Black bear management plan for Georgia

BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GEORGIA
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Game Management Section
Prepared by Black Bear Management Committee: David Carlock. Wildlife Biologist. Chairman Jim EzelL Wildlife Biologist Greg Balkcom, Wildlife Biologist Wes Abler, Wildlife Biologist. Patrick Dupree, Conservation Ranger
Dan Forster, Assistant Chief Game Management
April 8, 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GEORGIA GENERAL HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

..,,-. ~.

1

..
.I ,

1

North Georgia Population

1

Central Georgia Population

4

Southeast Georgia Population

6

HABITAT TRENDS

".

.

8

North Georgia Population

~:

8

Central Georgia POD,-~lation

8

Southeast Georgia Population

9

POPULATION STATUS

9

North Georgia Population

9

Central Georgia Population

9

Southeast Georgia Population

10

PROBLEMS

10

GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING GOALS

11

Population Goals

11

Hunting and Harvest Goals

;...................................... 12

North Georgia Population

:,

13

Central Georgia Population

14

Southeast Georgia Population

15

Nuisance Abatement Goals .. "

16

Educational Goals

17

RESEARCH AND SURVEY

18

PRIORITY OF ACTIVITIES

;

20

LITERATURE CITED

22

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

FIGURES

Figure 1. Occupied bear habitat in Georgia

0

0"

0

0



3

TABLES Table 1. Occupied bear habitat in North Georgia

I

.0



0



0

'1' . .'

0



2 0



Table 2. Occupied bear habitat in Central Georgia

. . . . o. : /. 5 0



0

0



Table 3. APPENDIX

!.. Occupied bear habitat in Southeast Georgia .. 0 '.'

0

7

I

0

0



0

0

0

0

0

0



0



,

0

0



oi'

0 24

Georgia Black Bear Hunter Harvest Report

!

Nuisance Bear Capture Form

Protocol for Handling Nuisance Black Bears

Bear Management Plan for Public Recreation Areas

Electric Fences for Bear/Beeyard Problems

-11-

BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GEORGIA

Black bears (Ursus americanus) occur in three distinct populations in Georgia. The,

northernmost population (u. a. americanus) is associated with the Appalachian Mountains of the

north-central and northeast portion of the state. Another population (probably also U. a.'

americanus) is associated with the Ocmulgee River drainage in the central portion of Georgia.

The third and southernmost population (u. a. jloridanus) is located in and around the

Okefenokee Swamp of southeast Georgia.

: :,' '.

GENERAL HABITAT REQUIREMENTS North Georgia Population
Habitat requirements for black bears in North G~orgiaconsist primarily of large areas of forested land associated with low levels of human ,disturbance. The highest population levels, approximately 1 bear/500-1000 acres, occur on the most rugged and isolated wildlife ' management areas (WMAs) in the region. Quality bear habitat in this part of the state is made possible by the large proportion ofland'that is in public ownership (state owned or U.S. Forest Service lands). This population is found in 12 counties (Table 1) and encompasses approximately 1,623.809 acres (Fig. 1). Bear habitat in North Georgia is characterized by an overstory of hardwood species. primarily oaks (Quercus spp.) with pines (Pinus spp.) occurring on the poorer sites and mixed with hardwoods in many instances. Understory vegetation is generally sparse except for dense thickets of mountain laurel (Kalmia lalifolia) and rhododendron (Rhododendron maxima) which are used by bears as escape cover. Huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.) and blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) form dense stands on many ridges and provide soft mast during mid and late summer. Oak mast is the staple food item during the fall and early winter with other foods being taken as available.
Cohutta WMA is an example of excellent bear habitat in north Georgia. Timber stands on Cohutta WMA (including the 34,000 acre Cohutta Wilderness Area) are distributed as follows: upland hardwood 24%, yellowNirginia pine 24%. mixed hardwood-pine 23%, cove

1

Table 1. Occupied bear habitat in North Georgia.

County
Dawson Fannin Gilmer Habersham Lumpkin Murray Pickens Rabun Stephens Towns Union White Total

Total Acreage
138,305 250,964 277,288 178,123 182,985 222.210 149,585 241,345 115,812 110,772 211.094 154,830 2,233,313

Occupied Acreage
66,386 230,887 255,105
94,405 169,268 88,884 59,834 228,758
20,000 99,54.-6 186.872 123,864 1,623,809

Percent of Total Acreage
48% 92% 92% 53% 92% 40% 40% 95% 17% 90% 89% 80% 73%

2

Figure 1. Occupied bear habitat in Georgia. 3

hardwood 23%, white pine 6%. Of this total acreage. 14,400 acres (15%) are in the 0-20 year age class while 8,640 acres (9%) are in the 0-10 year age class.
In addition to the general habitat requirements, human disturbance, especially road access. affects bear distribution and density. Bear densities are highest in areas with less than 1 mile of dirt or gravel road per 1,000 acres which are open to public use..
Central Georgia Population Habitat requirements of the Central Georgia black bear population are similar to those in
North Georgia where bears occupy habitat that is largely forested. Since much of the land in Central Georgia is owned and controlled by industrial forest companies, substantial acreages are dominated by pine plantations. However, many creek drainages and the Ocmulgee River swamp remain in hardwoods an<;i mixed pine-hardwood forest types. This area is unique in that many of the oak and hickory species found are characteristic of both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. Forests in this area are usually characterized by dense understories of fruit producing trees and shrubs. This diverse mixture of industrial pine forest, mixed pinehardwood uplands and hardwood bottoms has probably benefitted the bear population. After an area is cutover, an abundance of fruit producing vegetation provides food for beaI:s. However, hardwood swamps are being harvested at increasing rates which could, in the long-run, be detrimental to bear populations. The area with the largest concentration of bears is virtually uninhabited by people and contains a few heavily traveled roads with roughly 1.5 miles of road per 1,000 acres receiving any regular traffic.
In Central Georgia~ it appears that bear numbers decrease as the distance from these large forested areas increases. As in North Georgia, this probably can be attributed to an increase in human activity outside these core areas. The occupied bear habitat in Central Georgia generally lies along the Ocmulgee River (Fig. 1). This population encompasses approximately 298,751 acres with the majority of the habitat being east of the Ocmulgee River in Twiggs County (Table 2). The Ocmulgee WMA (29,600 acres) in Twiggs, Beckley, and Pulaski Counties provides key habitat components and is characteristic of bear habitat in Central Georgia. TiII!ber stand types
4

Table 2. Occupied bear habitat in Central Georgia.

