You are on page 1of 192

1

2
$
4
& D"A$T
' $LO"IDA BLAC, B-A"
( MA/AG-M-/T PLA/
) !rs$s &'er)c&+$s ,-or)d&+$s
*
10
11 November 2, 2011
12
1$
14
1&
1'
1(
1)
1*
20
21
22
2$
24
2&
2'
2( $lorida $ish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
2) AB0 South Meridian Street
2* Tallahassee, $L GBGHH-JA00
$0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

$1 C"-ATIO/ O$ TH- B-A" MA/AG-M-/T PLA/

$2 5n May 200(, a team of staff from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
$$ Commission CFWCD were charged with develoHing a draft Iear Management PlanK
$4 Lhen FWC Mivision of Habitat and SHecies Conservation CHSCD Mirector, Lim
$& Ireault, sHonsored the FWC team, which included staff from HSC, Mivision of Law
$' Rnforcement CLRD, Office of the RTecutive Mirector CORMD, Office of Community
$( Uelations CCUD, and Fish and Wildlife Uesearch 5nstitute CFWU5DK HSC MeHuty
$) Mirector Lhomas Rason led the team in comHleting its tasV to deliver a draft Iear
$* Management PlanK Lhe team consisted of the following FWC staffW
40 MiVe Abbott ! HSC Irian ScheicV ! FWU5
41 YacV Maugherty ! LR SteHhanie SimeV1! HSC
42 Yudy Zillan ! CU Mavid Lelesco ! HSC
4$ Walter McCown ! FWU5 Adam WarwicV ! HSC
44
4& A new team of FWC staff was formed in August 200* to collect Hublic inHut,
4' revise the Hlan as needed, and deliver the draft to FWC CommissionersK Lhe new
4( team was lead by HSC Section Leader [iHH Frohlich and FWU5 Section Leader Lim
4) "’Meara( *he tea- .onsisted o4 the 4o55owin7 8WC sta44;
4* Lee Ieach ! LR MiVe Orlando ! HSC
&0 Mennis Mavid ! ORM Irian ScheicV ! FWU5
&1 Lerry Moonan ! HSC Iilly Sermons ! HSC
&2 Yoy Hill ! CU Mavid Lelesco ! HSC
&$ Walter McCown ! FWU5
&4
&& Lhe teams were suHHorted by FWC and \niversity of Florida C\FD staffW
&' Sarah Iarrett CHSCD ! Administrative and editorial assistance
&( MarV Rndries CFWU5D ! ZeograHhic 5nformation System assistance
&) [aren Nutt CHSCD ! Listing rule comHliance and editorial assistance

15ndicates a team member who was reHlaced during the draft Hlan HrocessK Mavid Lelesco reHlaced
SteHhanie SimeV when he succeeded her as Iear Management Program CoordinatorK

i
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

&* Yames Perran Uoss C\FD ! StaVeholder coordination, meeting facilitation


'0 [elly SameV CORMD ! Legal assistance
'1
'2 Lhe teams consulted with a Lechnical Assistance ZrouH CLAZD comHosed of
'$ reHresentatives from various staVeholder grouHs throughout the develoHment of
'4 this HlanK FWC consulted regularly with the LAZ to seeV their inHut on various
'& drafts of the management HlanK LAZ members did not necessarily endorse all
'' comHonents of the Hlan nor does FWC imHly a consensus was reached by all LAZ
'( membersK LAZ members includedW
') SteHhanie Ioyles2 Lhe Humane Society of the \nited States
'* Manley Fuller Florida Wildlife Federation
(0 Uaymond Hamlin2 Florida Iear Hunters Association
(1 Mennis Hardin Florida Mivision of Forestry
(2 Yohn Hayes \niversity of Florida
($ Yennifer Hobgood Lhe Humane Society of the \nited States
(4 Lom Hoctor \niversity of Florida
(& Yoi HosVer Central Florida Iear Hunters Association
(' MicVey LarVin Florida Iear Hunters Association
(( Laurie Macdonald Mefenders of Wildlife
() Carl PetricV \KSK Forest Service
(* Uay Pringle Safari Club 5nternational
)0 Carrie SeVeraV \KSK Forest Service, Ocala National Forest
)1 VicVi SharHe Florida MeHartment of LransHortation
)2 Steve Shea StK Yoe ComHany
)$ ParVs Small Florida MeHartment of Rnvironmental Protection
)4 Mennis League Rglin Air Force Iase
)&

25ndicates a LAZ member who was reHlaced during the draft Hlan HrocessK SteHhanie Ioyles
HarticiHated in Hortions of the Hlan review for Yennifer Hobgood until she returned, and MicVey
LarVins reHlaced Uaymond HamlinK

ii
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

)' Lhe team began a Hublic inHut Hhase on the first draft of the Iear Management
)( Plan in May 2010K However, in SeHtember 2010, FWC Hassed Florida’s Rndangered
)) and Lhreatened SHecies rule that re^uired biological status reviews and
)* management Hlans for sHecies currently listed as Lhreatened and SHecies of SHecial
*0 Concern in Florida, including the Florida blacV bearK As Hart of that Hrocess, FWC
*1 staff and outside bear eTHerts reviewed listing criteria and then FWC staff
*2 recommended that bears be removed from the State’s threatened s<e.ies 5istK Lhe
*$ Commission a<<ro=ed sta44’s re.o--endation in Yune 2011_ however, bears will not
*4 be removed from the list until the Commission aHHroves this management HlanK
*& Lhe Hublic inHut Hrocess on the first draft was susHended so that the daft could be
*' revised to include the results of the biological status review and conform to the new
*( listing rule re^uirementsK Lhis second draft has been uHdated to include the results
*) of the biological status review, and to address issues related to removing the bear
** from the threatened sHecies listK
100
101
102
10$
104
10&
10'
10(
10)
10*
110
111
112
11$
114
11&
11'
11( Suggested citationW Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionK 2012K
11) IlacV bear management Hlan for FloridaK Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
11* Commission, Lallahassee, Florida, 1*2 HK

iii
Draft Black Bear Management Plan -Oecutive Summary

120 -Q-CRTIS- SRMMA"T

121 Lhe draft Florida blacV bear management Hlan is intended to create a common
122 frameworV from which Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission CFWCD staff and
12$ staVeholders can worV in a coordinated fashion to conserve bears and maintain
124 their value to HeoHleK Lhe goal of this Hlan is to >Maintain sustainable black
12& bear populations in suitable habitats throughout $lorida for the benefit of
12' the species and people.! Lo accomHlish this goal, ob`ectives focusing on
12( HoHulation, habitat, conflict management, and education were createdK

12) Lhe HoHulation ob`ective is to maintain a sustainable statewide bear HoHulationK


12* Lo do this, several comHonents are identified that include managing one bear
1$0 subHoHulation to be at least 1,000 individuals, ensuring that the smaller
1$1 subHoHulations are increased to a minimum of 200 bears each, and increasing
1$2 genetic eTchange between subHoHulationsK

1$$ Lhe second ob`ective is to maintain habitat in sufficient ^uantity, ^uality, and
1$4 connectivity to meet the HoHulation ob`ectiveK Lhis will include habitat to
1$& accommodate at least one subHoHulation of over 1,000 individuals and to Hrovide
1$' sufficient habitat in the smaller subHoHulations to allow for at least 200 bears eachK
1$( 5n addition, the Hlan calls for increased connectivity between bear habitat areas to
1$) Hromote greater genetic eTchangeK

1$* Lhe third ob`ective is to reduce humanabear conflictsK A measure of success for
140 this ob`ective will be to reduce the number of beararelated comHlaints to FWC to
141 below the average number of comHlaints received annually between 200) and 2010
142 levels C1,*4*DK Lhis will be done by coordinating with local government officials in
14$ Hrimary bear range to imHlement methods for reducing conflicts_ revising bear
144 Holicies to create a comHrehensive aHHroach to humanabear conflict management_
14& develoHing Hrotocols to caHture institutional Vnowledge, standardibe resHonse, and
14' imHrove effectiveness in management_ and creating HartnershiHs that will helH
14( FWC resolve humanabear conflictsK

iv
Draft Black Bear Management Plan -Oecutive Summary

14) Lhe last ob`ective of the Hlan is to helH Florida citibens have a better
14* understanding of bears, suHHort bear conservation measures, and contribute to
1&0 reducing humanabear conflictsK Lhis will be done by education and outreach
1&1 Hrograms_ HartnershiHs with government, nonagovernmental organibations, and
1&2 other staVeholders_ and develoHing >Iear Smart Communities? in areas of high bear
1&$ activityK Lhe ob`ective’s aim is to have at least (&c of the HeoHle who contact FWC
1&4 comHly with our conflict resolution adviceK

1&& Shared ownershiH and resHonsibility for bear management by FWC staff and
1&' staVeholders, both regionally and within local communities, will be imHortant to the
1&( successful imHlementation of this HlanK Lo achieve this end, the Hlan HroHoses to
1&) divide the state into geograHhic areas Vnown as Iear Management \nits CIM\sDK
1&* Lhe seven HroHosed IM\s will allow for management issues and actions to be
1'0 addressed differently across the state deHending on the needs and characteristics of
1'1 the areaK Lhe Hlan also calls for the develoHment of IlacV Iear Assistance ZrouHs
1'2 across the state. Lhose grouHs would be comHosed of local staVeholders and would
1'$ assist in scoHing issues and identifying and imHlementing actions for bears within
1'4 each IM\, thereby forming the basis for community coamanagement of bearsK

1'& 5n order to achieve the goal and ob`ectives of the Hlan, aHHroHriate rules and
1'' regulations are needed to Hrovide ade^uate Hrotection for bearsK Lhe Hlan includes
1'( a new rule to be adoHted into the Florida Administrative Code that maVes it
1') unlawful to in`ure or Vill bearsK Lhe rule also states FWC will continue to engage
1'* with landowners and regulating agencies to guide future land use so that it is
1(0 comHatible with the draft bear management Hlan ob`ectivesK While bears have
1(1 rebounded from historic low numbers and no longer meet the biological criteria for
1(2 designation as a threatened sHecies in Florida, many conservation challenges
1($ remainK Lhis Hlan is intended to address those challenges and ensure bears will
1(4 never again need to be listed as a threatened sHeciesK Lhrough imHlementation of
1(& the many conservation actions identified in this Hlan, Floridians can achieve a
1(' future that includes bears as a secure and valued wildlife sHecies in our stateK

v
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

1(( TABL- O$ CO/T-/TS

1() Creation of the Iear Management Plan KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK i 


1(* RTecutive SummaryKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK iv 
1)0 Lable of Contents KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK vi 
1)1 List of Lables KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK viii 
1)2 List of Figures KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK iT 
1)$ List of Acronyms KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK Ti 
1)4 Zlossary of Lerms KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK Tii 
1)& ChaHter 1W 5ntroduction KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1 
1)' ChaHter 2W Iiological and Management IacVground KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK & 
1)( MescriHtion KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK & 
1)) UeHroduction KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK ' 
1)* SubHoHulation Mensity and Abundance KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK ' 
1*0 Habitat \se and Home Uange KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK ) 
1*1 Food Habits KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10 
1*2 Mortality KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10 
1*$ Mistribution KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 12 
1*4 Zenetic Profile KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 14 
1*& Rcological Significance of Iears KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1& 
1*' Land \se and Iear PoHulations KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1' 
1*( Status, Management, and Hunting KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 21 
1*) ChaHter $W Lhreat Assessment KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2( 
1** ChaHter 4W Conservation Focus Areas KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $2 
200 Conservation Zoal KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $2 
201 Ob`ectives, Strategies, Actions, Uesearch, Monitoring, and Uesources KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $2 
202 Iear Management \nitsKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $$ 
20$ Ob`ective 1W PoHulation Conservation KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $& 
204 Uesearch and Monitoring for PoHulation Conservation KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $( 
20& Ob`ective 2W Habitat Conservation KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 42 
20' Habitat Connectivity KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 4) 
20( Habitat Management KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK &0 
20) Uesearch and Monitoring for Habitat Conservation KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK &2 
20* Ob`ective $W HumanaIear Conflict Management KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '0 
210 Uesearch and Monitoring for HumanaIear Conflicts KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '4 
211 Ob`ective 4W Rducation and OutreachKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '* 
212 IlacV Iear PoHulation and Habitat Conservation KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '* 
21$ HumanaIear Conflict KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK (1 
214 Communities KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK (2 
21& Private Landowners KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK ($ 
21' Zovernmental, Nongovernmental, and Iusiness Organibations KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK (& 
21( FWC Staff KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK (' 
21) Uesearch and Monitoring for Rducation and Outreach KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK (( 
21* Iear Management \nit ProfilesKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK )( 
220 West Panhandle Iear Management \nit KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK )( 
vi
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

