Grizzly 480 was born sometime around 1996, somewhere in the confines of Yellowstone National Park. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) first captured grizzly 480 at Cascade Creek, YNP, on October 8, 2004. His capture was part of the annual research and monitoring initiative set forth by the IGBST. During this initial capture, he was first marked and radio-collared. Two-days post initial capture grizzly 480 found himself back into the same trap; he was released on-site and not handled. Just short of one-year, on September 25, 2005, grizzly 480 was captured at Antelope Creek, YNP. The following year during 2006, grizzly 480 ‘shucked’ his collar (dropped). 

There was a hiatus in monitoring for grizzly 480; nearly 13-years elapsed until grizzly 480 made contact with IGBST researchers. On September 20, 2018, grizzly 480 was captured at Antelope Creek, YNP. During his handling, they collared him for research monitoring. Two weeks later, researchers captured grizzly 480 at Cascade Creek, YNP. Between his first and second captures in 2018, he cast his collar. At the time of the second subsequent capture, he was released and not handled (Haroldson et al. 2005, 2006, 2007, 2018)​

Grizzly 480 displays traditional movements for a male grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Unlike females and females with cubs, males have much larger home ranges. Also, males do not display a high level of fidelity to their home ranges as females exhibit. Home range size is a function of resource availability; as sizes of home ranges decrease, habitat quality increases (Steiniger et al. 2010). A home range is defined as the “area traversed by the individual in its normal activities of food gathering, mating, and caring for young” (Burt, 1943). Home ranges are incredibly variable based on sex, age, and demographic groups. Several factors should be considered with the construction of home ranges for grizzly bears (Munro et al. 2006, Ross 2002, McLellan 1989).

1.   Grizzlies are omnivorous and eat primarily vegetation.
2.   Often, they will roam widely in search of berries and food sources during late summer and autumn (dispersal, and motivated by food)
3.   They are not territorial (their home ranges do overlap!)
4.   Adult and subadult males will have home ranges known to be several times larger than that of females 
5.   Home range is directly impacted by population density
6.   Bears may move hundreds of kilometers during dispersal.
7.   Grizzlies are known to avoid some environments such as high elevations with rocks, snow, mainly because of limited food; however, that does not exclude them crossing such an environment.
8.   Grizzlies are slow to mature and reproduce (one of the slowest reproductive rates amongst all terrestrial mammals)

As mentioned, population density can greatly influence grizzly movements. In areas of high density or similar necessity for nutritional resources, ranges exhibited by female grizzlies are much smaller as opposed to those home ranges documented in low-density areas. This change is likely due to competition for space, and areas of frequent foraging; also the avoidance of dominant male grizzlies (Blanchard & Knight 1991, Dahle & Swenson 2003, Schwartz et al. 2003, Dahle et al. 2006, Edwards et al. 2013, Bjornlie et al. 2014). Patterns of movement are generally food driven; early spring, when bears first emerge from their dens, they will move to lower elevations in valley regions, where there is likely absence of snow, in efforts to find new green vegetation. Females with cubs-of-the-year (COY), however, will likely remain at higher, less preferred areas close to the den, due to the need for security of their cubs during a time of lacking mobility. As spring progresses, movements increase, and this stays true until the fall for most bears.

In the case of grizzly 480, an adult male grizzly bear, their movements generally peak during May & June. Daily activity and movement levels for both male and female grizzly bears typically peak during dawn or dusk, which we refer to as a “crepuscular activity pattern.” 

Despite significant changes in distribution, and the availability of specific food resources and habitat, lifetime home ranges did not change for male or female grizzly bears and remained consistent between 1975-1993 in comparison to 1994-2012.​