County
Bibb Houston Twiggs Wilkinson Total

Total Acreage
163,744 245,275 230,086 288,929 928,034

Occupied Acreage
8,1.87 71,130 158,759 60,675 298,751

Percent of Total Acreage
5% 29% 69% 21% 32%

5

on the area are as follows: planted pine> 5 years old 45%, bottomland hardwoods 30%, planted pines < 5 years old 20%, and upland pine-hardwood mix 5%.
Southeast Georgia Population For Southeast Georgia, the bear population centers in and around the 438,000 acre
Okefenokee Swamp of which 395,080 acres is in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and over 10,000 acres is in Dixon Memorial State Forest. Highest densities, approximately 1 bear/l 000-2000 acres, occur on the Dixon Memorial State Forest, the Okefenokee Refuge, and a few privately-owned tracts on the swamp perimeter. The population quickly declines with increasing distance from the swamp perimeter.
Dixon Memorial State Forest is a good example of Lower Coastal Plain bear habitat. The forest contains 35,900 acres of lowland pine habitat. Fifty-five percent of the forest is commercial pine forest including mostly slash and loblolly pine with some longleaf and pond pine. The other 45 percent of the forest is mixed pine-swamp habitat of which is primarily bog swamp with limited areas of bottomland hardwood.
Unlike the North Georgia and Central Georgia areas, the southeastern bear range has a relatively high density of roads. Public access, however. is limited to about 2.5 miles of road! LOOO acres. Most of the roads are private and. in many cases, access is controlled by landowners or lease holders.
The range of bear habitat is outlined in Fig. 1. The approximate occupied bear range is 1,517,556 acres (Table 3). A comparison of counties with bears and those without shows a decreasing bear population as forest area decreases and human activities increase. Those counties with the highest bear populations are composed of 86% forested land (of which 17% is swamp) and 14% farm land, while those with only occasional bear sightings are 71% forested (of which 12% is swamp) and 29% farm land.
6

Table 3, Occupied bear habitat in south Geqrgia.

County
Brantley Charlton Clinch Echols Ware Total

Total Acreage
286,687 499,'395 531,817 266,138 579,913 2,163,950

Occupied Acreage
143,344 494,310 372,272 '159,682" 347,948 1,517,556

Percent of Total Acreage

50%

99%

70%

60%

60%

70%

."",

7

HABITAT TRENDS
North Georgia Population The majority of forested land in North Georgia was heavily logged just after the tum of
the century and at the same time blight destroyed the American Chestnut (Castanea dentata). Nearly 750,000 acres ofthis land in North Georgia were acquired by the US. Forest Service in the 1930s and are now known as the Chattahoochee National Forest. Highgrade logging operations removed most merchantable timber by the 1920's, therefore, much of the forested land is comprised of relatively 'young age classes. Trees left after the logging operations now provide sufficient numbers of den sites for bears, particularly females. However, it takes over 200 years to grow trees suitable for denning. Despite the fact that portions of the forest are not used for timber production dens may become a limiting factor due to the natural attrition of existing dens before current stands (70 years old) can produce den trees. In those portions of the forest where even-aged timber practices are used future den sites may be severely limited.
The increased use of the National Forest lands by recreational users including campers, hikers, fisherman, hunters, horseback riders, and bicycle riders will adversely affect the quality of the habitat available for bears. Of special concern is the development of second homes and retirement communities in the mountains of North Georgia which serve to increase disturbance and lower the quality of available habitat. Increasing public use on National Forest and surrounding forested lands of North Georgia coupled with human population increases for all counties with bear populations will undoubtedly result in the degradation of bear habitat in North Georgia.
Central Georgia Population ' Since the majority of suitable habitat is owned by industrial private 'landowners, timber
management pra~tices will ~ikely have a significant impact on bear populations ,in this part of the state. Forest management in Central Georgia consists primarily of even-aged short to medium rotation pine plantations. Logging operations continue in parts of the swamp along the Ocmulgee River. The effect this will have on the bear population is unknown at this time since most of the bear sightings occur in the upland forest and not in the swamp.
8

Another area of concern is increased urban development. The city of Warner Robins in
Houston County is rapidly encroaching on bear range. Bear-human interactions continue to
result in nuisance complaints f.r'om residents li.ving along creek drainages and wooded areas that
connect bear habitat.

Southeast Georgia Population .

.

Forested acreages are relatively ~table since state government, federal government, and

the commercial forest industry own considerable portions of each county'represented in this area.

,

.

On all sides of the swamp intensive short to medium rotation forest management practices' impact

the bear population, although the extent is unknown. Any large scale alterations of habitat in or

adjacent to the Okefenokee Swamp ~ould have far reaching impacts on the bear population.

POPULATION STATUS North Georgia Population
With the completion of research projects initiated in the 1970's, it became obvious that the population had increased and was at a much higher level than originally estimated. In the 12 North Georgia counti~s which support bear populations, densities range from 1 bear/2500 acres to 1 bear/500 acres. Increases in the bear population have been gradual but have apparently occurred for many years resulting in a population estimated at 900 to 1100 animals.

Central Georgia Population In recent years, sightings of black bears in Central Georgia have continued to increase.
These sightings may be due to greater bear numbers or increased bearlhuman interactions as a result of housing developments encroaching on bear habitat. Research data from a 1985 report (Grahl 1985) indicated population density estimates of 1 bear1768 acres on the Ocmulgee/Oaky Woods WMAs study area. This resulted in an estimated average density of bears in Central Georgia ranging from 1 bear/WOO acres to 1 bearll500 acres of suitable habitat. The Central Georgia bear population is estimated at 200-300 animals.

9

Southeast Georgia Population Trap-retrap data collected on the Dixon Memorial WMA. which is on the north edge of
the Okefenokee Swamp, indicated a population density of nearly 1 bear/lOOO acres (Abler 1984).
Since these were well protected state-owned lands this wa~ considered a maximum estimate for
the rest of the bear's range. Scent post indices reported in 1985 (Abler 1984) indicated lower densities farther from the periphery of the swamp. Population density estimates for the Southeast Georgia population, therefore, range from 610 bears to 763 bears. An ongoing research project is being conducted in the Okefenokee Swamp ecosystem and should refine this population estimate (Clark et al. 1998).
PROBLEMS Factors limiting to Georgia bears include direct and indirect habitat losses. Direct habitat
losses are the result of development, second homes, retirement communities, and conversion to pine plantations or agriculture. Indirect habitat losses degrade habitat quality primarily through human disturbances such as biking, ATV use, and so forth. Another area of concern includes illegal hunting or indiscriminate killing of bears because of depredation losses in apiaries, corn fields, orchards. and residential areas.
The three populations have the same general types of limiting factors (human encroachment. increased recreation. and lower tolerance of bears by residents) but are not necessarily affected equally by these factor~. In North Georgia little land is being converted to agriculture, however, habitat quality is declining due to second orretirement home development and to increases in the number of visitors to the mountains for various reasons. In the Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain, bears are restricted to the Ocmulgee River drainage. Dispersal is limited to waterways toward the east arid west. Urbanization and conversion of hardwood forest lands to plantation pines are the main limiting factors. Urbanization limits dispersal of bears to the west of presently occupied habitat. There is limited knowledge of the ecology of the bear in this population. Comprehensive research is needed to gain a better understanding of these bears.
Within the Okefenokee Swamp population, dispersal to the north and east is limited by land use patterns. To the west of the Okefenokee the land is mostly managed fOf timber with
10

only minor losses to agricultural uses and some dispersal is undoubtedly occurring in this direction. Dispersal from and into Florida is evidently occurring as evidenced by a bear wearing, a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) ear tag which was captured in 1997 at a beeyard in Echols County. Beekeeping is an important occupation in and around the Okefenokee Swamp and its effects on the bear population remain a major concern. In December 1998 th~ Florida black bear (U a. floridanus) was removed from the endangered species candidate list following a status review which found that listing' the bear as endangered or threatened was not warranted at that time (Federal Register 1998). To provide an effective, management program it is imperative that the status and trends in the Southeast Georgia bear population be kept current.

GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING GOALS

Population Goals

The bear population in North Georgia is at a level where stabilization should occur. Most

suitable habitat is presently occupied. As a result bears frequently are found in nuisance

situations which can lead to the death of a bear.

The bear population in Central Georgia appears to be stable. Centered around the

Ocmulgee River in Twiggs County, the population is dispersing eastward and southward with

,

"

movement to the north and west limited by increased urbanization. There are occasional road-

kills and suspected illegal kills, which may account for as much as 5% non-harvest mortality

each year (Grahl 1985). Observations of sows with cubs are reported each year. Future research

may tell us more about dispersal and limiting factors on this population.

The, bear population in and around the Okefenokee Swamp appears to be stable or slightly

increasjng. All primary bear habitat is occupied with major portions of their range protected by

federai and state land holdings.

Although some habitats will support more bears than other areas. with suitable habitat, the

general population goal is 1 bear/l ,500 acres. Realistically, it must be understood that

populations will vary annually and goals must be long term averages. Bait station index surveys

11

are currently being conducted in the North Georgia and Southeast Georg'ia populations. A similar index survey should be developed for the Central Georgia population.
Stocking of bears into any unoccupied portion of its historic,range in Georgia is not recommended. Release of rehabilitated bears into wild habitat also is not recommended. Because of their learned affinity for people, rehabilitated bears tend to become nuisance problems when released into the wild.
Hunting and Harvest Goals Bear hunting is an important part of Georgia's bear management program. Hunting plays
an important role in regulating bear populations and associated nuisance problems while providing an important recreational opportunity for sportsmen and women. Because of the reproductive ecology of bears, however, hunting seasons need to be closely monitored annually and fine-tuned to keep from having negative affects on the bear population.
The reproductive potential of Georgia's black bear populations, like populations in other paris of its range, is low. In the southern Appalachians, 65% of the 2.5 year old female black bears had reached sexual maturity as indicated by corpora lutea counts, however, only 5% of the 3 year old females produced cubs. Most bears did not produce litters (which averaged 2.59 cubs) until age 4 and generally bred every other year thereafte~ unless a litter was lost, in which case a litter would be produced the following year (Carlock et al. 1983). Based on field obser~ations, Grahl (1985) estimated an average litter size of 2.00 for the Central Georgia population. Examination of reproductive tracts from female' bears in Southeast Georgia indicated that sows had the capability to breed at 2.5 years of age (Abler 1984). Litter sizes for this population range from 1-3 cubs per sow with the average being, 2.05' (Clark et al. 1997).
Females are more likely than males to establish ranges within or adjac~nt to their mothers' home range (Alt 1978). Males are polygamous and range over larger areas than females. Young males (less than ~ y~ars old) make up the majority of the animals pioneering new territory because they are excluded from the ranges of adult males. For these reasons, females should normally receive more protection from hunting and should make up a smaller percentage of the kill than males. However. since other factors influence hunting mortality, this
12

is not always the case. Females restricted their movements prior to denning earlier and moved

shorter distances to denning areas than did males (Johnson and Pelton 1979). Radio collared

female bears in the Okefenokee Swamp also denned earlier than did radio collared male bears

(Clark et al. 1997). Therefore. intense hunting pressure in restricted areas during late fall may

increase the lik~lihood of females being over harvested.

A maximum harvest rate of 20% with females comprising no more than 50% of the

harvest is the goal for hunted populations. Additionally, female' average ages ideally should be

held at or above 3.75 years to insure that recruitment rates are not lowered. Wildlife

,

,

Management Areas ,with viable bear populations should be consid~red for limited hunting

seasons. Care must be taken to ins~re accurate collection of standardiz~ddata relative to location

... . .' .. .
,

..

~. ~.

of kill, sex, and age.

Realization of the goal to open additional occupied habitat to bear hunting and remove

approximately 20% of the population should follow the development of and/or establishment of a

population inde,x technique similar to that used in the North Georgia' (Carlock 1996) and



f

_,

."

Southeast Georgia (Abler 1996) populations. These indices can be used to help track population

trends related to hunting and ot~er mortality f~ctors. Ba.it station indices should reflect trends in'

the bear population and when used in combination with har:vest data an~ backdated populati?n
cohorts could be used to estimate minimum populatio~levels. These estimators, however. will

probably lag behind actual population shifts and could allow dramatic changes in the population

to go unnoticed for two or more years. There also should be a system for collecting data from all

harvested bears that is consistent for each population. Hunters in Georgia are required to have

harvested bears tagged by WRD personnel. A premolar should be collected for aging and data'

related to location of kill, sex, condition of the animal, and other hunter related information

should be recorded on a standard data form (see Appendix).

North Georgia Population. --Harvest goals of 20% can only be achieved by increasing bear hunting opportunities. Currently, the majority of bears are being taken on WMAs (68% during the last 3 hunting seasons) even though there are more hunting opportunities outside the WMA system. In north Georgia, all counties that have a bear population are currently open to
13

hunting by archery and firearms hunters, therefore. the orlly opportunity for increasing hunting

pressure in this situation is to increase the length of the season. If an over harvest of the bear

population should occur, a reduction in the harvest, particularly on WMAs, could be achieved by

reducing the length of the season or limiting the type of hunting allowed (e.g. archery only or

more limited firearms hunting). Bear hunting in north Georgia has traditionally resulted in the

majority of the harvest being composed of males. In the unlikely event that a preponderance of

females was being harvestedpver several seasons, timing of the season would be adjusted until

I

'"

'.

later. in the year, after females have gone to their dens, to favor the harvest of males.

As bear harvest numbers increase, age structure, which is already low, and percentage of
females in the harvest should be monitored closely. To this e~d, bears harVested in North

Georgia must be reported to and tagged at any of 3 Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) offices

within 24 hours of harvest. Also, bears may be checked at any WMA check station in the' area

that is open for a managed deer hunt during the days of the bear hunt.