221 Rast Panhandle Iear Management \nit KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *1 


222 Iig Iend Iear Management \nit KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *& 
22$ North Iear Management \nit KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK ** 
224 Central Iear Management \nit KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10$ 
22& South Central Iear Management \nit KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10( 
22' South Iear Management \nit KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 111 
22( ChaHter &W Uegulation and Rnforcement KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 11& 
22) Uegulations KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 11& 
22* Penalties KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 11' 
2$0 Rnforcement KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 11( 
2$1 Permitting FrameworV KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 11) 
2$2 ChaHter 'W 5mHlementation Strategy KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 120 
2$$ 5mHlementation Schedule KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 120 
2$4 Current Uesources for 5mHlementationKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 121 
2$& Uesource Considerations KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 121 
2$' Coordination with Other Rfforts KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 12& 
2$( ChaHter (W AnticiHated 5mHacts KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 12' 
2$) Social 5mHacts KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 12' 
2$* Rconomic 5mHacts KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 12) 
240 Rcological 5mHacts KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1$0 
241 Literature Cited KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1$2 
242 AHHendiT 5K Florida IlacV Iear Iiological Status Ueview UeHort CSuHHlemental
24$ UeHort is available atW MyFWCKcomdwildlifehabitatsdimHerileddbiologicala
244 statusd DKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 142 
24& AHHendiT 55K Florida blacV bear harvest data, 1*)1 to 1**4K KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1') 
24' AHHendiT 555K Status of blacV bears in states with resident bear HoHulationsK KKKKKK 1'* 
24( AHHendiT 5VK MescriHtion of Iear Smart Communities Program KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1(1 
24) AHHendiT VK ProHosed Uule KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1(& 
24* AHHendiT V5K List of Florida counties identified by Iear Management \nit and
2&0 bear rangeK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1(' 

vii
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

2&1 LIST O$ TABL-S

2&2 Lable 1K IlacV bear abundance in Hrimary range in Florida for 2002 for five
2&$ subHoHulations eTtraHolated from bear density estimates Cfrom SimeV et alK 200&DK ( 
2&4 Lable 2K Annual home ranges of female Florida blacV bears within the range of the
2&& subsHeciesK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK * 
2&' Lable $K Chronological history of events regarding Florida blacV bear managementK
2&( KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2$ 
2&) Lable 4K Abundance estimates and minimum HoHulation ob`ectives for each Iear
2&* Management \nit CIM\DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $' 
2'0 Lable &K Strategies and actions involving the PoHulation Conservation Ob`ective,
2'1 with estimates of resources available to imHlement the action, and associated
2'2 timeframes for imHlementationK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $* 
2'$ Lable 'K Area needed to the meet the minimum HoHulation ob`ective, Hotential bear
2'4 habitat, and bear habitat in conservation lands for each Iear Management \nitK K 44 
2'& Lable (K Strategies and actions involving the Habitat Conservation Ob`ective, with
2'' estimates of resources available to imHlement the action, and associated timeframes
2'( for imHlementationK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK &$ 
2') Lable )K Number of core comHlaints for each Iear Management \nit, 200)a2010K '1 
2'* Lable *K Strategies and actions involving the Conflict Management Ob`ective, with
2(0 estimates of resources available to imHlement the action, and associated timeframes
2(1 for imHlementationK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '' 
2(2 Lable 10K Strategies and actions involving Rducation and Outreach Ob`ective with
2($ estimates of resources available to imHlement the action, and associated timeframes
2(4 for imHlementationK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK (* 
2(& Lable 11K Lenayear cost estimates for one action item from each ob`ective in the
2(' Mraft Iear Management Plan that would benefit from other resourcesK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 124 
2(( Lable 12K LandscaHeascale wildlife habitat Hlanning efforts in FloridaK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 12& 
2() Lable 1$K Iear harvest information for AHalachicola Wildlife Management Area
2(* CWMAD, Osceola WMA, and IaVer and Columbia counties, Florida 1*)1 to 1**4
2)0 CUeHroduced from ZFC 1**$DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1') 
2)1 Lable 14K PoHulation estimates, trends and hunting status of the 41 states with
2)2 resident blacV bear HoHulations CcomHiled from SHencer et alK 200(, HristienVo etK
2)$ alK 2010, LacVey and Ieausoleil 2010, and state agency websitesdHersonnelDK KKKKKKK 1'* 
2)4 Lable 1&K Florida counties identified by Iear Management \nit CIM\D and
2)& Primary anddor Secondary Iear UangeK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1(' 

viii
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

2)' LIST O$ $IGR"-S

2)( Figure 1K Historic CHrea1)00D and current occuHied bear range in FloridaK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1 
2)) Figure 2K Lhe relative imHortance of vision, hearing and smell to bears is imHlied
2)* @y the ani-a5’s re5ati=e5y s-a55 eyesB 5ar7e ears and =ery 5on7 snoCt( KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK & 
2*0 Figure $K Lhe range of the Florida blacV bear subsHeciesK Primary range is a
2*1 contiguous area that has documented evidence of female bears and reHroduction_
2*2 whereas secondary range includes areas where bears occur but has little evidence of
2*$ females or reHroduction CFlorida range maH Hroduced by FWC_ Alabama and
2*4 Zeorgia range maHs by ClarV et alK 200'DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1$ 
2*& Figure 4K Changes in blacV bear distribution in Florida from before 1)00, 1*(), and
2*' todayK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 14 
2*( Figure &K An unrooted Hhylogenetic tree deHicting the genetic relationshiHs among
2*) Florida blacV bear HoHulations Cfrom MiTon et alK 200(DK Iranch lengths corresHond
2** to genetic distanceK SubHoHulations are Rglin CRZD, AHalachicola CAPD, Aucilla
$00 CA\D, Osceola COSD, Ocala COCD, StK Yohns CSYD, ChassahowitbVa CCHD,
$01 HighlandsdZlades CHZD, and Iig CyHress CICDK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1' 
$02 Figure 'K Rstimates of blacV bear abundance in Florida C1*14W Yones 1*1&, 1*40W
$0$ ZFC 1*40, 1*&0W Frye et alK 1*&0, 1*'1W Harlow 1*'1, 1*'2W Harlow 1*'2, 1*'*W
$04 \SMO5 1*'*, 1*(1W ZFC 1*(1, 1*(2W Pelton and Nichols 1*(2, 1*(4W McManiel
$0& 1*(4, 1*((W Rast 1*((, 1**4W ZFC 1**$, 1**)W Ientbien 1**), 2002W SimeV et alK
$0' 200&DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 20 
$0( Figure (K LyHes of humanabear conflicts, as described by callers, received by FWC
$0) from 1**0 to 2010 in Florida Cn e 2&,21'DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2) 
$0* Figure )K Number of reHorts relating to bears received by the Florida Fish and
$10 Wildlife Conservation Commission from 1**0 to 2010 Cn e 2&,21'_ one reHort may
$11 include several teleHhone callsDK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2* 
$12 Figure *K Number of bears Villed by vehicles, or euthanibed due to vehicle in`uries,
$1$ documented each year from 1**0 to 2010 in Florida Cn e 2,0&(DKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $0 
$14 Figure 10K Number of bears Villed by vehicles, or euthanibed due to vehicle in`uries
$1& Cblue barD comHared to vehicle traffic on state roads Cred line_ FMOL 2010D from
$1' 1**) to 2010 in FloridaK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $1 
$1( Figure 11K Iear Management \nits and occuHied bear range in FloridaK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK $4 
$1) Figure 12K Ieararelated calls received by FWC in the West Panhandle Iear
$1* Management \nit between 1**0 and 2010 Cn e $,&(*DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK )* 
$20 Figure 1$K Ieararelated call tyHes received by FWC in the West Panhandle Iear
$21 Management \nit between 1*)0 and 2010 Cn e $,&(*DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK )* 
$22 Figure 14K Iear range and conservation lands CFNA5 200*D in the West Panhandle
$2$ Iear Management \nitK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *0 

iT
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

$24 Figure 1&K Ieararelated calls received by FWC in the Rast Panhandle Iear
$2& Management \nit between 1**0 and 2010 Cn e $,')4DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *$ 
$2' Figure 1'K Ieararelated calls tyHes received by FWC in the Rast Panhandle Iear
$2( Management \nit between 1*)0 and 2010 Cn e $,')4DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *$ 
$2) Figure 1(K Iear range and conservation lands CFNA5 200*D in the Rast Panhandle
$2* Iear Management \nitK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *4 
$$0 Figure 1)K Ieararelated calls received by FWC in the Iig Iend Iear Management
$$1 \nit between 1**0 and 2010 Cn e 202DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *( 
$$2 Figure 1*K Ieararelated call tyHes received by FWC in the Iig Iend Iear
$$$ Management \nit between 1*)0 and 2010 Cn e 202DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *( 
$$4 Figure 20K Iear range and conservation lands CFNA5 200*D in the Iig Iend Iear
$$& Management \nitK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK *) 
$$' Figure 21K Ieararelated calls received by FWC in the North Iear Management \nit
$$( between 1**0 and 2010 Cn e 2*(DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 101 
$$) Figure 22K Ieararelated call tyHes received by FWC in the North Iear Management
$$* \nit between 1*)0 and 2010 Cn e 2*(DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 101 
$40 Figure 2$K Iear range and conservation lands CFNA5 200*D in the North Iear
$41 Management \nitK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 102 
$42 Figure 24K Ieararelated calls received by FWC in the Central Iear Management
$4$ \nit between 1**0 and 2010 Cn e 1&,4*)DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10& 
$44 Figure 2&K Ieararelated call tyHes received by FWC in the Central Iear
$4& Management \nit between 1*)0 and 2010 Cn e 1&,4*)DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10& 
$4' Figure 2'K Iear range and conservation lands CFNA5 200*D in the Central Iear
$4( Management \nitK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10' 
$4) Figure 2(K Ieararelated calls received by FWC in the South Central Iear
$4* Management \nit between 1**0 and 2010 Cn e 42*DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10* 
$&0 Figure 2)K Ieararelated call tyHes received by FWC in the South Central Iear
$&1 Management \nit between 1*)0 and 2010 Cn e 42*DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 10* 
$&2 Figure 2*K Iear range and conservation lands CFNA5 200*D in the South Central
$&$ Iear Management \nitK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 110 
$&4 Figure $0K Ieararelated calls received by FWC in the South Iear Management \nit
$&& between 1**0 and 2010 Cn e 1,$'0DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 11$ 
$&' Figure $1K Ieararelated call tyHes received by FWC in the South Iear Management
$&( \nit between 1*)0 and 2010 Cn e 1,$'0DK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 11$ 
$&) Figure $2K Iear range and conservation lands CFNA5 200*D in the South Iear
$&* Management \nitK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 114 
$'0

T
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

$'1 LIST O$ AC"O/TMS

$'2 BBAG: IlacV Iear Assistance ZrouH

$'$ BMR: Iear Management \nit

$'4 B"P: Iear UesHonse Program

$'& BSC: Iear Smart Community

$'' DOT: Florida MeHartment of LransHortation

$'( $WC: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

$') G$C: Florida Zame and Fresh Water Fish Commission CHredecessor to FWCD

$'* LAP: Landowner Assistance Program

$(0 /$: National Forest

$(1 /W": National Wildlife Uefuge

$(2 TAG: Lechnical Assistance ZrouH

$($ RS$S: \KSK Forest Service

$(4 RS$WS: \KSK Fish and Wildlife Service

$(& WMA: Wildlife Management Area

$('

Ti
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

$(( GLOSSA"T O$ T-"MS

$() Black Bear Assistance Group (BBAGZ: A grouH of staVeholders solicited by


$(* FWC to Hrovide local inHut on issues related to managing bears in FloridaK Lhis
$)0 Hlan envisions one local grouH Her Iear Management \nit CIM\DK

$)1 Bear Management Rnit (BMRZ: Lhese areas are geograHhically delineated by
$)2 county borders and divide the entire state Cand subse^uently the grouH of bears
$)$ living thereD into smaller areas to more aHHroHriately manage and conserve bears in
$)4 Florida based on the following criteriaW
$)& 1D Commonality of geograHhy and HoHulation dynamics for bears_
$)' 2D Human social comHonents related to interactions and management_
$)( $D Shared management characteristics, ob`ectives, and resHonse_
$)) 4D Logistics in oversight and management_ and
$)* &D Ialance of geograHhic and issue scale ! not so broad that the whole state is
$*0 included, not so fine that every bear is treated differentlyK

$*1 Bear Smart Community (BSCZ: An area of human habitation Csuch as a


$*2 subdivision, a municiHality or a rural collectiveD within occuHied bear range where
$*$ the residents, businesses and government act to Hrevent humanabear conflicts and
$*4 reduce risVs to human safety and Hrivate HroHerty by eliminating access to human
$*& food sources, encouraging education and using aHHroHriate waste managementK

$*' Biological Carrying Capacity: Lhe maTimum number of animals that a habitat
$*( in a sHecific area can sustain without negative imHactsK

