it can start a chain of events that leads to a bear becoming ever more familiar with people and 

 their dwellings. This elevates risks unnecessarily. Also, as time goes by without conflict, people 

 can become complacent, and individual bears can alter their behavior for reasons known or 

 unknown and cause injury or death to people. It is through awareness of the risk, and by 

 responding accordingly, that support can be built for grizzlies in Montana and minimize the 

 risks. If wildlife officials fail to respond adequately to concerns for human safety, there will not 

 be local support for maintaining this species. 



As grizzly bears in the GYE expand into new habitats outside the PCA, they will be expanding 

 into habitats, which in large part are already occupied by people living, working, and recreating. 

 With this expansion, the number of bear/human encoimters will increase. These encounters 

 could lead to injuries or death for both humans and bears. 



Under Montana Statute 87-3-130, a citizen may legally kill a grizzly bear while acting in self- 

 defense if the bear ". . . is molesting, assaulting, killing, or threatening to kill a person. . ." In the 

 GYE during the period 1990-99, 22 grizzly bears were killed by individuals acting in self- 

 defense. With the potential for increasing human/bear encounters, safety for both humans and 

 bears becomes an important issue. 



One purpose of this management plan is to minimize the potential for human-grizzly conflicts 

 that could lead to injury or loss of human life, or human-caused grizzly mortality while 

 maintaining traditional residential, recreational and commercial uses of the areas into which the 

 grizzly is expanding. There is a possibility that certain types of human use may require 

 modification, restriction, or prohibition to protect people, individual bears, reduce conflicts, or 

 manage critical habitats. This is the same program FWP uses for other potentially dangerous 

 species such as mountain lions or black bears. 



Although there are a variety of situations that can result in a human-grizzly conflict, the primary 

 categories are: 1 ) Food related ~ improper food storage or sanitation in either a backcountry 

 (hunter camp, hiker or other backcountry recreationist), rural (farm/ranch, cabin, church camp, 

 etc.) or urban setting (subdivision, town); 2) surprise encounters — females defending cubs, bears 

 defending a kill/carcass, bears surprised in close quarters and acting defensively, etc.; 3) human 

 encroaching on a bear's space — photographer, tourist, etc., approaching a bear close enough to 

 elicit a defensive reaction; 4) bears responding to a noise attractant — bears attracted to a hunter 

 attempting to bugle or cow-call an elk, bears associating gunshots with a food source (carcass or 

 gut pile), etc. 



In summary, this plan recommends that any bears that have killed a human be removed Irom the 

 population if they can be reasonably identified. FWP will use all available evidence fi-om the 

 incident to identify the bear(s) involved before removal. However, there are times where it may 

 not be possible to determine this absolutely before management actions occur. Some people 

 suggest that if evidence exists that the person precipitated the attack, for example by approaching 

 and poking the bear, that the bear not be removed. Although this is considered an alternative, in 

 FWP's judgment, allowing bears that have been known to kill someone to remain in the 

 population will jeopardize local support. With effective management programs there will 

 hopefiilly be very few of these incidents. 



22 