Central Georgia Population. --Inthe CentralGeorgia Population, a 1985 study (Grahl 1985) showed that road kills and illegal kills took about 5% of the population each year. Currently, road kills and illegal kills may account for as much as 10% of the population each year because of increased human development and increased traffic on the roads. A legal harvest of up to 10% (20-30 bears) of the estimated population combined with road kills and illegal kills would meet our stated goal of a maximum 20% mortality.
Currently, the only bear hunting opportunity in Central Georgia is a one-day, check-'in bear hunt during mid-December on the Ocmulgee WMA. Check-in of harvested bears at the WMA check station is required. This hunt averages 50-60 hunters per yeai'with an average harvest of 1 bear per year. Other options should be explored to increase recreational bear hunting opportunities in Central Georgia without exceeding the harvest guidelines. Such options may include bear hunts on Oaky Woods WMA as well as Ocmu1gee WMA (e.g. a 2-day hunt) and/or allowing bear hunting concurrently with existing 4-day check-in deer hunts on one or both of these 2 WMAs. Bear hunting opportunities on these Central Georgia WMAs should be gradually increased and accurate data collected to insure that overharvest of this population does not occur.
14

At present, hunting opportunities in this small Central Georgia population should be

limited to check-in hunts on WMAs. Count}'\:Vide hunting in this population is possible,

ho~ever, it should not be considered until an effective bear index technique and an adequate

method of collecting harvest data has been developed for the Central Georgia area. Such a

. system is needed to monitor the potential impacts countywide hunting would have on the overall

'.

,;

bear population.

.

.

..

.'

Southeast Georgia Population. --Bear hunting in Southeast Georgia is allowed in the 5

.,.

.

'.

.~

"

.

counties contiguous with the Okefenokee' Swamp (Brantley, Charlton, Clinch, Echols, Ware).

\

.

", '"

Since 1988, hunting seasons inthese c,?unties have been limited to 3, 2-day hunts encompassing

~



-',.'





J

,,'.

the last Friday and Saturday in September and the first 2 Fridays and Saiurdaysin October. Bear

,

~". ~

, : .. -

.

~

hunts were held on Dixon Memorial WMA (DMWMA) in Ware and Brantley Counties from

1981-1982 and 1985-1989. Hunts have not been allowed on DMWMA after 1989 until the' 1998

season because 80 percent of the harvest from earlier hunts was comprised of females. It was felt

that the WMA was serving as a nursery area for the population and should be protected from

hunting. In 1?98, 3 days of bear hunting will b~ al,lowed in early December in conjunction with

a

3-day

e. ithe: r-s" ex d. eer

hunt

on

DMWMA. Data from
..... ,

an

.ongoing

black

bear

ecology

study

in

the

Okefenokee Swamp indicate that most female bears will have denned by that time and should not

".

.: .

. .'

.

.

. ~'.,

be part of the huntable population (Clark et al. 1997). Bear hounds are allowed during county-

wide

bear

h.unts

but

w. ere

not

and

will

not

be
,

allowed

on

hunts

on

DMWMA.

Hunters must

check harvested bears at any I of 3 check stations around the Okefenokee Swamp. Additionally.

"roving" check stat~ons are being developed which will allow hunters more flexibility when

checking-in their harvested bears.

.

.

Because of the remoteness of the Okefenokee Swamp and the protection afforded by the

Ok~fenokee N.atio. nal. Wildlife Re. fuge (ONWR) it will be difficult at best to bring bear harvest numbers, which have averaged '35 bears since 1984, up to 20% of the estimated population of

600 to 700 bears. Additionally, setting of bear hunting seasons for the Southeast Georgia

population has been approached very conservatively because of the controversy surrounding the
,
Florida black bear CU jloridanus) and it's possible listing as a RTE species. Also. few changes

to the season will be considered until after the completion of an ongoing black bear ecology

15

------
study in the Okefenokee Swamp. Options that might be considered for future bear hunting seasons in Southeast Georgia
include opening portions. of the archery deer season for bear hunting. increasing the number of days in bear hunting segments. and opening portions of the tirearms deer season for bear hunting. The greatest obstacle to any of these options is the development of a system that would allow WRD personnel to check harvested bears and collect data necessary to monitor the populati~n. Hunting with deer dogs is.allowed in the bear hunting counties in this area. Opening portions of the firearms deer season for bear hunting may prove to increase the hunting pressure for bears to an unacceptable level in this population. The full ramifications of this option would have to be carefully studied before it ~s considered for implementation.
,
Nuisance Abatement Goals Nuisance bears have caused an increasing number of problems in recent years. The Game
Management Section has adopted a "Protocol for Handling Nuisance Black Bears" (Protocol) (Appendix) for handling nuisance bear problems. This protocol should be used throughout the state and within the divisions of the Department to insure consistency when addressing nuisance bear problems. Nuisance animals can be grouped into 2 broad categories: 1) bears out of normal range and 2) depredating bears. Bears out of normal range include bears that turn up in towns and cities and other areas far removed from typical bear habitat. Although these bears attract a great deal of attention. they usually cause no actual damage. Most bears out of their normal range are young males (1.5 to 2.5 years old) that are dispersing into new areas because they have been pressured by larger adult males. These bears will normally leave the area on their own and return to typical bear habitat if given a chance. When bears must be captured, the methods recommended in the Protocol should be followed.
The second type of nuisance bears, depredating bears. includes those animals involved in property damage. Most depredation complaints in Georgia arise from bears raiding garbage, however, damage also occurs to apiaries, corn fields. apple trees, and homes. Complaints also are received from recreation areas where bears seek.handouts. All state agencies should be unified in their efforts to address bear management issues. To this end, it is recommended that
16

the "Bear Management Plan for Public Recreation Areas" (Appendix). which compliments the

Protocol. be incorporated as standard operating procedure for each public recreational site where

.

.

-

.

bears occur. Within this management strategy are speCific recommendations for garbage

management in a variety of situations. Recommendations in this management strategy are broad

enough to be easily modified for specific situations on individual public recreational sites. New

associates on public recreation sites should be made aware of the bear management strategy and

regularly reminded of it during staff meetings. Privatized lodges and concessio'ns'on state parks

and federally operated recreation areas should be required to adopt the same guidelines as each

,

'

state operated park and/or recreation area.

Beekeeping remains an important industry in the Okefenokee Swamp area and bears can
cause significant damage to apiaries. As indicated in th~ Pro~ocol, capt~re and relocation o'f

these bears is a temporary solution at best. Electric fences and education are the best methods to

reduce bear depredation on apiaries. Relocation should be considered only as a last resort to
ensure the safety of the bear o'r hu~~n residents. Field work for a study entitled "Evaluation of

Beeyard Depredation Problems and Possible Solutions" has recently been completed on an Okefenokee Swamp study area by rese~chers from the University of Tennessee. The final report

for this study will detai'l bear/beeyard pro'blems and will offer suggestions for addressing those

problems.