$*) Carbon bankingW Carbon banVing is the Hrocess of growing trees to caHture and
$** store carbon dioTide from the atmosHhereK Rnergy comHanies Hay money to
400 landowners to create carbon banVs so they can receive carbon credits that are
401 traded on the oHen marVetK
402
40$ Carnivore: 1K A sHecies Hlaced in the Order Carnivora by taTonomy, based on
404 dentition and other sVeletal characteristicsK Although blacV bears are behaviorally
40& omnivores, they are taTonomically classified as CarnivoresK NoteW references to the
40' taTonomic order are always caHitalibedK 2K An animal whose diet consists almost
40( entirely of meatK NoteW references to the dietary ter- D.arni=ore’ are not caHitalibedK
40) Core complaints: A subset of the all comHlaints reHorted to FWC that are thought
40* to be the most egregious, used in this Hlan to measure change in comHlaint levelsK
410 Core comHlaints will consist of the following categoriesW AHiary, AttacVed animal, 5n
411 building, 5n croHs, 5n feed, 5n feeder, 5n garbage, [illed animal, ProHerty damage,
412 Lhreatened animal, and Lhreatened humansK Categories of humanabear
41$ interactions not included as core comHlaints includeW Mead bear, 5n area, 5n tree, 5n
414 yard, SicVdin`ured bear, and OtherK

Tii
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

41& $ood ConditionedW Lhe term describes the behavior of a bear which indicates it
41' has had Hrevious contact with HeoHle and was rewarded with food or trash,
41( resulting in the bear seeVing humanasources of foodK

41) Habitat: An area with sufficient food, water, cover, and security to suHHort
41* wildlife, including bearsK

420 Habitat Conservation: Long term stability in habitat ^uantity or ^uality,


421 regardless of whether Hublicly or Hrivately ownedK

422 HabituatedW Lhe term describes the behavior of a bear which tolerates close
42$ HroTimity to HeoHle and has aHHarently lost its natural fear of humansK

424 Landscape Connection[Connectivity: Lands that allow several biological


42& Hrocesses to occur, including movements among dis`unct subHoHulations that allow
42' for genetic interchange as well as the necessities of finding food, cover, and matesK

42( Mast: A general term for edible fruit when eaten by wildlifeK Hard mast includes
42) acorns and other nuts while soft mast includes fleshy berries such as Halmetto
42* berries, blueberries, and graHesK

4$0 Metapopulation: A grouH of subHoHulations that are seHarated from one another
4$1 geograHhically but still interact at some levelK
4$2
4$$ Occupied "ange: Lhe area of Florida where bears consistently occur, maHHed at a
4$4 stateawide scale as Hrimary or secondary rangeK May not be Suitable habitatK
4$& Lhese areas have sufficient food, water, and cover to suHHort bears but having bears
4$' in this location may not be desirable to HeoHleK For eTamHle, bears live in
4$( neighborhoods with wooded areas scattered throughout towns close to WeViva State
4$) ParV, because they have access to trash and other humanaHrovided foodsK Normally
4$* such areas would not be considered bear habitat, but maHs of occuHied range may
440 include some Hortions of itK

441 OmnivoreW An animal whose diet consists of a miT Hlant material and animals
442 CiKeK, insects or meatDK

44$ Phenology: Lhe time when Hlants flower and bear fruit in resHonse to climate and
444 local weather HatternsK Iecause Florida has highly variable seasonal and annual
44& rainfall, the amount and distribution of fruiting Hlants is also highly variableK

44' Population: 5n this Hlan, the term HoHulation refers to all blacV bears living in
44( Florida, as oHHosed to subHoHulation, smaller grouHs of bears living and interacting
44) in sHecific areas that, combined, maVe uH the statewide HoHulation Csee
44* Subpopulation definition belowDK

Tiii
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Preface

4&0 Primary Bear "ange: Lhe Hortion of occuHied range within Florida reHresenting
4&1 breeding range_ containing documented evidence of consistent reHroduction or the
4&2 Hresence of female bears CmaHHed at the statewide scaleDK

4&$ Pro\ect WILD: An interdisciHlinary conservation and environmental education


4&4 Hrogram emHhasibing wildlifeK Lhe Hrogram is designed for educators of
4&& Vindergarten through 12th grade studentsK 5t caHitalibes on the natural interest
4&' that children and adults have in wildlife by Hroviding handsaon activities that
4&( enhance student learning in all sub`ect and sVill areasK

4&) Secondary Bear "ange: Lhe Hortion of occuHied range in Florida where bears
4&* occur outside Hrimary bear range_ may contain infre^uentd inconsistent sightings of
4'0 females or cubs CmaHHed at the statewide scaleDK

4'1 Social Carrying Capacity: Lhe uHHer limit of a HoHulation of wildlife based uHon
4'2 so.iety’s to5eran.e and a..e<tan.e o4 .on45i.ts with wi5d5i4e(

4'$ Stochastic[Stochasticity: Uandom but within certain bounds of Hrobability CeKgK,


4'4 natural disasters such as hurricanes or wildfiresDK

4'& Subpopulation: A grouHing of wild blacV bears living in a sHecific area, often
4'' named for the large blocV of Hublic land in which they liveK For eTamHle, the Rglin
4'( subHoHulation is named after Rglin Air Force Iase, which comHrises the main area
4') on which most bears in the West Panhandle IM\ resideK Lhere are seven blacV
4'* bear subHoHulations in FloridaW Rglin, AHalachicola, Osceola, OcaladStK Yohns,
4(0 ChassahowitbVa, ZladesdHighlands, and Iig CyHressK

4(1 Successional Sere: Plant succession is the characteristic se^uence of


4(2 develoHmental stages in the comHosition of Hlant communities following a natural
4($ or human disturbanceK A sere is one of those develoHmental stagesK

4(4 Suitable Habitat: Habitat caHable and large enough to suHHort bears CiKeK, not in
4(& towns or dense develoHments or habitat Hatches surrounded by develoHment that
4(' are so small as to Hreclude managementDK

4(( Traversable: Lands with characteristics that allow movement of bears through
4() them, but do not, in and of themselves, Hrovide ade^uate habitat to sustain bearsK

4(* Rmbrella Species: A sHecies of animal that uses large natural areas of habitat
4)0 containing many different Vinds of Hlant and animal sHeciesK Lhus, if habitat for
4)1 the umbrella sHecies is Hrotected, habitat for the other sHecies is Hrotected as wellK

4)2 Siable: Uefers to either a HoHulation or subHoHulation that contains an ade^uate


4)$ number of individuals aHHroHriately distributed to ensure a high Hrobability of longa
4)4 term survival, in sHite of natural fluctuations in numbers, without significant
4)& human interventionK

Tiv
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter J: Introduction

4)' CHAPT-" J: I/T"ODRCTIO/

4)( Lhe Florida blacV bear C!r#$# &'(r)*&+$# ,-.r)d&+$#D is a uni^ue subsHecies of
4)) the American blacV bear that historically ranged throughout Florida and the
4)* southern Hortions of ad`oining states CHall 1*)1, Hg 4&1DK Loday, blacV bears occuHy
4*0 only a Hortion of their historic range in Florida CFigure 1DK Lhe State listed the
4*1 blacV bear as Lhreatened in 1*(4K

4*2
4*$ $igure J. Historic (pre-J800Z and current occupied bear range in
4*4 $lorida.
4*& Past and Hresent human activity has imHacted the Florida blacV bear
4*' populationG and the habitats uHon which it deHendsK IlacV bear management has
4*( become increasingly comHleT with contentious issues surrounding humanabear
4*) interactions such as garbage and other human food attractants, feeding, and
4** huntingK Humanabear encounters will liVely continue to increase in number and
&00 intensity as @oth 85orida’s hC-an and @ear <o<C5ations 7row and eE<and(

$ Iolded terms are defined in the glossaryK

1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter J: Introduction

&01 Lherefore, managing bears re^uires understanding the interaction of biological and
&02 social comHonentsK A Hlan is needed to systematically address those concerns so
&0$ that 85orida’s .itibens can live with and en`oy a healthy, sustainable bear
&04 HoHulationK
&0& Lhe large sHatial re^uirements of bears, fragmented nature of the bear
&0' HoHulation, and increasing human develoHment that leads to conflicts will Hlay
&0( significant roles in the future of bears in FloridaK 5n order to maintain a
&0) sustainable HoHulation of bears throughout Florida, we must Hrovide ade^uate
&0* habitats, Hromote viable subpopulations, Hrovide connections among
&10 subHoHulations, manage human imHacts, and influence human behaviorK 5f a
&11 subHoHulation droHs below a certain level, it becomes increasingly susceHtible to
&12 negative effects liVe inbreeding and stochastic variability_ large Carnivores are
&1$ Harticularly susceHtible to these effectsK Low bear subHoHulations also reduce
&14 oHHortunities for HeoHle to en`oy observing them or their sign CiKeK, tracVs, scatDK
&1& Lherefore, staying above a certain lower HoHulation level is imHortant from a
&1' biological, as well as a social HersHectiveK Lhere are also negative imHacts if a
&1( HoHulation rises above a certain level and becomes too numerousK 5ncreased
&1) negative humanabear interactions can result in a lower social acceHtance of bearsK
&1* Lhis level of tolerance, or social carrying capacity, refers to the maTimum
&20 number of bears that HeoHle will tolerate in an area Csee ChaHter (W Social 5mHactsDK
&21 5n addition, there is also biological carrying capacity Csee ChaHter )W Social
&22 5mHactsD, which is the maTimum number of bears that an area can suHHort without
&2$ eTHeriencing detrimental effectsK High density deer HoHulations can overabrowse
&24 their habitat_ however, habitat ^uality is not strongly influenced by high bear
&2& numbersK Uather, high bear densities can reduce litter sibe and cub survival and
&2' disHlace bears into neighborhoods, increasing the liVelihood of humanabear conflictsK
&2( Lhe eTact Hoint at which blacV bear HoHulations reach biological and social
&2) carrying caHacity can vary by time and location deHending on habitat availability
&2* and ^uality, as well as Hublic understanding and HerceHtion of bearsK Lhis level of
&$0 tolerance can be different for each year, region and constituencyK Lhe imHacts of

2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter J: Introduction

&$1 bears Cboth Hositive and negativeD on humans and the benefits derived by HeoHle
&$2 from bears results in the human tolerance of bearsK Negative humanabear
&$$ interactions still occur where bear HoHulations are at low density_ therefore,
&$4 biological carrying caHacity for bear HoHulations may eTceed the social carrying
&$& caHacityK Staying within the biological and social carrying caHacity of an area for
&$' bears is an imHortant management considerationK
&$( Metermining bear management ob`ectives in terms of social carrying caHacity
&$) will involve economic, Holitical, social and biological inHutK Homeowners
&$* eTHeriencing HroHerty damage from bears, for eTamHle, may conclude that bears
&40 have eTceeded their social carrying caHacity and therefore desire fewer bearsK
&41 However, for the visitor traveling to ChassahowitbVa Wildlife Management Area
&42 CWMAD hoHing to see a bear, the current HoHulation level may be too low to Hrovide
&4$ sufficient viewing oHHortunitiesK
&44 Management resHonsibility for Florida blacV bears falls largely on the Florida
&4& Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission CFWCD, but numerous agencies,
&4' organibations and individuals share resHonsibility for various asHects, such as
&4( habitat Hrotection and management, resolution of humanabear conflicts, and
&4) education and outreachK While FWC may have much of the resHonsibility, many
&4* activities in this Hlan cannot be successfully accomHlished without strong inHut and
&&0 HarticiHation from HartnersK
&&1 MeveloHing an integrated and comHrehensive management Hlan re^uires broad
&&2 thinVing from several disciHlines within the wildlife management field, and it must
&&$ include inHut from members of the effected Hublic CstaVeholdersDK Significant
&&4 staVeholder engagement and interaction has occurred and will continue to occur
&&& throughout these effortsK FWC recognibed that diverse staVeholder involvement
&&' from the outset of the management Hlanning Hrocess would Hrovide balance and
&&( needed 7Cidan.e( Fi=en <ast staGeho5der in=o5=e-ent in the >Hear Conser=ation
&&) Itrate7yB? FWC agreed it was aHHroHriate first to Hroduce an internal draft while
&&* concurrently engaging with staVeholder grouHs referred to as the Technical
&'0 Assistance Group CTAGDK With comHletion of this draft Hlan, a comHrehensive

$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter J: Introduction

&'1 Hrocess for review and comment will be imHlemented with the HublicK A summary
&'2 of the Hublic comments and this draft Hlan will be Hresented to the FWC
&'$ Commission at their February 2012 meetingK An uHdated draft that has
&'4 incorHorated Hublic comments and Commission direction would then be develoHed
&'& and brought bacV to the FWC Commission for their consideration at a subse^uent
&'' meeting in 2012K

&'( Lhis draft Hlan follows a format similar to other FWC management Hlans,
&') including teTt on life history, HoHulation status and trends, and ecology_ assessment
&'* of threats_ goals and ob`ectives_ recommended conservation actions_ and an
&(0 imHlementation strategyK While this draft bear management Hlan is new, it builds
&(1 on worV others have done over the Hast few decades and considerable HreaworV and
&(2 scoHing had been done through earlier FWC bear Hrogram efforts CZFC 1**$, Rason
&($ 200$DK
&(4 When the final, fully vetted Florida IlacV Iear Management Plan is comHleted,
&(& it will serve as the blueHrint for statewide blacV bear managementK Lhis Hlan
&(' Hrovides a frameworV for local staVeholders to assist FWC in determining
&(( aHHroHriate levels for bear HoHulations, habitat, and humanabear interactions and
&() addressing regional issuesK