 Works Cited
 

1. Bjornlie, D. D., van Manen, F. T., Ebinger, M. R., Haroldson, M. A., Thompson, D. J. (2014). Whitebark pine, population density, and home-range size of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. PLOS ONE 9:e88160.
2. Blanchard, B. M., Knight, R. R. (1991). Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biological Conservation 58:41-67.
3. Burt, W. H. (1943). Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24:346-352.
4. Dahle, B., Stoen, O. G., Swenson, J. E. (2006. Factors influencing home-range size in subadult brown bears. Journal of Mammalogy 87:859-865.
5. Dahle, B., Swenson, J. E. (2003). Home ranges in adult Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos): Effect of mass, sex, reproductive category, population density, and habitat type. Journal of Zoology 260:329-335.
6. Edwards, M. A., Derocher, A. E., Nagy, J. A. (2013). Home range size variation in female arctic grizzly bears relative to reproductive status and resource availability. PLoS ONE 8:e68130.
7. Haroldson, M. A., Dickinson, C., and B. E. Karabensh. 2019. Bear Monitoring and Population Trend. Pages 4-12 in F. T. van Manen, M. A. Haroldson, and B. E. Karabensh, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 2018. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana.
8. Haroldson, M. A., Dickinson, C., and D.D. Bjornlie. 2005. Bear Monitoring and Population Trend. Pages 4-10 in C. C. Schwartz, M. A. Haroldson, and K. West, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 2004. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana.
9. Haroldson, M. A., Dickinson, C., and D.D. Bjornlie. 2006. Grizzly Bear Capturing, Collaring, and Monitoring. Pages 4-10 in C. C. Schwartz, M. A. Haroldson, and K. West, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana.
10. Haroldson, M. A., Dickinson, C., and D.D. Bjornlie. 2007. Bear Monitoring and Population Trend. Pages 4-7 in C. C. Schwartz, M. A. Haroldson, and K. West, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 2006. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana.
11. McLellan, B. N. (1989). Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial resource extraction. I. Density and age–sex composition. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67(8), 1856-1860.
12. Munro, R. H. M., Nielsen, S. E., Price, M. H., Stenhouse, G. B., & Boyce, M. S. (2006). Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central Alberta. Journal of mammalogy, 87(6), 1112-1121.
13. Ross, P. I. (2002). Update COSEWIC status report on the grizzly bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, 1-91pp.
14. Schwartz, C. C., Miller, S. D., Haroldson, M. A. (2003). Grizzly bear. Pages 556-586 in G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
15. Steiniger, S., Timmins, T. L., & Hunter, A. J. S. (2010). Implementation and comparison of home range estimators for grizzly bears in Alberta, Canada, based on GPS data. In Proceedings of GIScience.

​Grizzly 79 was first captured and marked by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team in 1981 at seven-years-old. Grizzly 79 was a so-called ‘frequent flyer’ in the northern section of Yellowstone National Park, well known and recognized by park officials and the local community of Gardiner, MT. Over the next decade, she would remain close and exhibit high fidelity to her home range. She was relocated numerous times, only to find her way back.

Nearly 29-years ago, grizzly 79 found herself in the town of Gardiner, Montana, with her two, yearling cubs (179 & 182). On August 21, 1990, Grizzly 79 and her cubs (179, 182) were trapped for management reasons and relocated. Grizzly 79 was relocated to the remote southeast location of Thorofare, YNP. In contrast, her two yearling cubs (179 & 182) were relocated to Glade Creek, now located in the present-day John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway (JDRMP).

Grizzly 79 was able to navigate Yellowstone and its surrounding communities, without ever being removed. It is remarkable, however, that she was captured 8-times during her life, 7-times for management reasons. Unfortunately, Grizzly 79 was shot and killed by a hunter who claimed self-defense in 1996. Never once in her 22-years in the ecosystem did researchers or community members record an aggressive encounter between her and people. During her nearly two decades in the ecosystem, grizzly 79 was responsible for siring approximately five litters of cubs (grizzly 179 had six litters in her life, and grizzly 182 was known to have one litter).

​August 1990 marked the beginning for these two young grizzlies, now on their own for the first time. Grizzly 179 took up residence in the region in and around the eastern extent of Grand Teton National Park, while her sibling grizzly 182, headed north to the area around Heart Lake, YNP. Both siblings were female, and both bears had their first litters of cubs by age 7. Grizzly 179, unlike her sibling, chose to share her life more intimately with biologists and researchers. Since 1990, grizzly 179 was captured over half a dozen times, her sibling 182 only twice. Grizzly bears with such extensive life histories as 79, 179, and 182 have contributed tremendous amounts of data that help us better understand the species, their biology, and the issues they currently face. Our ability to monitor daily, seasonal and annual movements & activities of these bears is undoubtedly a major contributing factor to their overall recovery and conservation success of the present day.