Educational Goals Increases in bear populations. in habitat considered to be marginal due to its proximity to
human disturbance, can be achieved only through public acceptance of bears in these areas. For many years bears have been looked upon as vermin, many people believing they are dangerous to' livestock and humans and that they should be killed on sight. Bear hunting' seasons in Georgia have renewed interest in the bear as a game animal and will help it gain public acceptance and support. Efforts should be made to educate the general public on the value of bears and to lessen the feeling that bears are harmful. This could be accomplished through publication of a general' inform,ation booklet emphasizing the positive rather than the negative aspects of bears with subsequent distribution of this booklet to the general public.
17

Problems related to depredation losses and human encroachment into bear habitat are becoming more and more common. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) needs to address these bear concerns through policy and education. In many instances, people need to learn techniques that will allow them to live peacefully with bears. Educational material related to living with bears should be developed. These materials could include, but not be limited to, posters, signs, handout fliers, educational pamphlets, videos, news releases, etc.
State owned and/or managed properties including wildlife management areas, fish hatcheries, and state parks, by policy, should serve as demonstration areas for effectively dealing with bear problems. Correct use of bear-proof trash containers, electric fencing around apiaries and sensitive areas on fish hatcheries, and other bear exclusion and/or aversion techniques should be modeled on these areas. All guests at these state operated areas should be given information, in handout form, advising them of the presence of bears and procedures for handling food, dish water, and garbage. Interpretive naturalists should offer routine programs focusing on bears and how to safely coexist with them.
RESEARCH AND SURVEY Since the 3 bear populations in Georgia are widely separated geographically and have
habitats unique to each, research and surveys conducted in one area may not be directly applicable to other areas. Similarities do exist, of course, and findings from research in one area may be used as a guide for projections in another area, thereby saving both time and money.
Basic biological data obtained in North Georgia relative to age at maturity, litter size, and sex composition of cubs at birth may not be applicable to other populations. The southern Appalachian bear population has a younger age at maturity than those in more northern latitudes which may be attributed to the longer growing season in the south (Beeman 1975). If this is the case, then the central and southern populations could possibly have even younger ages at maturity. It is conceivable that the reverse is also. true, due to the smaller body sizes and lower quality foods common to southern latitudes. Litter size and sex composition of litters could conceivably be different in the other populations as well. These three variables could affect
18

recruitment and oth~rimportant population parameters. Answers to questions relative to these

variables necessitate trap-tag, radio-telemetry projects where' this infonnation is unknown.

Den types seem to vary gr.eatly from north to south with tree dens being more prevalent in

the south. This may be because snow cover seals ground dens in'the north providing additional

insulation while heavy rainfall in the south precludes extensive use of ground dens. In coastal

areas of North Carolina rising water caused some bears to abandon ground dens (Hamilton

1978). Additionally, approximately 15% less energy is expended to maintain body heat in tree

dens relative to ground de~s (Johnson 1978). Adult females in the southern Appalachians

utilized tree dens more often than did males or subadults (Carlock et al. 1983). This adaptation

provides the reproductive segment of the population with dens having the best environment for

survival of cubs. Abler (1984) reported that radio collared female' bears in the Okefenokee

Swamp were found using ground dens while 1 female was found using a hollow at the base of a

,

,

tree. Clark et al. (1997) reported that bears in the Okefenokee Swamp 'study area typ'ically used

tree dens.

Questions relating to pre-denning movements. den sites. age at maturity. growth rates,

litter size, sex composition of litters. dispersal. and survival have been addressed in the North

Georgia popula,tiQn.(Car.lock et al. 1983). . They. are currently being studied in Southeastern Georgia in a 5 y~ar research project in the Okefenokee Swamp initiated in' 1995. This project,

entitled "Population Ecology of Black Bears ,in the Okefenokee Swamp - Osceola Ecosystem" is

being conducted by researchers from the University of Tennessee and the 'University of Florida

(Clark et al. 1997). A project with a design similar to those in the North Georgia and

Southeastern Georgia populations is essential to understanding the Central Georgia population.

Research measuring the effects on the bear population of hardwood management

including hardwood cutting in the Ocmulgee River basin is needed. The effects of hardwood

cutting on the availability of den trees and food supplies especially needs to be evaluated.

Efforts must be made t9.detennine the effects of hunting pressure on each segmerit of

Georgia's bear population open to hunting. Currently bear hunts in the North Georgia population

are held in conjunction with deer hunts ,and most WMAs maintain records only on total numbers

of hunters per hunt. They do not differentiate between deer and bear hunters nor hunters on the

19

area for either-sex deer hunts when bear hunting is closed. In Southeastern Georgia, bear hunting is open in a 5 county area and is not limited to specific WMAs. Numbers of bear hunters in these counties is presently unknown. A survey identifying bear hunters and thus hunting pressure would probably be possible when Georgia's point-of-sale license system goes into effect.
Annual bait station surveys are currently being conducted in North Georgia and Southeastern Georgia to monitor trends in the bear populations. Although not density estimators, these surveys, utilizing the percentage of baits taken over established index routes, over time can indicate trends in the relative abundance of the bear populations. A similar survey technique needs to be developed and initiated for the Central Georgia population.
A method for estimating the density of bear populations over large areas is necessary to better evaluate the effects of hunting and other management practices. If population density estimates can be determined for limited areas and used in conjunction with the relative values obtained from index lines, then more accurate population estimates can be extrapolated for each population segment. Garshelis and Visser (1997) used baits containing a tetracycline biomarker to mark a large sampl,e of black bears in Minnesota and Michigan. They felt that the technique offered a methodology for enumerating and, therefore, better managing black bear populations. We need to examine this technique and see if it could be adapted for bear populations in Georgia. [f so. population estimates obtained would greatly compliment the index data we currently gather to monitor our bear populations.
PRIORITY OF ACTIVITIES High Priority
Implementation of "Protocol for Handling Nuisance Black Bears" Implementation of generic "Bear Management Plan for Public Recreation Areas"
where state and state managed properties serve as demonstration areas for effectively dealing with bear problems. Printing and distribution of educational brochure Development of additional educational materials including: videos, 1 to 2 news releases per year, public service announcements as needed.
20

Bear ecological study - Central Georgia Medium Priority
Population index survey - Central Georgia Recommendations related to bearlbeeyard study and development of brochure Survey of bear hunters related to hunting pressure and other factors Development of additional educational materials including: .posters and signs Low Priority Biomarker study - North Georgia, Southeast Georgia
Effects of hardwood m;magement p'ractices- . Centr~l'G~orgia
21