4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

&(* CHAPT-" B: BIOLOGICAL A/D MA/AG-M-/T BAC,G"OR/D

&)0 Description
&)1 Merriam C1)*'D first
&)2 described what he called the
&)$ Rverglades bear as a seHarate
&)4 sHecies, and suggested that its
&)& long sVull and highly arched
&)' nasal bones distinguished it from
&)( other bearsK Subse^uent analysis

CreditW FWC
&)) by Hall and [elson C1*&*D and
&)* Harlow C1*'1, 1*'2D identified
&*0 the Florida blacV bear C!0 &0 $igure B. The relative importance of
&*1 ,-.r)d&+$#D as one of 1' vision, hearing and smell to bears is
"#$%"&'()*(+,&(-."#-%/0(1&%-+"2&%*(0#-%%(
&*2 recognibed subsHecies of the eyes, large ears and very long snout.
&*$ American blacV bear and as one
&*4 of three subsHecies in the southeastern \nited StatesK IlacV bears are largeabodied
&*& Carnivores with short tails, Hrominent canine teeth, and feet with short, curved,
&*' nonretractable claws on each of the five digits CFigure 2DK IlacV bears walV with the
&*( entire sole of their feet touching the groundK Iears use a Hacing stride, where both
&*) legs on the same side move together so that the hind foot is Hlaced in or slightly in
&** front of the tracV of the forefoot_ the smaller CinnerD toe occasionally does not
'00 register in the tracVK Ryes are small, and ears are round and erectK Pelage color is
'01 consistently blacV in Florida, but summer molting of guard hair may cause them to
'02 looV brownK Lhe mubble is usually tan but may be darVer_ 2& to $$ Hercent of
'0$ individuals in Florida Hossess a white chest blabeK
'04 Adult Cf three years oldD male bears in Florida tyHically weigh 2&0 to $&0 lbsK
'0& Caverage e 2(0D and adult females weigh 1$0 to 1)0 lbsK Caverage e 1''D although
'0' with 85orida’s 5on7 7rowin7 season and a=ai5a@i5ity o4 .a5oriearich human foods,
'0( bears can become largerK Lhe largest bears on record in Florida are a '24 lbK male

&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

'0) Villed on a county road in Collier County and a 400 lbK female Villed on a roadway in
'0* Liberty CountyK

'10 "eproduction
'11 Female bears in Florida become seTually mature at three to four years of age
'12 CZarrison 2004DK Ireeding occurs from midaYune to midaAugust CZarrison 2004,
'1$ Land et alK 1**4D and coital stimulation is re^uired in order to induce ovulation
'14 CPelton 1*)2DK IlacV bears eTHerience delayed imHlantation, where fertilibed eggs
'1& temHorarily cease develoHment after a few divisions, float free in the uterus and do
'1' not imHlant until late November or Mecember CPelton 1*)2DK Lhis adaHtation allows
'1( bears to synchronibe reHroduction with annual food cyclesK Lowered nutritional
'1) levels caused by Hoor acorn or berry Hroduction can result in delayed first breeding,
'1* decreased litter sibes, and increased incidence of barren females CPelton 1*)2DK
'20 UeHroductive females enter winter dens in mida to late Mecember and emerge in
'21 early to midaAHril after a mean denning Heriod of 100 to 11$ days CZarrison 2004,
'22 Mobey et alK 200&DK Actual gestation is '0 days, and cubs are born in late Yanuary to
'2$ midaFebruaryK Most studies in Florida CMobey et alK 200&, Zarrison 2004, Land et
'24 alK 1**4D have documented an average litter sibe of aHHroTimately two cubs,
'2& although Zarrison et alK C200(D documented greater Hroductivity in Ocala National
'2' Forest CNFD in older females and females with Hrevious littersK At birth, cubs weigh
'2( aHHroTimately 12 ounces and are Hartially furred but blind and toothlessK Neonatal
'2) growth is raHid and cubs weigh siT to eight Hounds by the time they leave the den at
'2* about ten weeVs of ageK Cubs stay with their mother and may den with her the
'$0 following yearK Family dissolution usually occurs between May to Yuly when cubs
'$1 are 1& to 1( months oldK Females generally form a home range overlaHHing their
'$2 natal range CMoyer et alK 200'D while young males disHerse to new areasK

'$$ Subpopulation Density and Abundance


'$4 Iears are solitary, reclusive and live at relatively low densities over large
'$& landscaHes ! characteristics that maVe a direct count of bears infeasibleK However,
'$' marVarecaHture techni^ues to estimate subHoHulation abundance do not re^uire

'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

'$( direct counts, and are reliable and scientifically sound CWilliams et alK 2002DK SimeV
'$) et alK C200&D used these techni^ues to estimate the densities of siT bear suba
'$* HoHulations in Florida CRglin, AHalachicola, Osceola, Ocala, StK Yohns and Iig
'40 CyHressDK Iased on genetic analyses CMiTon et alK 200(D, this Hlan combined the
'41 Ocala and StK Yohns subHoHulations into one subHoHulationK Lhe density estimate
'42 from each subHoHulation was then eTtraHolated across the Hrimary ranges of that
'4$ subHoHulation to estimate bear abundance in the Hrimary rangeK SubHoHulation
'44 abundance eTtraHolated from density estimates ranged from )2 bears in Rglin to
'4& 1,02& bears in OcaladStK Yohns CLable 1DK Lhe estimate of bear abundance in the five
'4' subHoHulations, with *&c statistical confidence, was 2,'2) bears Cg 11)DK
'4( ChassahowitbVa and ZladesdHighlands subHoHulations may be too low to estimate
'4) based on marVarecaHture models, but longaterm research suggests that the
'4* ChassahowitbVa subHoHulation has about 20 bears COrlando 200$, Irown 2004D and
'&0 that the ZladesaHighlands subHoHulation contains aHHroTimately 1(& bears CYK CoT,
'&1 \niversity of [entucVy, 200*, Hersonal communicationDK Adding these
'&2 aHHroTimations to the SimeV et alK C200&D estimates Hrovided a statewide estimate
'&$ of 2,(0& to 2,*41 bears in 2002K Lhis estimate was for bears in Hrimary range only_
'&4 it does not include bears in secondary rangeK Iears occuHy secondary range at a
'&& lower density than Hrimary range, which maVes estimating their abundance
'&' difficultK PoHulation estimates of Florida blacV bears outside the state are &0 to 100
'&( for Alabama CHristienVo et alK, 2010D and (00 to )00 for southern Zeorgia CZreg
'&) Nelms, Zeorgia MeHartment of Natural Uesources, 200*, Hersonal communicationDK

'&* Table J. Black bear abundance in primary range in $lorida for


''0 B00B for five subpopulations eOtrapolated from bear density
''1 estimates (from Simek et al. B005Z.
Abundance
SubHoHulation
Rstimate
AHalachicola &')
Iig CyHress '*(
Rglin )2
OcaladStK Yohns 1,02&
Osceola 2&'

(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

''2
''$ Habitat Rse and Home "ange
''4 IlacV bears are adaHtable and inhabit a variety of forested habitatsK Habitat
''& selection by bears is a function of nutritional needs and sHatially fluctuating food
''' sourcesK Lhe Florida blacV bear thrives in habitats that Hrovide an annual suHHly
''( of seasonally available foods, secluded areas for denning, and some degree of
'') Hrotection from humansK Harlow C1*'1D described oHtimal bear habitat in Florida
''* as >a -iEtCre o4 45atwoodsB swa-<sB s.rC@ oaG rid7esB @ayheads and ha--o.G
'(0 habitats, thoroughly intersHersed(?
'(1 Selfasustaining and secure subHoHulations of bears in Florida are found within
'(2 large contiguous forested tracts that contain understories of mast or berrya
'($ Hroducing shrubs or trees ! characteristics more commonly found on Hublicly owned
'(4 lands and commercial forestsK Large Harcels of Hublic land with habitats as diverse
'(& as the seasonally inundated Hine flatwoods, troHical hammocVs and hardwood
'(' swamHs of the Iig CyHress National Preserve CMaehr et alK 2001D and the Teric
'(( sand Hineascrub oaV community growing on relic sea dunes in Ocala NF CMcCown et
'() alK 200*D suHHort large and healthy subHoHulations of bearsK Smaller
'(* subHoHulations are associated with less eTHansive habitats that tend to be highly
')0 fragmented and tightly bound by urban areas and highways CLarVin et alK 2004DK
')1 Variation in home range sibe and shaHe is influenced by the temHoral and
')2 sHatial distribution of nutritional resources, subHoHulation density, reHroductive
')$ status, as well as human influences such as habitat fragmentationK Female blacV
')4 bears select a home range based on availability of resources with smaller home
')& ranges found in more oHtimal habitatK Male blacV bears establish a home range in
')' relation to the Hresence of females CSandell 1*)*D and their home ranges are usually
')( three to eight times larger than those of females CPelton 1*)2DK Iears in Florida
')) eThibit a wide range of home range sibes indicative of the variety of habitats and
')* habitat ^uality found in the state CLable 2DK

)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

'*0 Table B. Annual home ranges of female $lorida black bears within
'*1 the range of the subspecies.
Annual Home Uange
Location
CacresD
Mobile, AL a 2,*)*
Ocala NF, FLb &,0'2
WeViva Uiver Iasin, FL c ',1()
ChassahowitbVa NWU, FL d, e ',1()
Osceola NF, FLf (,4))
OVefenoVee NWU, ZA g 1$,)11
Iig CyHress National Preserve, FLh 14,10'
Rglin Air Force Iase, FLi 21,'1*
'*2 aK Rdwards 2002 fK ScheicV 1***
'*$ bK McCown et alK 2004 gK Mobey et alK 200&
'*4 cK Uoof and Wooding 1**' hK Land et alK 1**4

'*& dK NWU e National Wildlife Uefuge iK Stratman 1**)

'*' eK Orlando 200$

'*(
'*) Female bears with cubs have smaller summer home ranges than females
'** without cubs but much larger fall home ranges than females without cubs CMoyer et
(00 alK 200(DK Lhe larger fall home range is a resHonse to the nutritional needs of
(01 raHidly growing cubsK Zenetically related females establish annual and seasonal
(02 home ranges closer to each other than do unrelated females, and females with
(0$ overlaHHing home range cores are more closely related than females without
(04 overlaHHing home range cores CMoyer et alK 200'DK
(0& Iears in natural habitats are generally most active at dawn and dusV but
(0' occasionally maVe eTtensive movements during daylight hours, esHecially during
(0( fall when bears consume Hrodigious ^uantities of foodK Iears that live in the urbana
(0) wildland interface tend to be more active at nightK MisHersing males and bears
(0* seeVing food may travel eTtensivelyK A twoayearaold male bear was documented
(10 moving a minimum of )) miles from the vicinity of NaHles to LaVe Placid, FloridaK
(11 Maehr et alK C1*))D and Moyer et alK C200(D noted enlarged home ranges and more
(12 eTtensive movements by females during a year in which severe drought
(1$ significantly limited the availability of foodK

*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

(14 $ood Habits


(1& Although members of the Order Carnivora, blacV bears evolved as omnivores
(1' at latitudes and under climate regimes that caused dramatic fluctuations in the
(1( seasonal availability of foodK As a result, even bears in Florida eThibit an annual
(1) cycle of feasting and fastingK 5n fall, bears wander widely and forage eTtensively in
(1* order to accumulate enough energy in the form of fat to survive the winterK Adult
(20 bears may increase their body weight by 2& to 40 Hercent in fallK 5n winter, the
(21 consumHtion of food by bears is greatly reduced and reHroductive females may
(22 sHend many weeVs in the natal den with little or no additional nutritionK Iears are
(2$ oHHortunistic foragers, taVing advantage of seasonally abundantdavailable fruits,
(24 nuts CesHecially acornsD, insects, and increasingly, anthroHogenic CHroduced by
(2& humansD foods such as garbage and Het and livestocV foodsK Iecause of natural
(2' fluctuations in phenology, a food item that is very abundant one year may not be
(2( available at all the following yearK Ziven the nonsHecific food habits of the Florida
(2) blacV bear and the diversity of habitats in the state, the list of food items consumed
(2* is lengthyK However, aHHroTimately )0 Hercent of the natural bear foods in Florida
($0 are Hlant material with colonial insects and beetles reHresenting the largest Hortion
($1 of the animal material consumed CMaehr and Irady 1*)4DK Although food items
($2 vary by season and location, the fruits and fiber of saw Halmetto are imHortant
($$ throughout the state and throughout the year CMaehr et alK 2001DK

