> Any bear causing human injury or death while acting in a predaceous manner, will be destroyed 

 as will any cubs at side accompanying a female. 



> A bear displaying aggressive, but non-predaceous, behavior will not necessarily be removed, 

 depending on the circumstances of the encounter and the sex, age and reproductive status of the 

 bear. 



Conflict bears that have not yet become habituated or food conditioned may be candidates for either: 1) 

 trapping and on-site release accompanied by aversive conditioning, 2) on-site aversive conditioning 

 without trapping, or 3) trapping and relocation. Relocation is the least desirable option; relocated bears 

 often return or cause problems in another area and ultimately have to be destroyed. Recent data from the 

 Yellowstone area, suggests, however, that bears that remain trouble-free for at least a year are less likely 

 to cause future problems. 



Livestock Conflicts 



Livestock operations that maintain large blocks of open rangeland can provide many benefits to the long- 

 term conservation of grizzly bears, not the least of which is the maintenance of open space and habitats 

 that support a wide variety of wildlife, including grizzlies. At the same time, livestock operators can 

 suffer losses from bear depredation. These losses tend to be directed at sheep and young cattle. In 

 addition, honey bees are classified as livestock in Montana, and apiaries can be damaged by bears. Our 

 ability to deal with such issues will, in large part, determine the overall success of our grizzly 

 management efforts. Correspondingly, FWPs preferred approaches to managing livestock conflict in 

 western Montana include: 



> Management efforts will be directed at depredating animals. 



> Wildlife Services (WS) will be the lead agency dealing with livestock depredation (see MOU 

 Appendices D and E) and as recovery and eventual delisting occurs, we will seek to provide them 

 with additional flexibility and ability to make day-to-day management decisions regarding resolving 

 livestock conflicts. 



> FWP will respond to conflicts in cooperation with WS. Ultimately, with successful recovery and 

 delisting, WS will be the appropriate agency to handle livestock conflicts and will report their 

 activities annually, as already occurs with black bears and other predators. 



> FWP, in cooperation with WS and other agencies, will focus on preventive programs aimed at 

 minimizing livestock conflict with priority toward those areas with a history of conflict or currently 

 occupied bv bears. 



> FWP will review and adjust the guidelines for dealing with damage to beehives (Appendix E). 



> FWP will work with beekeepers to provide electric fences for all apiaries accessible to bears, and FWP 

 will re-evaluate the guidelines for bear depredation to beehives and modify if needed. 



> FWP will encourage private funding for compensation of livestock loss. 



> FWP will review the carcass redistribution program and make changes if indicated by that review. 



> FWP will work with the livestock industry to evaluate the possibility of an insurance program for 

 predator losses. 



> Currently sheep and/or goats are being used for weed control. FWP will work with operators to 

 ensure conflicts with bears are minimal through the use of herders, electric fences, dogs, or other 

 tools as appropriate. There may be places where these programs may be inappropriate due to 

 conflicts with bears, and FWP will recommend the use of "non-livestock" approaches to weed control 

 in those areas. 



35 