1.  History of the Refuse Dumps in Yellowstone National Park 

As visitation and tourism increased in Yellowstone National Park, refuse and waste created directly from park visitors, lodging, and transportation posed a new problem. The park decided to create simple dump sites, often situated close to the origin of refuse and waste. Many of the refuse sites were extremely accessible to people (Otter Creek, Old Faithful) except for few (Trout Creek, Rabbit Creek). Two of the smaller dump sites, Otter Creek & Old Faithful, had concrete platforms where waste was dumped. A fence would separate the viewing bleachers from the area which the bears would feed. Specifically, at Otter Creek, rangers and park officials would provide educational and informational lectures about the bears known as "bear shows", until this practice ceased in 1942. Even though the "bear shows" had ended, the refuse sites remained active, allowing the park to handle increasing waste from visitation, and enabling bears to continue feeding at well-established and developed sites with predictable sources of food (Craighead et al. 1995).

In a nutshell: In 1958, John and Frank Craighead began their decade long study of grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park. During this study, the Craigheads made initial advances in wildlife ecology, conservation, and management. They are responsible for pioneering the use of radio telemetry, chemical immobilization, and wildlife handling and population modeling (Craighead Institute, n.d.). The Craigheads were also responsible for the introduction of the ecosystem concept to wildlife management, as many of their findings demonstrated that grizzly bears were using a much larger area than just Yellowstone National Park (Craighead Institute, n.d.). In 1998, John Craighead received the Aldo Leopold Award. Both Frank & John were named among the top scientists in the country by the Audubon Society (Howard, 2016). Interestingly enough, both brothers attended Penn State University. Additionally, they worked for the Navy during World War II and were instrumental in developing a survival school and training program for the Navy's pilots; their survival guide was written in 1943 (Howard, 2016). Both Frank and John received their doctorates from the University of Michigan. John Craighead worked many decades at the University of Montana leading the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (Howard, 2016).

3.  Management Strategy Changes: Past & Present

Before 1963, Yellowstone National Park had three criteria for managing black and grizzly bear populations, summarized by Craighead et al. 1995: 1.) To sustain populations of grizzly bears and black bears under natural conditions as part of natural fauna; 2.) to minimize conflicts and unpleasant or dangerous incidents with bears through control actions; 3.) to encourage bears to lead their natural lives with minimum interference from humans. At this point, the strategy was largely criticized by Frank and John Craighead, the pioneers of grizzly bear research in Yellowstone National Park. The National Park Service was reactive rather than proactive in their management of bears, and they lacked research to achieve a basic scientific understanding of the resources they had been assigned to manage (Craighead et al. 1995).
 
Between 1959 through 1968, there were relatively few management issues or problems with grizzly bears in the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. However, after the rapid closing of all garbage dumps in the park and along its borders, human-bear interaction and conflict increased drastically (Craighead & Craighead 1971). The new management strategy was to completely phase out and eliminate open-pit garbage dumps. The abrupt change forced grizzlies into campground and areas with dense visitor occupancy leading to a drastic spike in the number of documented conflicts. "Habituated behavior demonstrated by bears is usually an indication of poor people management. Problem bears are not born, they are made (Jonkel 1993)."

Insight: In 1967, the National Park Service was considering moving forward with the proposal to close down the open pit garbage/refuse dumps throughout Yellowstone National Park (commonly used by grizzly bears). The park would alternatively switch to using incineration as a means to rid of garbage created by the park and its visitors. This switch would negate potential health hazards which could result from the open refuse pits throughout the park. Closing the open pit dumps would also help assist return grizzly bears to their natural behavior, not dependent on human foods, garbage or hand-outs (Craighead 1979). The Craigheads' in general, were in favor of closing the open-pit garbage dumps. However, they were at stiff odds with the Park Service with how to achieve such a goal, without significantly impacting the current grizzly bear population (Craighead 1979). The Park Service expressed their plans to quickly close the dumps, using a "cold turkey" approach, whereas the Craigheads advised a plan that would phase out the open pit dumps over a longer time scale, with a tentative plan to monitor movements and provide supplementary food sources (Craighead 1979). 
 