($4 Mortality
($& Aside from other bears, adult Florida blacV bears have few natural HredatorsK
($' Adult males oHHortunistically Vill cubs and occasionally Vill and eat denning adult
($( females and their young CZarrison et alK 200(DK Most mortality occurs from birth to
($) age one year and can eTceed '0 Hercent CZarrison et alK 200(DK Annual female
($* survivorshiH tyHically eTceeds *0 Hercent while that of males is 1&a20 Hercent lower
(40 CHostetler et alK 200*, Wooding and HardisVy 1**2DK Males eTHerience lower
(41 survival rates because they have larger home ranges and are more mobile which
(42 eTHoses them to greater risVs esHecially to collisions with vehicles CMcCown et alK

10
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

(4$ 200*DK Lhe oldest wild bear documented in Florida was a 24ayearaold female from
(44 the AHalachicola subHoHulationK
(4& [nown mortality of adult bears is caused largely by humans CiKeK, roadVill,
(4' illegal VillDK 5n highly fragmented habitat, bears have more fre^uent interactions
(4( with humans and humanarelated sources of mortality can be significantK Iears
(4) living in the urbanawildland interface near Ocala NF eTHerienced anthroHogenic
(4* mortality of adult females at a level that would be unsustainable if the
(&0 subHoHulation was isolated CMcCown et alK 2004DK A similar rate would be
(&1 catastroHhic to the smaller, isolated subHoHulations liVe ChassahowitbVa or Zladesa
(&2 HighlandsK Vehicle collisions are the leading Vnown cause of death for bears in
(&$ Florida CMcCown et alK 2001DK From 2000 to 2010, FWC documented an average of
(&4 1$' bears hit and Villed by vehicles each yearK 5n 2002, roadVills resulted in an
(&& annual mortality rate of 4K) Hercent on the overall statewide bear HoHulationK
(&' Although roadVill is a significant source of mortality, HoHulations with the
(&( reHroductive characteristics common to most subHoHulations of Florida blacV bears
(&) Cfemales reHroduce at three years old and Hroduce two cubs every two yearsD can
(&* sustain a maTimum annual mortality of uH to 2$ Hercent CIunnell and Lait 1*)0D
('0 without eTHeriencing a declineK Many bears survive collisions with vehicles but
('1 sustain significant in`uriesK Out of *2 `uvenile and adult bears caHtured in Ocala
('2 NF, twelve C1$cD had one or more healed sVeletal in`uries anddor Hrimarily limb
('$ fractures that were liVely a result of vehicular collision CMcCown et alK 2001DK
('4 5llegal Villing CiKeK, HoachingD of bears is a regular, though relatively low,
('& mortality factorK Iears are illegally Villed because of conflicts with livestocV or
('' other damage and for sale of bear Harts on the blacV marVetK However, the number
('( of documented bears Villed illegally in Florida each year is fairly lowK From 1**0 to
(') 2010, FWC documented 14( illegally Villed bearsK Most studies involving radioa
('* collared bears in Florida CWooding and HardisVy 1**2, Land et alK 1**4, McCown et
((0 alK 2004D have reHorted the incidence of illegally Villed bears to be relatively low
((1 within large contiguous land Harcels and substantially higher within the
((2 fragmented habitats in the wildlandaurban interfaceK

11
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

(($ Miseases are uncommon in blacV bearsK Lhere are no reHorts of rabid blacV
((4 bears in Florida and few from elsewhereK Memodetic mange resulting in generalibed
((& hair loss to adult females is relatively common C()cD in one locale on the western
((' border of Ocala NFK Few cases have been observed in any other subHoHulation in
((( Florida although one case has been reHorted from outside of Florida CFoster et alK
(() 1**)DK Memodetic mange is transmitted from sow to cub but males recover by their
((* second year CCunningham et alK 200(DK Lwentyafive other sHecies of Harasites have
()0 been reHorted from Florida blacV bears including 1( nematodes, two trematodes,
()1 one Hrotoboan, and five arthroHods_ however mortality caused by Harasites has not
()2 been documented CForrester 1**2DK

()$ Distribution
()4 Historically, blacV bears ranged throughout the Southeast with the Florida
()& subsHecies inhabiting all of Florida CeTceHt the lower [eysD and southern Hortions of
()' Zeorgia and Alabama CHall 1*)1DK However, the distribution of the subsHecies has
()( been significantly reduced and fragmented to one subHoHulation each in Alabama
()) Cnear MobileD and Zeorgia Cin and around the OVefenoVee National Wildlife
()* UefugeD, and in Florida to five large CRglin, AHalachicola, Osceola, OcaladStK Yohns,
(*0 and Iig CyHressD and two remnant subpopulations CChassahowitbVa and
(*1 ZladesdHighlands_ Figure $DK Lhe occupied range in Florida is currently about
(*2 1(,&00 s^uare miles C10,000 s^uare miles of Hrimary range and (,&00 s^uare miles
(*$ of secondary rangeDK Iears currently occuHy only $1 Hercent of their historic range
(*4 in Florida, an eTHansion from the 1( Hercent occuHied almost 20 years ago CZFC
(*& 1**$DK Rarly range maHs were based on the sub`ective oHinion of eTHerienced
(*' biologists but comHaring descriHtions in Frye et alK C1*&0D with later range maHs
(*( CIrady and McManiel 1*()D, bears were thought to have been eTHanding their range
(*) since the mida20th century CFigure 4DK

(**

12
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

)00 $igure G. The range of the $lorida black bear subspecies. Primary
)01 range is a contiguous area that has documented evidence of female
)02 bears and reproduction` whereas secondary range includes areas where
)0$ bears occur but has little evidence of females or reproduction ($lorida
)04 range map produced by $WC` Alabama and Georgia range maps by
)0& Clark et al. B00AZ.
)0'

)0(

)0)

)0*

1$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

)10
)11 $igure a. Changes in black bear distribution in $lorida from before
)12 J800, JHb8, and today.

)1$ Genetic Profile


)14 Iears are Harticularly vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation because of
)1& their low numbers, low densities, large home ranges, low Hroductivity, and
)1' increased interactions with humans brought about by habitat alterationsK Habitat
)1( fragmentation and degradation in Florida reduced what was once a single large
)1) HoHulation of bears that roamed virtually the entire state into several smaller,
)1* largely isolated subHoHulationsK Habitat fragmentation can lead to isolation of
)20 subHoHulations and reduction of subHoHulation sibe which may cause a decrease in
)21 genetic variation CFranVham 1**'DK Loss of genetic variation may reduce the ability
)22 of individuals to adaHt to changes in the environment, cause inbreeding deHression
)2$ CRbert et alK 2002D, and increase the Hrobability of eTtinction CWestemeier et alK
)24 1**)DK Small, isolated subHoHulations are at a higher risV of eTtinction than large,
)2& geneticallyaconnected subHoHulations CFranVham et alK 2002DK Lhe imHacts of
)2' inbreeding caused by small subHoHulation sibe have been documented in blacV

14
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

)2( bears in Alabama, including VinVed tail vertebrae, lacV of eTternal tails,
)2) cryHtochidism ClacV of eTternal scrotum or testes or 1 descended testicleD, and a
)2* HrolaHsed rectum C[asbohm and Ientbien 1**)DK Florida Hanthers C1$'& *.+*.-.r
)$0 *.r2)D suffered similar defects Hrior to the release of eight LeTas Huma C1$'&
)$1 *.+*.-.rD females into the Florida Hanther HoHulationK Lhe symHtoms of Hanther
)$2 inbreeding included such congenital abnormalities as lethal heart defects,
)$$ cryHtorchidism, sHerm malformation and lacV of sHerm motilityK Subse^uent to the
)$4 genetic rescue efforts for the Florida Hanther, congenital abnormalities have
)$& decreased significantly CMansfield and Land 2002_ MK Onorato, FWC, Hersonal
)$' communicationDK
)$( An analysis of the geneti. strC.tCre o4 85orida’s @5a.G @ears indi.ated that -any
)$) o4 the state’s @ear sC@<o<C5ations ha=e @een iso5ated 4ro- one another 5on7 and
)$* comHletely enough that genetic differentiation between them is measurable CMiTon
)40 et alK 200(DK Lhis Hlan combined the former Ocala and StK Yohns subHoHulations
)41 because the genetic analysis found the subHoHulations to be genetically
)42 indistinguishableK Although the analysis treated Aucilla as a seHarate HoHulation,
)4$ it is considered a Hart of the AHalachicola HoHulation in this document because the
)44 ranges are contiguousK
)4& Zenetic differentiation was most evident in the ChassahowitbVa,
)4' ZladesdHighlands, and Rglin subHoHulations CFigure &DK Iecause the degree of
)4( genetic differentiation eTceeded that which would be eTHlained by distance alone, it
)4) was thought that isolation was caused by HeoHle CiKeK, historical Hersecution of
)4* bearsDK Additionally, the genetic variation within the ChassahowitbVa and
)&0 ZladesdHighlands subHoHulations are among the lowest reHorted for any bear
)&1 HoHulation CMiTon et alK 200(DK Lhese two smaller subHoHulations were aHHarently
)&2 so small that they were not maHHed in 1*() CIrady and McManiel 1*()DK

)&$ -cological Significance of Bears


)&4 IlacV bears are recognibed as an umbrella species, a sHecies whose habitat
)&& re^uirements encomHass those of many other sHeciesK Ziven the large area

1&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

)&'
)&(
)&) $igure 5. An unrooted
)&* phylogenetic tree depicting the
)'0 genetic relationships among
)'1 $lorida black bear populations
)'2 (from DiOon et al. B00bZ. Branch
)'$ lengths correspond to genetic
)'4 distance. Subpopulations are
)'& -glin (-GZ, Apalachicola (APZ,
)'' Aucilla (ARZ, Osceola (OSZ, Ocala
)'( (OCZ, St. cohns (ScZ,
)') Chassahowitdka (CHZ,
)'* Highlands[Glades (HGZ, and Big
)(0 Cypress (BCZ.
)(1
)(2
)($
)(4 re^uirements of bears and the diversity of habitats they use, many sHecies are
)(& Hrotected under the umbrella of bear conservationK Lhe blacV bear has been an
)(' instrumental sHecies in conserving natural habitats_ the Hresence of bears is
)(( occasionally cited as `ustification for land Hrotection efforts in FloridaK Although
)() land management activities sHecifically targeted to benefit bears are uncommon,
)(* such efforts would benefit many other sHeciesK Additionally, because bears are seed
))0 disHersers, they may have a significant imHact on Hlant distribution, Harticularly
))1 for largeaseeded sHecies such as saw Halmetto CMaehr 1*)4, Auger et alK 2002DK

))2 Land Rse and Bear Populations


))$ At the time of the first RuroHean contact in what is now Florida, it was
))4 estimated there were 11,&00 bears CZFC 1**$D sharing their sHace with $&0,000
))& native inhabitants CMilanich 1**&DK With such low numbers, it is unliVely that
))' humans had significant direct imHacts on bearsK Native Americans cleared forests
))( for villages and agriculture and set fires to imHrove hunting and increase security
))) from hostile tribes CMilanich 1**&DK Lhe cumulative effect of fires such as those set
))* by Native Americans over many millennia, as well as those caused by lightening,
)*0 created conditions that encouraged the growth of longleaf Hineawire grass

1'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

)*1 communities over other forest tyHes CMeyers 1*)&, Cowell 1**)DK UeHorted bear
)*2 densities in longleaf Hineawiregrass habitat, such as in AHalachicola National
)*$ Forest, CSimeV et alK 200&D are much lower than most other forest communities in
)*4 FloridaK Although Native Americans modified their habitat and used bears for a
)*& variety of reasons, largeascale imHacts to natural communities by humans did not
)*' begin until RuroHean settlement of FloridaK
)*( With the arrival of the RuroHeans, eTtensive .5earin7 o4 85orida’s 4orests @e7an
)*) in earnest and bear numbers liVely declinedK Most early settlers deHended on
)** agriculture for their livelihood and cleared vast areas of forest for farming and
*00 cattle Hroduction through the use of fire ! a Hractice that reduced understory
*01 vegetation and negatively imHacted bearsK Additionally, bears were Villed
*02 indiscriminately by residents for meat and fur, to Hrotect livestocV, and as verminK
*0$ Iy the 1)th century, enough commercial Horts had been develoHed to Hermit the
*04 e.ono-i. eE<5oitation o4 the state’s 5on75ea4 and s5ash <ine 4orests @y the tCr<entine
*0& and timber industriesK Construction of railroads in the 1*th century increased the
*0' efficiency and reach of these industriesK Iecause the lower surfaces of trees
*0( Hroducing turHentine were coated in this highly flammable substance, they were
*0) eTtremely vulnerable to wildfireK Lo Hrevent fires, turHentine worVers reduced
*0* understory vegetation manually and with controlled firesK Most commonly, after
*10 several years, turHentine Hroduction began to lag and the forest was cut for timber
*11 with a >.Ct oCt and 7et oCt? <hi5oso<hy( 8ew atte-<ts were -ade to re<5ant 4orests
*12 and the slash created during logging oHerations Hrovided fuel for devastating
*1$ wildfires C[endricV and Walsh 200(DK Within wooded habitats, the oHen range laws
*14 in Florida meant cattle grabed eTtensively on forest understory and setting fires
*1& was a common Hractice by cattlemen to imHrove forageK Additionally, more than
*1' '2,000, mostly subsistence farms Conly 10c had tractorsD, were oHerating by the
*1( early 20th century C\S Census Iureau 200*DK An estimate of bear numbers by the
*1) first Commissioner of the shortalived MeHartment of Zame and Fish suggested the
*1* state’s @ear <o<C5ation had de.5ined to a<<roEi-ate5y JBKKK by 1*1& CYones 1*1&DK

