Grizzly Bear Attractant Policies In Montana: How Regulations, Recommendations, And Resources Differ Among And Between Recovery Areas

• Main Author: Edmo, Kenneth J
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: University of Montana 2022
• Subjects: Grizzly Bear Conflicts; Grizzly Bear Management; Ursus arctos horribilis; Recovery Zones; Grizzly Bear Populations; Grizzly Bear Distribution; Animal Studies; Environmental Policy; Recreation; Parks and Tourism Administration; Ursus arctos
• Online Access: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/12020; https://scholarworks.umt.edu/context/etd/article/13133/viewcontent/auto_convert.pdf

Edmo, Kenneth, M.S, Autumn 2022 Resource Conservation Grizzly bear attractant policies in Montana: how regulations, recommendations, and resources differ among and between recovery areas Chairperson or Co-Chairperson: Alexander L. Metcalf & Chad J. Bishop Abstract Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are a keystone species and play an important role in their environment. After near extinction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented a recovery plan of six recovery zones to increase grizzly populations. Although these efforts allowed grizzly bear numbers to increase, so too have human-grizzly bear conflicts, significantly challenging agencies in charge of bear management. A concern from some agencies is the perception that inconsistent regulations on attractants (e.g., food,-garbage) across jurisdictions diminishes public compliance. To help address this issue, I conducted a policy inventory across federal, state, and local agencies that pertain to recreation, landowners, and several municipalities in Montana. I categorized agency policy information into one of three categories: requirements, recommendations, and resources available (the “3Rs”). I assessed how those policies differed across jurisdictions and made recommendations towards consistency for grizzly bear management across jurisdictions. Results showed substantial policy consistency among the 3Rs for recreation, landowners, and municipalities, but exceptions existed, especially with respect to managing recreational conflicts. Most agencies prohibit individuals from burning attractants, however, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS) recommend burning attractants. I found that resources available to help people mitigate conflict were highly variable. I found evidence suggesting regulations can be easier to enforce for recreation rather than for landowners. Agencies managing human-grizzly bear conflicts may benefit from simplifying regulations and recommendations for landowners, municipalities, and ...