LITERATURE CITED Abler. W.A. 1984. Bear population dynamics on a study area in southeast Georgia. GA Dep. of
Nat. Resour., Final Rep., Fed. Aid Proj. W-47-R, Study LIIl, Atlanta. 91 pp.
___ . 1996. Distribution and population trends of black bears in southeastern Georgia. GA Dep. of Nat. Resour., Annu. Perform. Rep., Atlanta. 18 pp.
Alt, G.L. 1978. Dispersal patterns of black bears in northern Pennsylvania. A preliminary report. Pages 186-199 in R.D. Hughie, ed. Proc. 4th Eastern Black Bear Workshop. 409 pp.
Beeman, L.E. 1975~ Population characteristics, movements, and activities of the black bear (Ursus americanus) in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. PhD. Dissertation. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 232 pp.
Carlock, D.M., R.H. Conley, J.M. Collins, P.E. Hale, K.G. Johnson, A.S. Johnson, and M.R. Pelton. 1983. Tri-state black bear study. Tenn. Wildl. Resour. Agency Tech. Rep. 83-9, Nashville. 286 pp.
___ . 1996. Distribution and density of black bears in north Georgia. GA Dep. ofNat. Resour., Annu. Perform. Rep., Atlanta. 8 pp.
Clark, J.D., M.R. Pelton, M. Sundquist, D.M. Brandenburg, D. Barnes, and B. Scheick. 1999. Population ecology of black bears in the Okefenokee Swamp - Osceola ecosystem. Prog. Rep., Jun. - Dec. 1"998. Southern Appalachian Field Lab, Univ. ofTenn, Knoxville. 33 pp.
Federal Register. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; new 12-month finding for a petition to list the Florida black bear. Vol. 63 No. 235:67613-67618.
Garshelis, D.L. and L.G. Visser. 1997. Enumerating megapopulations of wild bears with an ingested biomarkers. J. Wildl. Manage. 61 (2):466-480.
Grahl, O.K., Jr. 1985. Preliminary investigation of the Ocmulgee River drainage black bear population: GA Dep. of Nat. Resour., Final Rep., Fed Aid Proj. W-37-R, Study B-2, Atlanta. 15 pp.
Hamilton, RJ. 1978. Ecology of the black bear in southeastern North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Georgia, Athens. 214 pp.
22

Johnson. K.G. 1978. Den ecology of black bears (Ursusamericanus) in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 107 pp.
___ , and M.R. Pelton. 1979. Denning behavior of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Southeast Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 33:(239-249).
23

APPENDIX Georgia Black Bear Hunter Harvest Report Nuisance. Bear Capture Fonn Protocol for Handling Nuisance Black Bears Bear Management Plan for Public Recreation Areas Electric Fences for Bear/Beeyard Problems
24

LEGAL KILLTAG NUMBER:

_

BEAR REFERENCE NUMBER:

_

GEORGIA BLACK BEAR HUNTER HARVEST REPORT

County or WMA of Harvest:

Harvest Date:

Region: _.

Hunt Club or Location of Harvest within County or WMA: ~

_

_

.,--

_

Distance From Nearest Road to Kill Site:

_

Hunter's Name: Address:

City: Phone Number (Optional):

State:

_

Is This Your 1st Season Hunting Bears in Georgia? Yes:

If No; Number of Seasons:

_

_

_

Zip:

_

_

_ No: - - -

How was Bear Killed? Rifle

_

Shotgun

_

Handgun

_

Muzzleloader

_

Bow

_

Type of Hunt: Still

_

Dog

_

IF DOG HUNT:

Number of Dogs in Chase:

Number of Hunters in Party:

_

Length of Chase:

(Miles);

(Hours)

DATA TO BE COLLECTED FROM BEAR

Weight Actual Live:

Actual Dressed:

Sex: Male

Female

_

Has Bear been Previously Tagged? Yes

No

Tag Number(s) if Previously Tagged:

_

Premolar Collected: Yes

No

_

_ _

Form Completed By:

_

Revised 03/01/99

Age (To be Determined by Tooth):

._

Nuisance Bear Capture Form

Date:

, Region:

Person Completing Form:

Tag #1:

.....,-

_

Tag'#2:

Sex: - - -
Weight --

Premolar Collected? Yes: _ _ No: - - Age:

,Estimated:

_ Actual:

_

County of Capture:

.....:--

--,-

Location of Capture:

. _
_ _
-:-_ _

Relocation County:~ Relocation VVMA:

.,...._----------_

Release Location:

_

Was bear previously tagged?

_

Tag Numbers:

_

Nuisance Situation: Pleas,e check appropriate block(s) and specify where required.

1. Campground garbage

2. Household garbage

3. Commercial food (dog, cat, trout, etc.)

4. Beeyard

_

5. Crops (specify)

.

6. Birdfeeders _ _-----'_ _

7. Urban

8. Other (specify)

_

Comments

~------

Legal Kill Date:

_

Road Kill?

_ Date: _'

_

Road Kill Location:

_

Revised: 02112199

1
Protocol for Handling Nuisance Black Bears
T. Introduction
Black bears were common in Georgia prior to early settlement in the eighteenth ;antury. -Habitat losses associated with agricultural land clearing and large-scale logging operations reduced the bear population to low levels by the 1930s. By the 1940s the American chestnut, a major food source, had been virtually eliminated which further reduced the bear population. By 1950 the' statewide bear population was estimated at 650 with about 50 animals in north Georgia, not over 40 along the Ocmulgee River in central Georgia, not over 60 along the Savannah River and other coastal rivers, and 500 in the Okefenokee Swamp'. Since that time, bear popUlations have steadily increased in number. The statewide bear popUlation is currently estimated at 1,550 to 1,900 bears with 800 to 1,000 in north Georgia, 150 to 200 along the Ocmulgee River in central Georgia, and 600 to 700 in the. o.kefenokee Swamp. Although little is known of the impacts of settlement on the bear population in and around the Okefenokee Swamp, bears probably maintained a relatively stable popUlation since the early 1700s. The Ocmulgee River popUlation is probably a remnant population separated from the souther,: population during the settlement of the central and southern parts of the state.
During the past decade human development has encroached deeper into bear habitat and has resulted in an escalating number of conflicts between people and bears. Habitat, losses'and overall degradation of habitat coupled with a widespread lack of knowledge about wildlife by many residents has led to dislike and fear of bears, and these feelings have resulted in increased bear/human problems. Feeding of birds and other wildlife attracts bears, particularly during periods when, native foods are unavailable. Increased use of United States Forest Service (U.s.t.S.) and Department of Natural Resources (D.N.R.) recreation areas, as well as hon-compliance with recommended garbage management procedures leads to garbage problems that also attract bears. These bears, are frequently considered tO,be a threat or nuisance by many citizens. Public awareness of the availability and accessibility of Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) associates has created a "call them and they will move itff attitude. The Game Ma~agement Section receives hundreds of calls annually requesting assistance with bear related problems. Relocation is not alway~ the answer.
Bear complaints include sightings, crop damage, and property damage. Sightings have been reported from within traditional bear range as well as within towns and metropolitan areas. Bears in garbage cans and dumpsters, often associated with campgrounds, comprise the largest number of complaints. Crop damage complaints consist primarily of cornfield depredation, with some problems occurring in orchards. Damage to apiaries is most common in south Georgia and is limited to small non-commercial operations in north Georgia. Damage to bird feeders, often associated with mountain resort communities, has become one of the most cornmon complaints