1(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

*20 Lhe imHacts on the comHosition and structure of Floridahs landscaHe from the
*21 Hractices associated with farming, ranching, and the naval stores industries were
*22 significantK Pyne C1*)2, H144D estimated that 10& Hercent of Florida was burned in
*2$ one year Csome areas burned more than onceD by the combination of these land usesK
*24 Furthermore, by the early 20th .entCryB >se=era5 hCndred? -i55s <ro.essed
*2& turHentine from what must have been many thousands of turHentine camHs and
*2' turHentine Hroduction in Florida eventually accounted for aHHroTimately 2( Hercent
*2( of the \KSK total C[endricV and Walsh 200(DK Additionally, by 1*40, aHHroTimately
*2) 24 Hercent of Floridahs landmass was being farmed C\S Census Iureau 200*DK Lhe
*2* result of these landause Hractices was to Hromote an oHen landscaHe with a sHarse
*$0 understory that liVely suHHorted few bears and is Hlainly evident in the aerial
*$1 HhotograHhs of Florida taVen from 1*$& to 1*&0 CS\S 200&DK 5n 1*40, the Florida
*$2 Commission of Zame and Fresh Water Fish estimated there were only $00 bears
*$$ within the state CZFC 1*40DK
*$4 *he end o4 the na=a5 stores indCstry in the LMNKs and the <assa7e o4 85orida’s
*$& first mandatory statewide fence law in 1*&0 brought an end to fre^uent fires and
*$' oHenaHasture grabingK Lhose landause changes had a noticeable effect on forest
*$( stand comHosition in the stateK Additionally, raHid growth of the human HoHulation
*$) in Florida and the conversion of natural landscaHes to roads and towns created fire
*$* breaVs that reduced the fre^uency and eTtent of most firesK Analysis of the
*40 differences between Hresent day and Hreasettlement forests has revealed that
*41 Hresent day forests have lower fire fre^uencies and a denser understory with
*42 greater shrub cover CMyers and Rwel 1**0DK Forests with this tyHe of structure
*4$ Hrovide good habitat for bearsK
*44 Iear numbers reached their lowest Hoints in the 1*40s and 1*&0s CFigure 'DK
*4& Frye et alK C1*&0D estimated the statewide HoHulation at &00 bears and considered
*4' the- >sti55 4air5y we55 distri@Cted throC7hoCt 85orida((((@Ct nowhere nC-eroCs? and
*4( >@ad5y de<5eted(? Iear HoHulations were generally estimated at &00 to 1,000 in the
*4) 1*'0s and 1*(0s CHarlow 1*'2, Pelton and Nichols 1*(2, McManiel 1*(4, Irady and
*4* Maehr 1*)&D with a low estimate of only $00 bears in 1*(4 CZFC 1*(4_ Figure 'DK

1)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

*&0 However the regrowth of forests, the eTclusion of fire, and increased Hrotection
*&1 began to benefit bearsK
*&2 Lhe eTtensive develoHment that occurred in Florida during the latter half of the
*&$ 20th century meant less available habitat and severe fragmentation of what
*&4 remainedK However, with reduced fire fre^uency, habitat conditions imHroved
*&& overall for bears in the remaining rangeK Iears were reHorted to occuHy &0 of '(
*&' Florida counties in fragmented, insular, and or resident HoHulations by 1*)4 CIrady
*&( and Maehr 1*)&DK ZFC staff used density estimates and calculations of occuHied
*&) range to calculate the statewide blacV bear HoHulation as 1,000 to 1,&00 bears in
*&* 1**2 and 1,2)2 bears in 1**) CFigure 'DK
*'0 Lhe Florida MeHartment of LransHortation Hartnered with the Florida Fish and
*'1 Wildlife Conservation CFWCD to eTamine the effects of roads on bear HoHulations
*'2 across the state between 2001 and 200$K As Hart of this study, FWC maHHed
*'$ Hrimary and secondary bear range in Florida CFigure $DK Primary range reHresents
*'4 good bear habitat occuHied by a relatively high density of resident bears where
*'& breeding activity was documented in or near large blocVs of Hrotected habitatK
*'' Secondary range reHresents areas where resident bears occur in lower density,
*'( evidence of breeding is less consistent, and habitat is more fragmentedK

*') FWC set uH study areas within the Hrimary ranges of five of the seven bear
*'* subHoHulations and estimated there were 2,&'* to 2,')( bears CSimeV et alK 200&,
*(0 AHHendiT 5 ISUDK Iecause the estimate was only for bears in the Hrimary ranges of
*(1 five of seven subHoHulations, this number was conservative and liVely lowK Lhe
*(2 remaining Florida subHoHulations include bears in and around ChassahowitbVa
*($ WMA and in Zlades and Highlands countiesK Lhe ChassahowitbVa subHoHulation
*(4 was estimated to be around 20 bears or less based on research conducted in Citrus
*(& and Hernando counties COrlando 200$, Irown 2004, FWC, unHublished data, 2010DK
*(' Lhe ZladesdHighlands HoHulation was estimated to be 1(& bears based on data from
*(( an ongoing bear research Hro`ect in this area CYohn CoT, \niversity of [entucVy,
*() Hersonnel communication, 200*DK With the addition of the ChassahowitbVa and

1*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

"$## 
"#$% 
"### 
()(" 

($## 
!u#$er o) *ear,

(### 

%$## 
%($#  %()# 
%###  %### 
%###  &## 
'$# 
$##  $##  $## 
$##  "## 
"## 


%&%*  %&*#  %&$#  %&+%  %&+(  %&+&  %&'%  %&'(  %&'*  %&''  %&&*  %&&)  (##( 
-ear
*(*

*)0 $igure A. -stimates of black bear abundance in $lorida (JHJa: cones JHJ5, JHa0: G$C JHa0, JH50:
*)1 $rye et al. JH50, JHAJ: Harlow JHAJ, JHAB: Harlow JHAB, JHAH: RSDOI JHAH, JHbJ: G$C JHbJ, JHbB:
*)2 Pelton and /ichols JHbB, JHba: McDaniel JHba, JHbb: -ast JHbb, JHHa: G$C JHHG, JHH8: Bentdien JHH8,
*)$ B00B: Simek et al. B005ZK

*)4

20
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

*)& ZladesdHighlands HoHulation estimates, the most current estimate of the statewide
*)' bear HoHulation in Florida is 2,(0& to 2,*41 bearsK
*)( Measurable changes in blacV bear HoHulation numbers occur over a relatively
*)) long Heriod of time because bears are a longalived sHeciesK Lhe 2002 HoHulation
*)* estimates used in this Hlan are within the average generation length for Florida
**0 blacV bears Ceight yearsD and thus are the best available dataK 5n addition, FWC
**1 estimated bear numbers in and around the Ocala National Forest were stable
**2 between 1*** and 200', with growth in the central conserved habitat offset by
**$ higher mortality along the edges CHostetler et alK 200*DK FWC estimated the bear
**4 subHoHulation in Osceola National Forest could be growing uH to 1)c Her year
**& between 1**& and 1***, however, bears from Osceola were regularly moving into
**' neighboring OVefenoVee National Wildlife Uefuge in Zeorgia, which offsets that
**( growth rate CMobey et alK 200&DK FWC also collects data annually on bear HoHulation
**) trends in the form of beararelated calls from the Hublic, bear caHtures, and vehiclea
*** Villed bearsK All of those data indicate that, in most areas, bears are eTHanding in
1000 rangeK 5n addition, FWC has recently been conducting research in Zlades,
1001 Highlands, Citrus, and Hernando countiesK None of the data indicate that the
1002 statewide Florida blacV bear HoHulation is decliningK

100$ Status, Management, and Hunting


1004 Uegulations and the legal status of bears have changed many times over the
100& Hast several decades CLable $DK \ntil the mida1*$0s, bears were not assigned any
100' official status and were unHrotected throughout Florida CZFC 1*$&DK Lhe Florida
100( Zame and Fresh Water Fish Commission CZFCD classified bears as a furabearing
100) animal and initiated the first regulated harvest season in 1*$'K ZFC changed the
100* bear to a game animal in 1*&0, which afforded new legal HrotectionsK Iear hunting
1010 was closed on Rglin WMA in 1*&), Iig CyHress WMA in 1*'0, and Ocala NF in
1011 1*'1K
1012 After HoHulation assessments indicated further decline in bear numbers, the
101$ bear hunting season was closed statewide in 1*(1, with the eTceHtion of Osceola

21
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

1014 National Forest, IaVer and Columbia counties, AHalachicola National Forest, and
101& for an additional year, the LomoVa WMA CZFC 1**$DK ZFC listed the blacV bear as
101' threatened in 1*(4 CZFC 1*(4DK Although bears were listed as threatened
101( statewide, bear hunting seasons remained oHen in some areasK Iecause bear
101) HoHulations in IaVer and Columbia counties and AHalachicola NF were considered
101* stable, the threatened designation was removed from these areas in 1*(), the same
1020 year that rules were revised to Hrevent a threatened sHecies from being hunted
1021 CZFC 1*()DK

1022 Ietween 1*)1 and 1**4, ZFC made several changes to bear hunting regulations
102$ in order to minimibe the number of females and young in the harvestW seasons were
1024 shifted later in the year, the number days in the season were reduced, and the
102& minimum sibe for harvest was increased to 200 lbs CZFC 1**$DK Uegulation changes
102' showed some success in two of the three hunted areas_ the Hercentage of females in
102( the harvest droHHed from 4*c to 24c in AHalachicola WMA, and 4'c to 1&c in
102) Osceola WMAK An average of 4' bears C$2 males and 14 femalesD was taVen in
102* Hortions of northern Florida each year between 1*)1 and 1**4 CAHHendiT 55DK ZFC
10$0 closed the remaining bear hunting seasons in 1**4 in resHonse to strong Hublic
10$1 oHHosition, the relatively small number of individuals benefiting from the hunt, and
10$2 the accelerating costs for monitoring harvest imHacts on HoHulation status CZFC
10$$ 1**$DK

10$4 Lhe \KSK Fish and Wildlife Service C\SFWSD was Hetitioned to list the Florida
10$& blacV bear under the Rndangered SHecies Act in 1**0 C[asbohm 2004_ Lable $DK
10$' Factors considered for listing the sHecies wereW habitat destruction, road mortality,
10$( hunting and HoachingK \SFWS reviewed all available scientific information on the
10$) Florida blacV bear and considered the threats were moderate to low magnitude for
10$* the sHecies statewideK \SFWS concluded that Federal listing was warranted but
1040 Hrecluded by higher Hriority sHecies C[asbohm 2004DK \SFWS determined the
1041 Florida blacV bear did not merit Federal listing as a threatened or endangered

22
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

1042 Table G. Chronological history of events regarding $lorida black


104$ bear management.
Tear -vent
1*1$ Florida creates a shortalived MeHartment of Zame i Fish CMZFDK
MZF estimated the bear HoHulation at j$,000 and that they have a
1*1&
"value" of l2& each CYones 1*1&DK MZF is abolishedK
1*1&a
Local laws were enacted for Hrotection of game and freshwater fishK
1*2&
Law Hassed creating MeHartment of Zame and Fresh Water Fish_ leaving
1*2&
in effect 1$0 local laws which conflicted with general lawK
Law from 1*2& rewritten to change MeHartment into a Commission of
1*2(
Zame and Fresh Water Fish CZFCD_ all local laws are reHealedK
ChaHter 1&(21 of the Commission of ZFC Laws ! Local Law of Volusia
1*$1
County maVes it unlawful to Vill or taVe bearsK
*he @ear is de4ined as a >4Cra@earin7 ani-a5? <er-issi@5e 4or har=est
1*$'
between Mecember 1st ! March 1st with no bag limitK
1*40 UeHort by ZFC estimated there are $00 bears within the stateK
AHalachicola WMA oHens 2 consecutive $aday bear hunts held November
1*4&
1)a2$_ only one bear VilledK
1*4( AHalachicola WMA bear hunt eTtended to ' $aday hunts with $ bears
i taVen during 1*4( and none in 1*4)K One and 2 bears, resHectively, are
1*4) taVen on the Ocala WMAK
Wildlife Code of the State of Florida for ZFC redefined bears as
1*4) >On<rote.ted 8Cra@earin7 Pni-a5s? Qo<en season Ro=e-@er SKth !
February 1&th of succeeding yearDK
F8C de4ines @ears as >Trote.ted 8Cra@earin7 Pni-a5s? in NFs, WMAs and
U75in 8ie5d Mi5itary Veser=ation and >On<rote.ted 8Cra@earin7 Pni-a5s?
elsewhereK 5n 1*&0, the bear is designated as a game animal with no bag
1*&0
limit and harvest dates coinciding with deer season statewideK SHecial
ZFC managed hunts continue on Ocala WMA C1 bear bag limitD and
AHalachicola and Osceola WMAs C2 bear bag limitDK
Mefinitions changed in Wildlife Code of the State of Florida for ZFC_ bears
1*&1
defined as a Zame AnimalK
SHecial managed bear hunts on LomoVa WMA began during 1*'*a1*(0
1*'*
hunting seasonK
ZFC closes hunting season statewide eTceHt in IaVer CoK and Columbia
CoK and during ZFC managed hunts on AHalachicola NF, Osceola NF Cor
1*(1
by sHecial Hermit_ Uule 1'Ra10K0) allowed Commission Mirector to issue
sHecial Hermits to run or chase bears during closed seasonsDK
1*(2 LomoVa WMA hunt discontinuedK
ZFC creates definition and list of Lhreatened SHecies under ChaHter 1'Ra
1*(4
$ of the Florida Wildlife Code and includes bears as a Lhreatened SHeciesK
FAC Uule 1'Ra10K01, general methods of taVing game changed to include
1*((
the Hrohibited taVing of bear cubs and female bears with cubsK
2$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

