perspectives

parkbreak

Recommendations for effective
black bear management inDelaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area: Expected
future problems and solutions
Ryo Sakurai

University of Florida

James Barnes

University of Vermont

P.O. Box 65
Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA
www.georgewright.org© 2010 The George Wright Society, Inc. All rights reserved
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors andshould not be interpreted as representing the opinions and policies of the U.S. government, any of the other co-sponsoring or supporting organizations, or the George
Wright Society. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. government, any of the other co-sponsoring orsupporting organizations, or the George Wright Society.

Introduction

MANAGING PREDATORS, SUCH AS AMERICAN BLACK BEARS (Ursus americanus), is one of

the most controversial issues in wildlife management in the U.S. (Teel et al. 2002).
According to Kimberly (2007), nuisance behaviors of bears are identified as (1)utilizing any human-food resources (e.g., household garbage, dumpsters, etc), (2)eating pets and pet food, (3) causing apiary or other property damage, (4) entering
or attempted to enter a home, and (5) showing aggression or territoriality within or
around human residences, especially during daytime hours. In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, conflicts between black bears and visitors have regularly
occurred since the park’s establishment. Between 1990 and 1998, 1,414 nuisance bear
incidents were reported, 18 of them including human injury and 516 involving property damage, resulting in an estimated cost of $39,069 (Clark et al. 2002). In Florida,even though no attacks on humans by bears have been recorded, there have been
many cases of bears in buildings, bears attacking livestock and pets, and other serious conflicts (Eason 2003). The annual number of reported human–bear conflicts inthe state has increased from one incident in 1978 to 1,340 in 2002 (Eason 2003).
Given these facts, wildlife managers and private landowners are facing a challenge
to balance the need to protect and preserve bear populations with the increasing
demand to ensure Floridians’ safety and well being.
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, located between Pennsylvania
and New Jersey, is famous for having thousands of black bears. and bears are not an
unusual sight in the park (USGS 2003). While black bear management is an issue forthe park, it is currently but one of many challenges the park must address (LarryHilaire, personal communication). Human development and population growtharound the park has increased dramatically in recent decades and further growth isexpected in the future (John Donahue, personal communication). This trend presents a real challenge to the park, especially when considering the large bear population. This case study presents a model scheme for people to coexist with bigmammals, one which can be applied to other national parks and wildlife preserves
facing similar development pressure.
Current black bear management in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Areaand Pennsylvania
Delaware Water Gap is one of a few national park units that allow hunting inside thepark boundaries (Laitner 2002). On the Pennsylvania side of the park, the Pennsylvania Game Commission manages bears. Hunting season dates shrink and expandby year, according to the population trends of bears. About 2,000 to 4,000 bears
have been harvested annually in Pennsylvania since 2000 (Ternent 2006). Pennsylvania’s estimated black bear population was 15,713 animals (with a 95 % confidenceinterval) in 2005, and about 23% of the male population and 16% of the female
population is removed every year by hunting (Ternent 2006). According to Larry
Hilaire (personal communication), a wildlife biologist from Delaware Water Gap,
due to the constant hunting pressure on bears both inside and outside the park,
bear populations remain low and few human-bear conflicts occur in Delaware
Water Gap each year. On the New Jersey side, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council is responsible for developing black bear management policy, working closelywith the Division of Fish and Wildlife (New Jersey Fish and Game Council 2005).
The Council controls bear population through regulated hunting and trapping
seasons (New Jersey Fish and Game Council 2005).