The Craigheads based their reasoning on the knowledge they acquired during their research on feeding and movement patterns; these patterns that were documented could not be changed suddenly to fall in line with proposed park policy from park officials (Craighead 1979). For nearly eighty years grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park had used garbage dumps frequently to forage for food; as park visitation increased, so did the amount of refuse being dumped in the open pits (Craighead 1979). Grizzlies repeatedly returned to these areas where they had previously found and identified a food source. The Craigheads believed that closing the dumps abruptly without providing some sort of supplementary food (elk, deer, bison carcasses) would allow bears to move into campgrounds and developed areas to forage resulting in increased incidents and human-bear conflict (Craighead 1979). Without going into grave detail, the bureaucracy involved in the events to follow was unfortunate, and can be referenced in "Chapter 10: Bureaucracy and Bear: The Grizzly Controversy, Track of the Grizzly: Frank C. Craighead, Jr. 1979."
 
The year 1970 marked the beginning of a new management strategy for managing grizzly and black bears in Yellowstone National Park. As previously mentioned, before 1970, open dump garbage pits made human foods easily available for bears, causing what is now referred to as "food conditioning." As documented by the Craigheads, the sudden dump closures resulted in increased mortality. In six years from 1968-1973, 189 known deaths occurred, averaging 31.5 bears per year (maximum deaths of 53 and 48 grizzlies in 1970 and 1971). The newly implemented bear management strategy focused on preventing bears from obtaining any human foods, garbage or other attractants (Meagher and Phillips 1983), disregarding any suggestions made by the Craigheads regarding alternatives such as, long term phase out approaches with supplementary food sources (elk, bison, deer carcasses at the dump locations) being provided. Most of the bears that were food-conditioned found themselves at odds with park personnel and visitors and consequently were removed from the park by 1980. The number of bear mortalities during this period could have been avoided, had park managers heeded to the recommendations set forth by Frank and John Craighead. The whole ordeal, had it gone the other way, just might have changed the course of history for grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone.
 
The decades proceeding 1980, visitation and tourism increased, and so did the populations of both grizzly and black bears. Surely, this was a sign of successful conservation strategies and protections in place (i.e. Endangered Species Act), but initially at expense of the grizzly & black bear populations. More bears were commonly found near roadsides, foraging in open meadows on native foods, close to visitors (Haroldson and Gunther 2013). The initial strategy was to prevent habituation from occurring (before 1990). At this point, roadside bears were not tolerated. Park personnel and staff were worried about the potential risk to humans (automobile accidents, conflicts, etc.).  Hazing, relocation, and removal of bears by park officials were common to solve habituation issues.
 
The beginning of the 1990s marked another subsequent change in bear management strategy: habituation tolerance. Instead of regularly and frequently hazing, relocating/trapping or removal habituated bears, the strategy of tolerating habituation was implemented. Park staff often are called to "bear jams" where bears are often in proximity to the roadway and easily observed. The main priority of park staff dispatched to bear jams is to ensure public safety. This includes ensuring vehicles are parked legally, visitors are behaving appropriately, and not creating an unsafe or unpredictable situation by approaching, harassing or feeding bears present (Richardson et al. 2015).  This strategy has been in place for 29 years (1990-2019)

Grizzly bears and black bears can be found almost anywhere inside of Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Park. Odors, whether from food or other aromatic sources can attract them to come into campgrounds, developments to investigate. Food and other aromatic products which may intrigue or probe the curiosity (investigation) from a bear should be properly stored when not of immediate use. In the National Parks and some of the outlying territories, bear-resistant food storage boxes are available. When these boxes are not available, seek the use of bear canisters, or even bear sacks (can be hung and elevated). It is important that if you are camping or using the backcountry, never to store food on your person, or in your tent at night. Store all food in the proper areas, or you could receive a citation, and be fined. All of the following need to be properly stored in bear-resistant containers/boxes or your vehicle when not being actively used:

• Food and beverages
• Coolers, food containers
• Grills, charcoal or propane
• Cookware
• Toiletries (i.e. bug repellent and sunscreen)
• Pet supplies including food/water bowls
• Garbage…should be disposed of immediately in a bear resistant dumpster