Tear -vent
Lhreatened designation removed from bears in IaVer and Columbia
1*()
counties and AHalachicola NFK
Listed SHecies Uules $*a2(K01 to $*a2(K0& established, including general
1*(*
Hrohibitions on harming or Villing a listed sHecies CZFC 1*(*DK
\SFWS Hetitioned to list the Florida blacV bear as Lhreatened under the
1**0
Rndangered SHecies Act CIentbien 1**0D
OI8WI deter-ines threatened statCs is >warranted @Ct <re.5Cded @y
1**1
other higher Hriority listing a.tions? CIentbien 1**1DK
ZFC recommends statewide closure of bear hunting, creates bear
1**$ management strategy CZFC 1**$DK Iear season C1**$a*4D on Osceola NF
closedK
1**4 ZFC closes remaining bear hunting seasons statewide CZFC 1**$DK
1**& Habitat management guidelines develoHed for AHalachicola CZFC 1**&D
Conserve Wildlife Lag featuring a bear was created by ZFC and the
1**(
Wildlife Foundation of Florida_ Hortion of funds go to bear conservationK
\SFWS finds >listing of the Florida blacV bear is not warranted at this
1**)
ti-e? CIentbien 1**)DK Conservation organibations sue \SFWSK
ZFC changes name to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
1***
Commission CFWCD
Publication of 3-&*4 3(&r 5&6)7&7 M&+&9('(+7 :$)d(-)+(# ,.r ;-.r)d&
2001
CMaehr et alK 2001D
FWC Hasses wildlife feeding restriction CFKAKCK ')Aa4K001C$DD that maVes
2002 it illegal to intentionally or unintentionally feed bears where they can
cause a Hublic nuisanceK
Publication of <.+#(r=&7).+ >7r&7(92 ,.r 7?( 3-&*4 3(&r )+ ;-.r)d& CRason
200$
200$D
Court orders \SFWS to reaeTamine the inade^uacy of 1**) regulatory
mechanismsK Service determined >eTisting regulatory mechanisms are
2004
not inade^uate so as to warrant listing the Florida blacV bear under the
Undan7ered I<e.ies P.t? QWas@oh- SKKNX(
FWC reHort assessing the imHacts of roads on bears comHleted, including
200&
bear HoHulation estimates for siT subHoHulations CSimeV etK alK 200&DK
FWC creates Iear Action Leam to draft statewide bear management Hlan
200(
with assistance of a team reHresenting staVeholder grouHs
Mraft &K1 of bear management Hlan oHens for Hublic review and comment_
2010
85orida’s Undan7ered and *hreatened I<e.ies rC5e 8PC YZPa2( aHHroved
Iiological status review of Florida blacV bear indicates bear does not meet
2011 any criteria to remain listed as a state Lhreatened sHeciesK Mraft 'K0 of
bear management Hlan oHens for Hublic review and commentK
1044

24
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

104& sHecies in 1**) C[asbohm 2004DK Lhe decision not to list the Florida blacV bear was
104' challenged in court in 1***, and the \SFWS was ordered to clarify and further
104( deter-ine whether the >inade[Ca.y o4 eEistin7 re7C5atory -e.hanis-s? warranted
104) listingK \SFWS concluded eTisting regulatory mechanisms were ade^uate and that
104* >the <ositi=e .han7es in the @ear’s sitCation 4ro- LMMS to LMMZ sC<<orted a Dnot
10&0 warranted’ 4indin7B? and that >the overall effects of habitat loss and isolation,
10&1 roadVill, and hunting would not liVely result in the bear becoming endangered in
10&2 the foreseeable future? and therefore did not warrant listing the Florida blacV bear
10&$ under the Rndangered SHecies Act in 2004 C[asbohm 2004DK

10&4 FWC Hassed 85orida’s Undan7ered and *hreatened I<e.ies rC5e C')Aa2(,
10&& Florida Administrative Code mFKAKCnD to conserve and manage rare sHecies in
10&' Florida in SeHtember 2010K Lhe new rule re^uired that biological status reviews
10&( CISUsD be comHleted on all the State’s threatened s<e.ies and s<e.ies o4 s<e.ia5
10&) concernK Lhe ISU assessed the Florida blacV bear HoHulation based on available
10&* data on abundance, trends, eTtent of range, and the results of ^uantitative analyses
10'0 and indicated that the bear did not meet any of the listing criteria for threatened
10'1 sHecies status CAHHendiT 5DK Lhe initial ISU findings were reviewed by five
10'2 indeHendent scientists who have eTHerience in blacV bear research or managementK
10'$ While Heer reviewers had differing oHinions on the details included in the
10'4 Hreliminary ISU, all agreed that the bear did not -eet any o4 85orida’s new 5istin7
10'& criteria CAHHendiT 5DK Lhe final reHort of the ISU was Hresented to the Commission
10'' for their consideration in Yune 2011K Lhe Commission aHHroved sta44’s
10'( recommendation to delist the blacV bear in Yune 2011_ however the bear will remain
10') a threatened sHecies until a management Hlan is aHHrovedK

10'* Management actions and a changing landscaHe have allowed the Florida blacV
10(0 @ear <o<C5ation to re@oCnd in -any areas o4 the state( 85orida’s @ear <o<C5ation
10(1 has tracVed bear HoHulation trends in the rest of the southeastern \nited States
10(2 CMaehr et alK 2001DK 5n the mida1*00s, bear numbers were at their lowest Hoints,
10($ and management was focused on recovering declining HoHulationsK As bear

2&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter B: Biological and Management Background

10(4 HoHulations began to rebound, states struggled with the transition to manage
10(& increasing bear HoHulations, which were often couHled with growing human
10(' HoHulationsK Currently, $2 of the 41 states with resident blacV bear HoHulations
10(( have a regulated hunting season CAHHendiT 555DK MesHite its common use as a
10() management tool, bear hunting remains a comHleT issue in Florida re^uiring
10(* eTtensive staVeholder engagementK Iecause the HurHose of this Hlan is to establish
10)0 the conservation measures necessary to ensure that the bear does not meet the
10)1 threatened criteria in the future, addressing the HrosHects of bear hunting is outside
10)2 the <5an’s s.o<eK Any further consideration of bear hunting after the aHHroval of
10)$ this Hlan would re^uire additional direction from the CommissionK
10)4 Current management efforts in Florida include continued habitat conservation,
10)& documentation of basic HoHulation Harameters, reduction of vehicleabear collisions,
10)' develoHment of educational Hrograms, resHonse to humanabear conflicts, and
10)( coordination among staVeholdersK Presently, management efforts are aimed at
10)) collaborating with state and federal agencies, as well as cities and counties, to
10)* develoH solutions to humanabear conflictsK A Hrimary focus is to reduce the level of
10*0 negative humanabear encounters associated with garbage in residential and
10*1 commercial areasK Lhe need for Hublic outreach and education regarding
10*2 coeTistence with blacV bears has become an increasingly imHortant management
10*$ issueK

2'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter G: Threat Assessment

10*4 CHAPT-" G: TH"-AT ASS-SSM-/T

10*& IlacV bears in Florida face an array of threats that vary in their significance
10*' and intensityK Prior to the 1*&0s and wideasHread develoHment, the greatest threat
10*( to bears was Hersecution and unregulated hunting, resulting in significant
10*) HoHulation decline and a restriction of bear range to a few, scattered and isolated
10** areasK As Florida develoHed, habitat loss became a growing concernK Iear hunting
1100 became regulated in the early 1*th century and more detailed conservation efforts
1101 were initiated in the LM\K’sB in.5Cdin7 in.reased <rote.tionsB -ore restri.ti=e
1102 hunting regulations, and habitat Hrotection CLable $DK Loday, the greatest threat to
110$ the long term survival of Florida blacV bears is habitat loss and fragmentation,
1104 eTacerbated by incomHatible habitat management in areas where subHoHulations
110& are very smallK Negative interactions with HeoHle and humanacaused mortality are
110' also imHortant concerns for bear managementK

110( Habitat loss and fragmentation have greatly imHacted bears in FloridaK
110) Although bear numbers and range have rebounded, bears do not currently occuHy
110* all available habitatK Male bears travel widely, often through low ^uality habitat,
1110 however eTHansion of occupied range is driven by female movementsK Lhe loss of
1111 habitat and disconnections between large habitat Hatches caused by develoHment
1112 and roads maVe occuHying the high ^uality but unoccuHied bear habitat, such as the
111$ Iig Iend region, more difficultK 5ncreasing human develoHment, including
1114 highways, reduces the ability of disHersing animals to travel between, or even find,
111& isolated habitatsK
111' Human HoHulation growth and eTHanding bear HoHulations have led to
111( increasing contact between HeoHle and bearsK Many of these interactions are
111) Hositive or neutral in outcome CeKgK, sightings that lead to eTcitement or Hresence
111* that leads to no resHonseD, but some lead to conflictsK FWC classifies the tyHes of
1120 calls it receives from the Hublic about bear interactions into categories based on the
1121 .a55er’s des.ri<tion QFigure (DK A substantial HroHortion of the calls refer to bears in
1122 the area, a yard, or uH a tree C$)cD, which can tyHically be resolved when callers

2(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter G: Threat Assessment

5hreatened 
Hu@an 
5hreatened2  %6 
AttacFed2Rilled 
Ani@al  In Area2In 3ard2                   
$6  In 5ree 
")6 
In FeedKerL2MiscN2 
OnFnown 
+6 

DicF2InGured2 
?ead Iear 
In 7ar8a9e 
&6 
"%6 

Property ?a@a9e2 
In Crops2Apiary 
%#6 
112$
1124 $igure (. Types of human-bear conflicts, as described by callers,
112& received by $WC from JHH0 to B0J0 in $lorida (n e B5,BJAZ.
112'

112( follow the technical advice Hrovided by FWCK Humanabear interactions have
112) increased considerably in recent years and negative encounters will continue to be a
112* challenging management issue and Hotential threat to bears and HeoHle CFigure )DK
11$0 5nteractions with humans can lead to the death of the bear either through illegal
11$1 Villing, roadVill or euthanasiaK Additionally, increasing fre^uency of conflicts with
11$2 bears can lead to the devaluation of bears as negative eTHeriences overshadow the
11$$ resHect and wonder most HeoHle initially have for bearsK 5f current trends in
11$4 humanabear interactions continue, these issues may become the foremost
11$& management challenge for bears in FloridaK
11$' Currently, direct mortality caused by humans is a chronic threat to bears but
11$( does not aHHear to have much of a damHening effect on bear HoHulation growth Csee
11$) ChaHter 2W MortalityDK Uecent levels of documented illegal Vill are low, however,
11$* collisions with vehicles accounted for aHHroTimately )1 Hercent C2,0&( of 2,&44D

2)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter G: Threat Assessment

*$## 
*U%&# 
*### 

"$##  "U""( 

"### 
(U')( (U'*$ 
Vu@8er of Calls 

($## 
(U%$# 
%U&%' 
(### 
%U$)+ 
%U"*( 
%$## 
%U%"*  %U#&$ 
%###  '&' 
"$+  *$#  "&# 
$## 
)*  &$  %#*  (#)  %*(  &#  ((' 

3ear 
1140
1141 $igure 8. /umber of reports relating to bears received by the $lorida
1142 $ish and Wildlife Conservation Commission from JHH0 to B0J0 (n e
114$ B5,BJA` one report may include several telephone callsZ.
1144