2
in the last few years.
Responding to every complaint by catching and removing the bear is not the answer for a number of reasons. Moving an individual bear may not solve the problem and could prove harmful to the bear. Another bear may move into the "abandonedu territory and may cause the same types of problems associated with the relocated bear. Moving bears to unfamiliar territory subjects the individual bear to many potential hazards. Young bears, particularly males, may be killed by adult males. Bears exhibit strong homing instincts and often attempt, sometimes successfully, to return to their home range. Many relocated bears have been killed on highways while attempting to return to familiar grounds., Moving bears is counter-productive if it results in the bear being killed or if the bear returns to its old territory and picks up where it left off, causing more problems. Relocation should be considered only in cases of severe crop depredation, or if human well-being or the life of the bear is threatened.
Everyone, including state a'nd federal agencies, must take a more responsible role in alleviating bear problems. Rather than simply attempting to solve problems with individual bears, the role of the WRD must be to protect and maintain the bear population, and protect public safety and property. Educating the general pUblic and state and federal agencies on means of preventing bear problems is the first step in that process.
consistent guidelines and policies on nuisance bear management and their implementation are key ingredients in the development of this new role. As far as the actions of our agency are concerned, the WRD associate receiving the complaint should make the initial investigation. During this initial contact, explaining bear behavior associated with juvenile movements or food shortages may solve the problem. Advising the complainant to remove the attractant is often all that is required. If the complaint is not resolved, all information should be relayed to the appropriate WRD office for further action.
II. Specific Recommendations
A. Transient bears
Nearly all bears encountered out of their normal range, particularly in urban areas, are young dispersing males. After having been protected by the sow bear for the first year of their life, these young males find themselves on their own and in competition with adult males. The adult males are responsible for forcing them out of familiar territory. In most cases, if left alone, ,these bears will' eventually make their way back to traditional bear'range. Bears treed or ,sighted in areas with sufficient escape cover should be allowed to leave on their own. Local citizens, the press, and law enforcement officials should be advised to stay away from the area where the bear was sighted. By the

3
next morning the bear will have usually left the area. Sightings of bears outside of their normal habitat should be recorded to document travel corridors and potential range expansion. Not all transient bears need to be trapped.
Occasionally, bears will be found in situations within towns which warrant capture and relocation. If a transient bear must be captured, the following guidelines are suggested:
1. Trapping
a. Culvert traps should be clearly marked as. dangerous.
b. Traps should be. set as far from human activity as pos.sible.
c. All residents in the area should be warned. that traps can be dangerous and may catch non-target species such as dogs. They should be advised to pen or chain all domestic animals.
d. If the trap is located in a residental area, it should be set only after nightfall and closed at daylight to lessen chances of injury to children.
2. Darting
a. The area should be cleared of spectators. If law enforcement officials are present, ask them to assist.
b. If the bear is in a tree, make provisions to cushion the fall from the tree (blankets, mattresses, nets, etc.).
B. .Garbage bear~ (includi~g .other attractants)
1. Residences
The key to solving complaihts in this category is removal of the attractant. This should be accomplished before the bear becomes accustomed to receiving the reward of an easy food source. Research in other states indicates that bears which continue to find attractants and associate them with people are increasingly difficult to break from this association. If the feeding pattern changes from night to day, indicating extreme habituation to people, relocation of the bear may be .the only option.
Garbage, pet foods, and bird feed are well known bear attractants. Obviously, removing these attractants will solve the problem. Bears should not be relocated from residences where landowners refuse to remove the attractants; Other attractants include commercial livestock feed and trout chow. These attractants should be treated the same as pet food.

4
In some cases residents throw out food scraps to intentionally attract bears in order to view them. When the bear continues to expect food, it is then perceived as a problem which the resident wants moved. Bears should not be relocated under these circumstances unless the safety of the resident is compromised, or property damage is likely.
Options: Removal of the attractant~ scare guns, rubber bullets, lithium 'chloride, , relocation of the bear. Under no circumstances should any individual be told to sprinkle or spray the bear with a shotgun or other firearm.
2. state and Federal Parks, Fish Hatcheries, etc.
'Intreases in the use of state and federal recreation areas have led to associated increases in the volume of garbage which have caused more bear problems in these areas. Removal of the attractant by using bear proof garbage containers and removal of scraps from firepits and grills before nightfall will normally alleviate these problems. When bear problems are anticipated, all food scraps should be removed from grills and fire pits daily. A goal of all state and federal parks located in traditional bear range should be to convert all garbage containers to bear-proof types. Bear-proof garbage containers are expensive and a complete conversion, in most cases, can not be done overnight. Procurement of a specified number of bear-proof garbage containers could be included in each ~ark's budget on an annual basis until complete park or recreation area coverage is achieved.
Information on bears and garbage disposal should be posted throughout the area and also made available as handouts to visitors. Programs on bear life history and habitat information should be given where appropriate.
res onsibilit to ensure that wild bears remain wild. Feeding ears or allowing them to obta1n garbage causes them to lose their fear of humans and creates a dangerous situation for both people and bears.
State and Federal Hatcheries should provide fencing around hatcheries and mortality pits for dead fish. Fish feed should be contained within a bear-proof structure.

5

Bears should be relocated from state and federal facilities only when the safety of the users is threatened.

Options: Removal of attractant (convert to bear proof garbage containers, pick up garbage daily, use electric fences around garbage storage areas, remove food scraps from grills and fire pits daily), scare guns, rubber bullets, lithium chloride, relocation of the bear. Under.no circumstances should any individual be told to
.sprinkle or spray the bear with a shotgun or other
firearm.

C. Bears in Apiaries

Research from other states indicates that electric fences are

nearly 100% effective at keeping bears out of beeyards.

Current research in the Okefenokee Swamp Ecosystem is

designed to evaluate the.problems created by bears raiding

apiaries. Exclusion techniques (electric fence designs) and

other aversion techniques are being studied for their

effectiveness in limiting this type of problem. Again,

education is the key. Relocation of these bears is a

temporary solution at best and. should be considered only when

other efforts have failed. Electric fencing should be

recommended and bears relocated only to ensure the safety of

residents or the bear.

'

Options: Electric fence around yard, capture and release of the bear, relocation of the bear~ scare guns, rubber bullets. Under no circumstances should,any individual be told to
sprinkle or spray the bear with a shotgun or other firearm.

D. Bears in Corn Fields

This is possibly the most difficult depredation complaint to handle .. Bears relish corn, particularly in the milk stage, and obviously the attractant cannot be removed. Enticing a bear into"a trap in a corn depredation situation is difficult at best. Trapping with a culvert trap or Aldrich snare, drugging, and releasing tne offending animal on site or in the vicinity may be ,an effective aversion technique.

Options: Lithium chloride, chasing with dogs, capture and relocation of the bear. Under no circumstances should any individual be told to sprinkle or spray the bear with a shotgun or other firearm.