2 • Park Break Perspectives

A future perspective on human–bear conflicts
In Pennsylvania, the population of black bears has increased astonishingly, fromaround 4,000 in the 1970s to more than 15,000 currently (Ternent 2008). This is correlated with increased human–bear conflicts, including property damage andhuman injuries (Pennsylvania Game Commission 2008). The Game Commissionresponds to these conflicts, answering more than 1,100 bear complaints annuallyfrom citizens in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Game Commission 2008). The mostcommon complaint that the Game Commission receives is residential damage (Ternent 2005).
Meanwhile, the number of residents living around Delaware Water Gap isincreasing dramatically. According to the website of Pike County (2008) of Pennsylvania, which covers both Delaware Water Gap and the area around the park, thepopulation of the county increased 25.7% between 2000 and 2006, with thepopulation estimated to increase from 46,302 in 2000 to 79,170 in 2020. Those newresidents mainly come from urban areas and have little or no experience living near
bear habitats, and are probably less prepared for conflicts with bears (Ternent 2005).
This most likely means an increase in human–bear issues (Ternent 2005; Larry Hilaire, personal communication).
Recommendations for future management
In order to prevent human–bear conflicts from happening and manage coexistence
between increasing residents and bears, three recommendations are presented.
Outreach First, in order to decrease bear complaints and avoid producing
nuisance bears, an adaptive program aiming at changing people’s behaviors that
attract bears and minimizing negative interactions with these animals need to beplanned. The design of this program begins with research that identifies people’sknowledge of and attitudes towards bears. By knowing what kind of information
about bears people want to know or what kind of attitudes people have, rangers andwildlife managers can decide which communication tools to use, and choose target
audiences for whom they will conduct education programs (Jacobson 1999; Deckeret al. 2003). Because people’s beliefs and attitudes towards wildlife vary by place, theresults of such a survey will help to design specific education programs effective for
Delaware Water Gap (Decker et al. 2003).
The second stage involves conducting those education and outreach campaigns
with residents. Because many people moving into areas around Delaware Water
Gap may have little knowledge about how to avoid human–bear conflicts, they may
feed bears or fail to manage garbage and other foods properly (Ternent 2005). Thisis the reason education and outreach campaigns designed for new residents areimportant in preventing human–bear conflicts. In New Jersey, bear education
conducted by the Division of Fish and Wildlife has produced a positive effect,
contributing a recent decline in nuisance complains involving bear damage togarbage and bird feeders (New Jersey Fish and Game Council 2005). However, since
2002, a lack of funds has made it impossible to continue this bear education
initiative (New Jersey Fish and Game Council 2005). In order to conduct andcontinue effective education, both Pennsylvania and New Jersey need to provide
enough money to support educators and create educational materials, as well as
design a sufficient evaluation process (Gore et al. 2006).
In the third stage, once the education and outreach campaign has been
conducted, it is necessary to evaluate the success of the programs (Jacobson 1999).
The Human Dimensions Research Unit in the Department of Natural Resources atCornell University has cooperated with the New York Department of Conservation’s
Bureau of Wildlife to design a “NeighBEARhood” educational program (Lang 2005).
By evaluating the six-month program, researchers at Cornell have found out theeffect on the community as well as individuals (Gore and Knuth 2006). After Evaluations such as this enable outreach specialists and practitioners to improve programs.
Deterrents To prevent bears from coming to campgrounds or residential areas,
deterrents can also be used. One option that helps to maintain the appropriate
distance between bears and humans is utilizing well-trained bear dogs (Wind River
Bear Institute 2008 and NPO Picchio 2008). While it is important to dispose of
garbage properly and to manage foods inside house for reducing potential human–
Park Break Perspectives • 3

bear conflicts, it is also crucial to drive off bears who enter human settlements(Nagano Prefecture 2007). Shooting rubber bullets or fireworks to scare away nuisance bears is one way, yet experience in Japan suggests that it is sometimes too
dangerous to use those tools around human settlements (Japan Bear Network 2007).
Bear dogs trained and used in the town of Karuizawa, Japan, are playing multiple
roles and demonstrating the usefulness of dogs in managing Asiatic black bears(Ursus thibetanus), which are almost the same size (50 to 75 inches) as American
black bears (International Association for Bear Research and Management 2007).
Trained dogs not only drive off bears but also can help inspect the areas for bear
activity and educate the general public about bear management (Japan Bear Network 2007).
However, in Japan, the use of trained dogs to deter bears is facing somechallenges. According to Hidetake Hayashi (personal communication), it is noteffective to leash dogs and chase bears in the mountainous areas, but instead dogs
can only maximize their ability when they are released from the chain and run afterbears freely in open areas. Therefore, for most areas in Japan, and also in Delaware
Water Gap, chasing bears with leashed dogs may not be successful. Also, training a
dog to become efficient bear dog require resources (Hidetake Hayashi, personalcommunication).
Road impacts More detailed study of road impacts on bears, including roadkills,
should be conducted. For any animal that requires large swaths of habitat, such as
bears and many other large mammals, roadkill is one of the biggest reasons for
mortality (Groom et al. 2006). In Pennsylvania, vehicle collisions account for 10% of
all recorded deaths of bears, Wildlife conservation officers inspect 300 to 350 bearroadkills annually, and the number is increasing (Ternent 2005). Hitting bears canalso be expensive for people, as the average vehicle repair fee for damage resulting
from a deer collision is around $1,500—and adult bears are much bigger than adultdeer (Ternent 2005). According to Larry Hilaire (personal communication), theroadkills of bears reported to states is not likely shared with the National Park Service, therefore, no integrated data exist so far. In order to better manage thepopulation of bears, the National Park Service needs to know and record the actual
numbers and impacts of roadkills, and sharing of data between the Park Service andthe state(s) should be done. After collecting and analyzing the data, signage fordrivers should be posted. Additionally, underpasses and fences for bears and otherbig mammals should be built in appropriate areas (Eason 2003). In Florida, because
vehicle collisions were responsible for more than 50% of adult deaths of endangered
Florida Key deer, wildlife managers started projects to reduce deer–vehicle collisions, including installing highway fencing and underpasses to prevent deer fromcrossing the roadway (Groom et al. 2006). However, studies show that some animals
hesitate to use those artificial passages (Plumb 2003; Clevenger and Waltho 2000),and building a path that bears will really use remains a big challenge for wildlife
managers.
Conclusion
Although biological and ecological research on bears, including studies on behavior,
lifespan, home range, and population dynamics, is indispensable for management,
it is also necessary to research the human dimensions of bear management, such as
people’s attitudes towards them. The three recommendations in this paper comefrom aspects of human dimensions: how people can change their attitudes andbehaviors towards bears, how people can cooperate with dogs to drive off bears, andhow drivers can avoid hitting bears on the roads.
As for intervention and educational programs, even though evaluation is criticalto understand the capacity of such plans for reducing conflicts between bears andpeople (Jacobson 1999; Gore et al. 2006), most of the education programs in the U.S.
and Canada lack an evaluation process (Gore 2004). Designing evaluations and4 • Park Break Perspectives