Never leave aromatic, or products containing an odor for any duration of time. All food should be easily within reach and accessible. Never allow bears to obtain a food reward; if a bear approaches you in a campground or backcountry site, never abandon your food and throw food at the bear in an attempt to distract or divert it. Throw rocks, bang pots, and pans, make noise, letting that bear know it is not welcome. At the same time, expediently clean up your area of food.  Encountering a bear on a trail is much different as opposed to that in a developed area or campground setting. Backcountry areas and trails are managed so that bears have the priority. Front country and developed areas (i.e. campgrounds) are managed so that people are given the priority. If a bear is observed or encounters at close distance on the trail, slowly retreat, talk in a calm voice, do not panic. If it is possible, and you encounter a bear at distance, position yourself so you are downwind, alerting the bear to your presence as they pick up your scent (this is not always practical). ​

​Unlike humans, the homes or dens grizzly bears construct, are only temporary. Snow, wind, rain often times will consume dens over the years, making them hardly noticeable to the naked eye; nature restores and repairs itself for those who live in it, and respect it. Nature mask’s the small and minor scars in which bears create and call their homes.
 
Rarely do bears use the same den twice, but typically they will den around the same general area. Females typically den in much closer proximity to their dens from previous years on average than their male counterparts, which sometimes den close or extremely far away from previous annual den locations (there is variability).

In Shoshoni, grizzly bear is expressed as “a’shi wu da” (Univ. Utah, 2019). The grizzly bear and bears in general have sacred meaning, and significance to many native tribes. As a symbol to many Native Americans, the bear was seen as a free spirit, just as the great wind. Natives noted that the bear has a demonstrated quality of unpredictability; we speak of a creature that is massive in size and peacefully forages in the woods, plains on berries and plants. When the bear is provoked, native Americans witnessed ferocity expressed that could elicit obvious terror. Native Americans have an enormous level of respect towards the great bear because of its power, strength. When tribes honored a warrior, witnessing the bear embodied that exact kind of powerful surge, courage and strength to which every warrior strives to possess. At the same time, the bear was also  respected by many tribes for its peaceful disposition (Venefica, 2018)
 
The Bear Dance
 
A Shoshone sage once witnessed a site of a clan of bears who were performing what he described as a ritual dance (bear dance). These were not spirit bears, but real bears, in the bipedal position dancing in the sun. The Shoshone sage said this was a “dance of gratitude as well as a prayer for healing and protection of their young.” The Shoshone tribes have instituted their own “Sun Dance” and the bear serves as the central integral figure of this ritual, symbolizing protection, strength and progeny of the tribe (Venefica, 2018)
 
Growing up in the North Fork
 
Grizzly bear 104 spent nearly her entire life near Pahaska Tepee in the Shoshone National Forest, the original lodge built by Colonel William F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody near the turn of the century. Born around 1982, grizzly 104 was first captured during 1984. Visitors noted that she had her first litter of cubs around the East Entrance of Yellowstone during the spring of 1986. At age 5, she was captured with her cubs, and relocated from around the East Entrance area to the Northern Range (Blacktail) in Yellowstone National Park; she would again be relocated from the Dunraven-Mt. Washburn area to the southern-most section of Yellowstone National Park. Grizzly bears and other ursids have the innate ability to “home” back into their original home area, and that is exactly what 104 did. In 1988 and 1989, she was photographed near Pahaska Tepee, SNF. In 1989, she would have her second litter, 3 cubs-of-the-year (COY). She would rear them and eventually wean, and kick them loose to be on their own in 1991. On May 14, 1991 she was captured at Wilsey’s cabin, North Fork Shoshone, SNF and released on site. On July 24, 1992, grizzly 104 was again captured on the North Fork Shoshone, SNF; again, she was released on site. During 1992, grizzly 104 was observed with 2 COY. She would raise them to weaning age, and kick them during 1994. For seven years, grizzly 104 would roam the landscape around the North Fork Shoshone and East Entrance of Yellowstone National Park. We do not have much information on her reproductive habits during this time frame.
 
Some would say that grizzly 104 was a roadside bear, and that inevitably resulted in her demise. On May 14, 2001, grizzly 104 was struck by a vehicle in the North Fork Shoshone, SNF. At the time, she was accompanied by one yearling cub, who did survive the incident. Grizzly 104 is now on display at the museum in Cody, Wyoming.
 