6
III. Handling Other Bear Incidents
A.Bears injured or killed on highways
1. Euthanasia
Bears that sustain serious injuries on highways should be humanely destroyed. If the pUblic is present it may be necessary to remove the bear from the area to perform euthanasia.
2. Disposal of carcasses
No bear carcasses are to be given tO'motorists or other individuals. A prioritized list of education organizations that want a bear for display should be maintained by the game management supervisor of each reglon. Each regional supervisor should be contacted when a suitable carcass becomes available to see if it is wanted. If no one wants the carcass or it is unsuitable for mounting, it should be disposed of in a manner to make the parts inaccessible to the general pUblic. Landfills, if available, may be the best disp0sal sites.
B. Cubs
Cubs picked u~ in the woods should be returned as soon as possible and left in the vicinity where found. Cubs known to be orphaned should be placed in a facility which has the appropriate licenses for keeping bears. Bears reared in captivity ~ill not be released in the wild in Georgia.
IV. Data Collectic~
All data from bears captured, euthanized, or killed on highways should be recorded on a standard 'bear data form. An upper premolar tooth should be pulled and along with the data form sent to the appropriate Game Management office (Regions I and II -Gainsville; Regions III and IV -- Fort Valley; Regions V, VI, and VII -~ Fitzgerald) for compilation.
Prepared by Game Management Bear Committee, August 1996

BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
PUBLIC RECREAnON AREAS
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
OCTOBER 1997
PURPOSE:
To effectively manage the reside. nt black bear pop.ulation of State owned lands so as to establish and maintain a safe and responsible relationship between visitors and wild animals.
lNFORMATION' AND EDUCAnON:
It shall be the responsibility of every site associate to educate our visitors concerning bear populations. The 'key iocation of this infonnation dispersal will be in site offices. however other opportunities for visitor interaction are available. The following is a list of examples of when and how this infonnation will be offered
A..l1 over night guests will ~e given infonnation in handout fonn advising them of the presencl; of bears, procedures for handling food. dish water. and garbage
., Posters and special notices will be constantly maintamed on all site bulletin
boards.
3 During the summer and other,times that ,a interpretive naturalist may offer routine programs, he/she will include programs focusing on bears and how to safely coexist with them.
SITE MAINTENANCE. SANITAnON. AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL:
In order to manage and maintain a successful Bear Management Plan, certain steps will be taken
a daily to ensure that "negative reward," atmosphere exists within the site, By not rewarding the
bears for their persistent nuisance behavior, we will be able to safely maintain a delic_ate balance between park visitors and these animals. The following is a list of steps/procedures that will be followed by all site associates and guests.
No garbage will be placed in garbage receptacles after 4 p.m. daily This will allow the site maintenance staff to gather up all garbage before leaving for the day. On holidays or other peak visitation times. a maintenance staff person will have the responsibility of working a late shift in order to gather all day use garbage left by the day use guests, as

Page 2 Bear Management Plan for Public Recreation Areas Georgia Department of Natural Resources October 1997
well as making a final check of all receptacles before the site closes.
2. Overnight guests will be advised both verbally and in writing that no food is to be thrown on the ground; dishwater will be collected and properly disposed of at sink water disposal pits; all grills will be cleaned after using and any aluminum foil will be properly disposed of;. no food will be thrown.in to the fire ring; all coolers will be locked up in a vehicle, camper, , or cottage when sites are not attended.
3 Garbage shall not be left hanging in trees or on lantern posts unless rigged in a "bear proof,'.' manner.
4 The site garbage' truck will be parked in the maintenance area each day. The truck will be under continuous protection of at least 3 strands of electric fencing in order to deter bears from accessing trash awaiting disposal. Garbage will be hauled to the dump as needed to prevent overloading.
Enforcement Procedures:
All staff members and volunteers are charged with the responsibility of monitoring p'ossible violations of the Bear Management Plan. All staff members have the authority and obligation to inform ~TUests of their non-compliance All violations will be reported to the on duty law enforcement officer for follow up
When verbal !:,TUidance proves to be meffective, a written warning will be issued for noncompliance to this policy, further non-compliance will result in ejection or a citation
,
) When bears are reported as "day active," increased patrols will be made to monitor the bear activity and document bear behavior
4 Consistent "day active," bears will be removed from the site by whatever means deemed necessary by the Game Management Section.
Administration/Reports:
All bear sightings by visitors or park associates will require the completion of the "Bear Activity," form. Data gathered from these reports will be transferred to computer for future use
2 Any incidents between bears and either a site visitor or site staff associate will be reponed Immediately

Page J Bear Management Plan for Public Recreation Areas Georgia Department of Natural Resources October 1997

~.
LeasedfRented State Owned Properties:

All Private vendors operating on State owned lands are required to adhere to these procedures

and standards. In addition, vendors are required to comply with any future revisions of these

procedures. .

""

Policy Evaluation:
The Bear Management Policy shall be reviewed and modified as needed on an annual basis by the Site Manager A copy of this plan shall be maintained in the Operations Manual for reference by any site associate. Questions or comments concerning this plan should be directed to the Site Manager
Other:
[t should be noted that the purpose of this plan is not to remove reSident black bears from public recreation areas. The decision to remove a bear is a last resort effort to be considered only after all other means of management have failed. Responsible education and wise resource management will improve the nuisance bear situations. We will not remove native animals unless an unsafe or unhealthy condition exists. It is our responsibility to manage all wildlife populations in public recreation areas and to ensure that a safe environment exists for both wildlife and visitors. We will continue in our efforts to provide healthy alternative food sources in our wildlife food plots, as well as good habitat in our forested areas of the park. [n the end, we wlll all benefit from these procedures, however we must put forth the effort to realize these benefits.

This ~raft has been submitted by the Bear Task Force for re"iew and approval.

,.

refinement may be needed, especially with regards to cost estimates, bear proof trash receptacle design, rough drafts of educational materials, conduction of associate. training, legislation suggestions, and other specific recommendations. Also. it is our feeling that individual recommendations alone will not solve the problem. Each recommendation is equally important and should be implemented together if effectiveness is to be ensured.
It is hoped that if the plan is properly implemented and adequate funding made available, our visitors will have a greater opportunity for a safe and enjoyable experience with fewer complairits while maintaining a healthy bear population. Additionally, we feel following these recommendations will also reduce operating costs, reduce property damage and improve operating efficiency. If needed, the task force would be happy to discuss our recommendations with you or other members of management at your convenience. Thank you for your support of our efforts,

Xc: David Waller, J;)irector, Wildlife Resources Division

Burt Weerts, Director, Parks, Recreation & Historic Sites Division

Carroll Allen, Assistant Chief, Game Management Section, Wildlife Resources Division

Dan Forster, Assistant Chief, Game Management Section., Wildlife Resources Division

Noel Holc:amb. Region Supervisor, ~orthwestern Region I, Game Management Section,

WRD

.

Bill Fletcher, Region Supervisor, Northeastern Region II, Game Management Section. WRD Ralph Turner, Par'ks Region I Manager. PRHSD Billy Hanson, LP Operations Manager. PRHSD Bear Task Force Members