implementing recommendations after programs should be critical for future
outreach practitioners.
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is located just a few hours’ drivefrom major metropolitan areas, such as New York City and Washington D.C., yet it
still maintains a great natural environment, including a large bear population. It is
expected that more and more residents will move to this area in the future, andhuman–wildlife conflicts might increase. However, if Delaware Water Gap
successfully establishes a model that enables both humans and large carnivores,such as bears, to coexist with minimal conflicts, it can be applied to other nationalparks and wildlife reserves that have similar problems.
References
Clark, J.E., T.M. Frank, and R.P. Michael. 2002. Correlates of success for on-site
releases of nuisance black bears in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1), 104–111.
Clevenger, A.P., and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness ofwildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14(1), 47–56.
Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. Bethesda, Md.: The Wildlife Society.
Donahue, J. 2008. Personal communication with superintendent, Delaware Water
Gap National Recreation Area.
Eason, T.H. 2003. Conservation Strategy for the Black Bear in Florida. Tallahassee:Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. On-line at http://myfwc.com/bear/Reports/Conservation-Strategy-for-Florida-Black-Bear-July2003.pdf. (Accessed October 30, 2007.)
Hayashi, H. 2008. Personal communication with researcher, Shinshu Black Bear
Research Group, Matsumoto, Japan.
Hilaire, L. 2008. Personal communication with wildlife biologist, Delaware Water
Gap National Recreation Area.
Gore, M.L. 2004. Comparison of intervention programs designed to reduce humanbear conflict: A review of literature. HDRU Series no. 04-4. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University.
Gore, M.L., A.K. Barbara, D.C. Paul, and E.S. James. 2006. Education programs for
reducing American black bear-human conflict: indicators of success? Ursus
17(1).
Groom, M.J., K.M. Gary, and C.C. Ronald. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology.
3rd ed. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.
International Association for Bear Research & Management. 2007. Introduction.
On-line at www.bearbiology.com. (Accessed July 3, 2008.)
Jacobson, S. 1999. Communication Skills for Conservation Professionals. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Japan Bear Network. 2007. JBN kinkyu kuma symposium and workshop houkokusho. (JBN urgent bear symposium and a report for a workshop.)
Kimberly, M.A. 2007. The impact of translocation on nuisance Florida black bears.
M.S. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Laitner, B. 2002. From “wreck-reation” to recreation area. CRM 3, 4. On-line at
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/25-03/25-03-2.pdf. (Accessed June 19, 2008.)
Lang, S.S. 2005. Cornell program seeks to train people to avoid black bear conflicts.
On-line at www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June05/bears.humans.ssl.html. (Accessed June 1, 2008.)
Nagano Prefecture. 2007. Untitled. On-line at www.pref.nagano.jp/rinmu/shinrin/04chojyu/08_kuma2kikeikaku/gaiyou.pdf. (Accessed May 5, 2008.)
New Jersey Fish and Game Council. 2005. Comprehensive Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Management Policy. On-line at www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2005/
Park Break Perspectives • 5bearpolicy05.pdf. (Accessed June 2, 2008.)
Picchio. 2007. Introduction. On-line at http://npo.picchio.jp/management/index.html, (Accessed October 30, 2007.)Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2008. Links to black bear information. On-line atwww.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=473&q=150328. (Accessed May 5,2008.)
Plumb, R.E., K.M. Gordon, and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Pronghorn use of a wildlife
underpass. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4), 1244–1245.
Teel, T.L., K.S. Richard, and S.H. Robert. 2002. Utah Stakeholders’ attitudes toward
selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin30(1), 2–15.
Ternent, M.A. 2006. Management and Biology of Black Bears in Pennsylvania; Ten
Year Plan (2006–2015). Harrisburg: Bureau of Wildlife Management Pennsylvania Game Commission.
USGS [U.S. Geological Survey]. 2003. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area. On-line at http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/nyc/parks/loc32.htm. (AccessedApril 15, 2008.)
Wind River Bear Institute 2008. Introduction. On-line at www.beardogs.org.
(Accessed June18, 2008.)

6 • Park Break Perspectives