackenzie Delta is the proposed site for the new Mackenzie Gas Project, which will include an increase in the number of exploration and production wells and the construction of a pipeline and gathering system with associated facilities, as well as airfields and winter and all-weather roads, and result in landscape-level changes (Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, 2004; Cizek and Montgomery, 2005). Wildlife managers and the affected communities are concerned that sensitive species like the barren-ground grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) could be adversely affected by increasing oil and gas development. Historically, grizzly bear declines in North America have resulted from the fragmentation of habitats by human settlements, roads, agriculture, human intolerance, and inadequate planning in the early stages that precede development (Servheen et al., 1999). Wildlife managers lack the current information on the ecology of this Arctic population of grizzlies needed for effective mitigation of the effects of disturbance caused by hydrocarbon development. Low density, high mobility, and large home ranges describe Arctic grizzly bear populations (Ferguson and McLoughlin, 2000). When compared to other large carnivores, grizzlies are considered to have a lower ecological resilience, which is characterized by low population density, low fecundity, and low dispersal ability through developed areas (Weaver et al., 1996). Low resilience suggests that grizzlies are especially vulnerable to development-related disturbance. The sensitivity of the species makes it difficult for population numbers to increase in multi-use landscapes where the cumulative impacts of industry, subsistence and sport hunting, problem and defence kills, and recreational activities are the norm. The Mackenzie Gas Project will transect areas occupied by grizzly bears within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, which is also at the northernmost edge of their geographical range. At these northern latitudes, grizzly bears must accumulate enough energy reserves to last the 6–7 months of winter dormancy (Nagy et al., 1983). We do not know what effects a pipeline will have on the grizzlies of the Mackenzie Delta, but it could make it more difficult for them to meet their resource needs given a short active 5–6 month period (Nagy et al., 1983). Harding and Nagy (1980) predicted that hydrocarbon development in the region could be detrimental to grizzly bears because of the loss of available resources, and that mortality from problem bear-human interaction could result in population decline. The primary goals of my project are to collect baseline information on grizzly bear ecology before pipeline construction begins, to describe annual and seasonal home range size and distribution, and to identify important habitats. The information gained will form the foundation for model development to assess the affect of oil and gas–related activities on grizzly bears. Major project objectives are 1) to describe habitat selection patterns, 2) to quantify movement patterns, and 3) to incorporate these patterns into a scenario-based modelling approach to assess the response of grizzly bears to pipeline-related development.

The North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) in Washington State is one of 6 grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) recovery zones in the lower 48 states and is contiguous with the grizzly bear population of south central British Columbia (BC). Fewer than 20 grizzly bears are estimated to remain in the NCE. Observations and verified grizzly bear sign are rare, and public knowledge of grizzly bears is very limited. Ideally, perceptions and attitudes toward grizzly bears should be based on accurate information so residents can make well informed decisions and comments regarding grizzly bear recovery. The objective of the Grizzly Bear Outreach Project (GBOP) is to address public concerns and provide factual information about grizzly bear ecology and behavior, sanitation and safety in bear country, and policies associated with the recovery process. The GBOP strives to engage community members in a process of education that targets people living, recreating, and working in the NCE. The approach includes community perceptions analyses, one-on-one meetings, small group meetings, coalition activities, and the development and distribution of associated educational resources (e.g., brochure, fact sheets, slide show, web site). Current activities also include an evaluation of project effectiveness that consists of baseline and follow-up telephone surveys with randomly selected NCE residents, quarterly telephone interviews with key informants, and content analysis of local newspapers and government and organization communications. The GBOP was initiated in April 2002 in the northeastern NCE and expanded to the northwestern NCE in September 2003. In this paper we describe our efforts and the philosophy behind the GBOP.

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) feeding on migratory army cutworm moths (Euxoa auxiliaris) was first documented by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during the early 1980s in the southeastern portion of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Since those initial observations, use of this seasonally available food resource by grizzly bears has grown substantially. As of 2023, we have documented 4,754 observations of grizzly bears feeding or digging at high‐elevation talus slopes. We used those records to identify 36 unique moth sites in the GYE, assessed geographic characteristics of these sites, and documented chronology and frequency of use by grizzly bears. We used occurrences of radio‐collared grizzly bears to identify a sample of bears that foraged at moth sites and investigated characteristics of fidelity, duration, diel activity, and movement patterns. Grizzly bears exhibited high fidelity to specific moth sites within and across years. Bears showed approximately 50% reductions in movement metrics while using sites, albeit with increased activity patterns. Estimates of feeding metrics by females exceeded those of males in intensity and duration of both use and daily activity. Given increasing human impacts and interest in observing this feeding interaction, quantifying metrics that describe the spatial and temporal patterns of moth site use by grizzly bears could be beneficial for future management. Further analyses are needed to fully examine the relationship between caloric influences of moth use on grizzly bear demographic rates.

Hunting regulations for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in much of Alaska since 1980 increasingly were designed to reduce bear abundance in the expectation such regulations would lead to increased harvests by hunters of moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Regulations were liberalized during 1980–2010 primarily in the area we termed the Liberal Grizzly Bear Hunting Area (hereafter Liberal Hunt Area) which encompassed 76.2% of Alaska. By 2010, these changes resulted in longer hunting seasons (100% of Liberal Hunt Area had seasons &gt; 100 days, 99.7% &gt; 200 days, and 67.8% &gt; 300 days), more liberal bag limits (99.1% of the Liberal Hunt Area with a bag limit ≥ 1/yr and 10.1% with a bag limit ≥ 2/yr), and widespread waiver of resident tag fees (waived in 95.7% of the Liberal Hunt Area). During 1995–2010, there were 124 changes that made grizzly bear hunting regulations more liberal and two making them more conservative. The 4‐year mean for grizzly bear kills by hunters increased 213% between 1976–1980 (387 grizzly bears) and 2005–2008 (823 grizzly bears). Since 2000, long‐term research studies on grizzly populations in the Liberal Hunt Area have been terminated without replacement. Management of large predators by the State of Alaska is constrained by a 1994 state statute mandating “intensive management” in areas classified as important for human consumptive use of ungulates. Current grizzly bear management in the Liberal Hunt Area is inconsistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council's 1997 report on predator management in Alaska. Current attitudes, policies and absence of science‐based management of grizzly bears in Alaska are increasingly similar to those that resulted in the near extirpation of grizzly bears south of Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries. If current trends continue, they increase risks to portions of the largest and most intact population of grizzly bears in North America. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.