 
Works Cited
 
1.) Haroldson, M. A., and K. Frey. 2002. Grizzly bear mortalities. Pages 23-28 in C. C. Schwartz and M. A. Haroldson, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 2001. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana.
2.) Knight, R.R., B.M. Blanchard, and D.J. Mattson. 1990. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 1989. National Park Service, Bozeman, Montana.
3.) Knight, R.R., B.M. Blanchard, and D.J. Mattson. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 1991. National Park Service, Bozeman, Montana.
4.) Knight, R.R., B.M. Blanchard, and D.J. Mattson. 1993. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study Team, 1992. National Park Service, Bozeman, Montana.
5.) University of Utah, (2019). The Shoshoni Language Project, Shoshoni Dictionary. (https://shoshoniproject.utah.edu/language-materials/shoshoni-dictionary/dictionary.php) Accessed June 10, 2019. Shoshoni Language Project, Salt Lake City, Utah. USA.
6.) Venefica, A., (2018). Native American Bear Meaning-Symbolic Wisdom from the Bear: What is your sign. (https://www.whats-your-sign.com/native-american-bear-meaning.html). Accessed June 10, 2019.

Additional bears that have been photographed by the USGS Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, with some of their known life histories. Please note the information is a compilation of data included in annual summaries, and media sources available. Some of the bears listed are likely to still be alive in the ecosystem, while others may have been due to human-caused or natural mortality.

Photo Credits: all photos are courtesy of the USGS Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) with the exception of  the photo of grizzly 475's remains, courtesy of Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks (MTFWP).

The journey of grizzly 863 begins in Muddy Creek, Shoshone National Forest (SNF). In 2015, as a recently booted 2-year-old subadult, 863 was captured July 25, for management purposes with her (potential) sibling, for repeated conflicts and habituation (frequenting developed areas). They both were transported to Bailey Creek, Bridger Teton National Forest (BTNF) (personal communication WYGF). Almost one year later, July 17, 2016, grizzly 863 was captured at Blackrock Creek, BTNF. She is currently radio collared. She was observed with no cubs during 2016. The following year in 2017, again, grizzly 863 at now 4-years-old, was observed with no cubs.
 
In 2019, she was first observed May 6 with 2-cubs-of-the-year (COY).
 
Asphalt Bear

Many of the first observers were alarmed by 863’s actions and behavior. Initially, on May 6, 2019, she was observed rolling around in a fresh patch of asphalt on HWY 26. She was covered in the black tar like substance, and her young stood nearby, probably wondering if their mother bear was crazy. Oil and petroleum products, whether refined, or derivatives, attract grizzly bears. Fuel by itself is considered an attractant for bears.
 
Case: During a 15-year provincial project in Alberta, Andrea Morehouse, a wildlife biologist with the University of Alberta, came across an interesting observation. The goal of the project was to reduce spring incidents of grizzlies killing cattle. In an effort to alter and mitigate that behavior, roadkill were collected and dropped at remote locations. Morehouse wanted to document how many unique bears were using the remote carcass sites. At each remote location, roadkill would be positioned and then two trees near the area would be sprayed with WD-40 and wrapped in barb wire; WD-40 elicits a rub response from bears so they would come to the sites, eat and then rub on the trees.
 
It is likely that the combination of aliphatic hydrocarbons, petroleum bases/derivatives is what intrigues bears and elicits a behavioral (rub) response. This probably serves as the most likely reason that grizzly 863 was rolling in freshly patched asphalt. So to answer the cubs: no your mother bear is not crazy, just being a bear. 
 
Roadside Bears: Habituation tolerance

Grizzly 863 has taken up a similar strategy that has been observed in many females with cubs: raising them in close proximity to the roadside. Now whether that is to provide security, we cannot prove; it is very much a double edged sword. Most bears observed near roads during spring are foraging on natural food sources. Late spring and early summer coincide with seasons when food productivity near roadways is rated higher than that further away from roadways (Mattson et al. 1987). All classes of bears use roadside habitats, not just classes which are subordinate or even security conscious (Haroldson & Gunther 2013). During mid-May, grizzly 863 was observed being pursued and chased by other bears. Shortly thereafter, she was observed with only one remaining cub.
 
It is important to understand that while bears may select roadside habitats during the spring because of their high productivity as opposed to habitat further away from roadways, it is not acceptable or appropriate for a grizzly or family group to linger in the roadway. The National Park Service since 1990, has instituted the bear management strategy of habituation tolerance. This strategy has been in place for nearly 30 years (1990-2019). The main priority of staff dispatched to bear jams, or roadside bear events, is to ensure public safety. This includes ensuring vehicles are parked legally, visitors are behaving in an appropriate manner, and not creating an unsafe or unpredictable situation by approaching, harassing or feeding bears present (Gunther et al. 2015).

It is important to consider the differences between national parks, national forests, and the surrounding adjacent communities. Each group does not manage wildlife (bears) in the same manner or have the same objectives. While the national parks between Yellowstone and Grand Teton have adopted the strategy of habituated tolerance, this strategy is not feasible in local communities and contrary to the missions or objectives set forth by other agencies.  

Aversive Conditioning and Hazing as Management & Safety Tools

Hazing of bears in Yellowstone and other areas of the Greater Yellowstone comes in the form of bear deterrent round, thumper gun projectiles, sling shots, rocks, cracker shells, sirens, horns in an effort to temporarily move bears away from roadsides, human occupied areas, or where there is a bear-related safety concern.
 
Aversive conditioning is a form of learning which takes place when an animal is punished for an undesirable behavior. The goals of aversive conditioning are the following (Gunther 1994):
 

1. Reduce the number of bear removals in the ecosystem; control and management removals have become a major part and player in grizzly bear mortality
   1. ​Reduce the number of bears needed to be trapped and relocated to remote sites; relocation does not prevent the problem from recurring. Many bears have the innate ability to return to their original home range. This of course, creates the possibility for repeat offenders. Aversive conditioning offers an alternative and the potential for a bear to modify its behavior as opposed to relocation which only provides a temporary solution.
2. Reduce bear-caused human injury, by discouraging bears from frequenting developed and human occupied areas
3. Establish a fear of humans that otherwise could allow for a bear to become dangerous due to habituation
4. Evaluate effectiveness of various aversive conditioning techniques to better equip personnel to keep bears away from sites of human occupancy and or food sources

 
Specific guidelines have been established for when to use aversive conditioning which include (Gunther 1994):
 

1. May be used as an additional management tool to prevent the removal of bears; under certain conditions, bears may be conditioned to avoid certain areas in their home range
2. Aversive conditioning will be most successful and effective if it is utilized when they first encounter humans or food rewarding situations
3. Younger bears are ideal candidates for aversive conditioning during their exposure to humans and or food rewards
4. Adult bears that have lost their fear of humans and or have been repeatedly receiving food rewards are not good candidates for aversive conditioning
5. This technique should not be used when attractants cannot be removed; aversive conditioning was ineffective at sewage lagoons and trout spawning areas, where the attractants to not be removed (instead these areas are seasonally or permanently restricted)
6. Injured or sick bears are not candidates for aversive conditioning
7. Aggressive bears are not candidates for aversive conditioning
8. Aversive conditioning should only be conducted by those trained in these techniques
9. Only equipment approved for use in aversive conditioning should be utilized
10. Shot placement is critical to ensure the animal is not injured when using bean bags etc.

 
The Take Home Message:
 
It is important to recognize the significance of roadside habitat for bears of all cohorts. However, we must respect that significance and allow for bears to behave in as much of a natural manner as possible, undisturbed by our actions. Our presence alone is something many bears such as 863, have grown to tolerate. We should not take their tolerance for granted; behavior is not a sound science, and grizzly bears are wild. Success breeds complacency; complacency breeds failure. Becoming complacent while viewing roadside bears is ultimately what may lead to the downfall of a nearly three decade old management strategy. ​

Works Cited
 
1.) Gunther, K. A. (1994). Bear management in Yellowstone National Park, 1960-93. Bears: their biology and management, 549-560.
2.) Gunther, K. A. (1994). Yellowstone National Park Bear Management Plan. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. pp. 66.
3.) Gunther, K. A., Wilmot, K. R., Cain, S. L., Wyman, T., Reinertson, E. G.,  Bramblett, A. M. (2015). Habituated grizzly bears: a natural response to increasing visitation in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Yellowstone Science, 23, 33-40.
4.) Haroldson, M.A., Gunther, K. A. (2013). Roadside bear viewing opportunities in Yellowstone National Park: characteristics, trends, and influence of whitebark pine. Ursus, 24(1), 27-42.
5.) Mattson, D. J., Knight, R. R., Blanchard, B. M., (1987). The effects of developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:259–273.