114& of Vnown bear mortalities from 1**0 to 2010 CFigure *DK Although the incidence of
114' vehicleaVilled bears has increased significantly through time, the imHacts to
114( individual HoHulations are relatively lowK 5n 2002, 12' bears were Villed on the
114) state’s roadways( Hased on @ear <o<C5ation esti-ates 4or SKKSB that 5e=e5 o4 roadGi55
114* mortality was e^uivalent to an annual mortality statewide of aHHroTimately 4K)
11&0 Hercent, and varied from less than one Hercent in Osceola to ten Hercent in
11&1 ChassahowitbVa CIrown 2004, SimeV et alK 200&DK Vehicleacollisions were
11&2 Harticularly concentrated in the OcaladStK Yohns subHoHulation, where
11&$ aHHroTimately 44 Hercent C1,111 of 2,&44D of the vehicleaVilled bears in the state
11&4 from 1**0 to 2010 occurred CFWC unHublished dataDK MesHite this concentration,
11&& OcaladStK Yohns roadVills e^ualed eight Hercent annual mortality CSimeV et alK
11&' 200&DK While roadVill mortality in all subHoHulations was below the 2$ Hercent level

2*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter G: Threat Assessment

%)#  %'#  %+$ 


%+#  %$$ 
%**  %*%  %"' 
%*#  %""  %"# 
%(#  %%( 
!u#$er o) .oad0i22,

%#& %#+ 
%## 
))  )( 
)#  '* 
+% 
+# 
*"  *"  *'  *& 
*#  ""  "$ 

(# 

11&(
11&) $igure H. /umber of bears killed by vehicles, or euthanided due to
11&* vehicle in\uries, documented each year from JHH0 to B0J0 in $lorida (n e
11'0 B,05bZ.
11'1

11'2 that bear HoHulations can sustain without eTHeriencing a decline CIunnell and Lait
11'$ 1*)0D, continued increases of roadVill mortality can Hose a ma`or threat to
11'4 fragmented and isolated HoHulationsK While Hart of the trends in vehicleacaused
11'& mortality is attributable to increases in the volume of road traffic CFigure 10D, it
11'' also is influenced by increasing trends in bear HoHulation numbers CFigure 'DK

11'( Habitat degradation through incomHatible land management has the Hotential
11') to threaten bears in FloridaK Iears are adaHtive generalists and therefore well
11'* suited to use a variety of habitats, even those in changeK However, large wildfires
11(0 may temHorarily remove forest cover and food sources bears need to surviveK
11(1 Additionally, Hrescribed fire at fre^uent intervals or Herformed during winter
11(2 seasons may decrease food Hroduction and cover for bears at the local level CMaehr
11($ et alK 2001DK Lhese imHacts must be weighed against the greater threat related to
11(4 the loss of functional fireamaintained ecosystems uHon which numerous other
11(& sHecies deHendK Palmetto berry harvest for commercial HurHoses has the Hotential

$0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter G: Threat Assessment

%)#  "$# 

%+# 
"## 

Mi2e, 4ra5e2ed on 7tate .oad, 9in Mi22ion,:


%*# 
!u#$er o) 5e;i<2e=0i22ed $ear,

($# 
%(# 

%##  (## 

)#  %$# 

+# 
%## 
*# 
$# 
(# 

#  # 
%&&)  %&&&  (###  (##%  (##(  (##"  (##*  (##$  (##+  (##'  (##)  (##&  (#%# 
-ear,

Iears Rilled  5raffic Xolu@e 
11('
11(( $igure J0. /umber of bears killed by vehicles, or euthanided due to
11() vehicle in\uries (blue barZ compared to vehicle traffic on state roads
11(* (red line` $DOT B0J0Z from JHH8 to B0J0 in $lorida.
11)0
11)1

11)2 to remove imHortant food sources for bears CMaehr et alK 2001D, Harticularly in Hoor
11)$ mast yearsK 5n isolation, these issues do not Hose grave threats to the statewide
11)4 bear HoHulationK However, these threats can lower the carrying caHacity for bears
11)& in an area and when occurring in con`unction with each other or with other threats,
11)' they could have interactive negative effects for bear HoHulationsK

$1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

11)( CHAPT-" a: CO/S-"SATIO/ $OCRS A"-AS

11)) Conservation Goal


11)* Lhe goal of a Hlan is the overarching aim and is intended to be general in nature
11*0 without Hroviding sHecific details or timeframesK Lhe goal of this management Hlan
11*1 is toW

11*2 M&)+t&)+ s$st&)+&b-e b-&c3 be&r 4o4$-&t)o+s )+ s$)t&b-e 5&b)t&ts


11*$ t5ro$65o$t 7-or)d& ,or t5e be+e,)t o, t5e s4ec)es &+d 4eo4-e8

11*4 Lhe intent is to VeeH a healthy, statewide bear HoHulation in Florida into
11*& HerHetuityK Lhis HoHulation should consist of several, interconnected
11*' subpopulations distributed aHHroHriately across the stateK FWC wants to VeeH
11*( bears in the areas where they now eTist and worV toward creating more functional
11*) landscaHe connections among themK 5t is imHortant to note that the goal identifies
11** management for the good of both the sHecies and HeoHleK Lherefore, FWC wants to
1200 striVe the aHHroHriate balance between what the sHecies needs to eTist in a viable
1201 state and what HeoHle need and gain from bearsK

1202 Ob\ectives, Strategies, Actions, "esearch, Monitoring, and "esources


120$ Lhe ob`ectives, strategies, actions, research, monitoring and resources
1204 subsections reHresent a consensus of FWC staff that develoHed this draft Hlan, with
120& staVeholder inHut from LAZK Lhere are four ma`or ob`ectives in this management
120' HlanW PoHulation Conservation, Habitat Conservation, HumanaIear Conflict
120( Management, and Rducation and OutreachK Rach ob`ective addresses a sHecific
120) conservation focus area and is intended to be sHecific and measurableK Lhe tenayear
120* timeframe used in the ob`ectives will begin whenever the Commission aHHroves this
1210 Hlan, which is assumed to be in 2012K Strategies are the broad categories under
1211 which similar actions are grouHedK Some ob`ectives only have one strategy, while
1212 others have severalK Actions are discrete and measurable, describing sHecific
121$ activities that will be taVen to meet the ob`ectives of the management HlanK

$2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1214 Uesearch and Monitoring identifies actions that will fill information gaHs or
121& maintain information imHortant for maVing management decisionsK
121' FWC staff reviewed the actions within this Hlan and estimated which could be
121( done with eTisting resources and which would need other resourcesK Other
121) resources could come in the form of redirecting eTisting resources within FWC, or
121* new resources that are not currently in HlaceK While many staff and funds from
1220 across FWC HarticiHate at some level in bear management, there currently are not
1221 enough resources dedicated to bears to fully imHlement all of the actions in this
1222 management HlanK Some of the actions identified in this Hlan have been occurring
122$ for many years_ however, they could be enhanced with other resourcesK

1224 Bear Management Rnits


122& Ob`ectives are designed to be statewide in nature_ however, FWC recognibes the
122' need to have actions that effectively address threats that can differ dramatically
122( from one Hart of the state to anotherK 5n order to have a statewide bear
122) management Hlan that is fleTible enough to accommodate for those differences, the
122* state was divided into geograHhic areas Vnown as Bear Management Rnits
12$0 (BMRs` Figure 11Z which are centered on bear subHoHulationsK Lhose IM\s will
12$1 allow FWC to manage bears based on the sHecific characteristics of both the bear
12$2 and human HoHulations that are uni^ue to different areas of the stateK Lhree of the
12$$ four ob`ectives have subaelements that breaV down the measurable ob`ectives by
12$4 IM\K

12$& FWC created Hrofiles for each of the seven HroHosed IM\sK Lhe Hrofiles deHict
12$' the current HoHulation estimates, HoHulation and habitat ob`ective levels, the threea
12$( year average of bear core comHlaints, and a summary of the threats to bears in each
12$) IM\K Potential bear habitat is Hresented as a combination of Hrimary and
12$* secondary bear habitat categories identified in Rndries et alK 200* CHK *0D, and the
1240 amount of that habitat within conservation landsK Conservation lands were
1241 identified by Florida Natural Areas 5nventory as lands managed for wildlife in

$$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1242 Hublic ownershiH or Hrivate ownershiH in easements or similar agreementsK IM\


124$ Hrofiles can be found at the end of ChaHter 4K

1244

124& $igure JJ. Bear Management Rnits and occupied bear range in $lorida.

124'

$4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

124( Ob\ective J: Population Conservation


124) Maintain a sustainable statewide population of $lorida black bears by:
124* Maintaining a stable or increasing statewide population of $lorida
12&0 black bears`
12&1 Maintaining subpopulations that are estimated to be above B00
12&2 individuals at or above their current levels (Table aZ`
12&$ Maintaining at least one subpopulation at or above J,000 individuals`
12&4 Increasing subpopulations that are estimated to be below B00
12&& individuals` and
12&' Increasing genetic eOchange among subpopulations.

12&( FWC will manage for a sustainable statewide HoHulation of Florida blacV bears
12&) that is not at risV of eTtinction over the long termK 85orida’s Undan7ered and
12&* Lhreatened SHecies rule C')Aa2(, FKAKCKD Hrovides a detailed set of criteria by which
12'0 sHecies are evaluated to assess their risV of eTtinction and subse^uent need for
12'1 designation as State threatened or sHecies of sHecial concern Csee AHHendiT 5DK Of
12'2 the five criteria, the Florida blacV bear is closest to meeting two factors relating to
12'$ HoHulation sibe and trend CCriterion C_ AHHendiT 5DK While the ob`ective is to
12'4 maintain or increase the statewide bear HoHulation, the larger subHoHulations may
12'& need to be managed near the levels indicated in Lable 4 as there is a finite amount
12'' of suitable habitatK
12'( CoT et alK C1**4D and MiTon et alK C200(D determined that each subHoHulation
12') should have at least 200 mature individuals to maintain genetic health and chances
12'* for survival over the long termK Lherefore, for those subHoHulations currently
12(0 estimated to be below 200 individuals FWC will seeV to increase bear numbers to at
12(1 least 200 mature individuals among which gene flow is HossibleK For those
12(2 subHoHulations that are currently above 200, FWC will manage at or above the
12($ current mean subHoHulation estimates CLable 4DK Lhe onceastatewide bear

$&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

12(4 Table a. Abundance estimates and minimum population ob\ectives


12(& for each Bear Management Rnit (BMRZ.

Bear Abundance -stimate Minimum


Subpopulation
Management BMR
/ame
Rnit (BMRZ "angea Meanb Ob\ectivec

West Panhandle Rglin '$!100 )2 200

Rast Panhandle AHalachicola 44$!'*$ &') &(0

Iig Iend ChassahowitbVa 12!2) 20 200

North Osceola 201!$12 2&' 2'0

Central OcaladStK Yohns )2&!1,22& 1,02& 1,0$0

South Central ZladesdHighlands 1&0!200 1(& 200

South Iig CyHress &1$!))2 '*( (00

Statewide 2,20(!$,440 2,)2$ $,1'0


12(' aK All subHoHulations in IM\s were estimated in Hrimary bear range by SimeV et alK C200&D, with
12(( the eTceHtion of subHoHulations in Iig Iend and South Central IM\sK Lhe Iig Iend IM\
12() used two annual estimates as the HoHulation estimate range for the ChassahowitbVa
12(* subHoHulation in Hernando and Citrus counties CIrown 2004DK Lhe South Central IM\
12)0 estimate for the ZladesdHighlands subHoHulation was based on field data from an ongoing bear
12)1 research Hro`ect in this area CWade \lrey, \niversity of [entucVy, Hersonnel communication,
12)2 2010DK
12)$ bK Mean estimates, calculated based on SimeV et alK C200&D, were not available for subHoHulations
12)4 in the Iig Iend or South Central IM\s, so the average of low and high estimates were used
12)& cK Minimum subHoHulation levels are set at 200 or the subHoHulation estimate mean Crounded to
12)' nearest 10D, whichever is largerK
12)(
12)) HoHulation has been fragmented long enough that each subHoHulation is genetically
12)* identifiable and has lowered genetic diversity CMiTon et alK 200(DK Zenetic health
12*0 and Hersistence of subHoHulations are increased when individual bears can move
12*1 from one subHoHulation to anotherK FWC is not seeVing to Hreserve the genetic
12*2 differences among subHoHulations_ rather, the ob`ective is to achieve increased
12*$ genetic diversity among all subHoHulations by increasing interchange between
12*4 subHoHulations so that they can function effectively as a single statewide
12*& HoHulationK

$'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

12*' Rncroaching develoHment and related human infrastructure liVely will continue
12*( to imHact bears in Florida for the foreseeable futureK Vehicle collisions with bears
12*) become more of a concern with eTHanding bear HoHulations and increased traffic
12** volumesK Ietween 2004 and 200*, on average, 14' bears were Villed annually by
1$00 vehicles statewide, ranging from 1$2 in 2004 to 1(1 in 200(K Maintaining a
1$01 statewide bear mortality database Hrovides critical data to maVe informed decisions
1$02 regarding issues such as develoHment, road design and humanabear encountersK 5n
1$0$ resHonse to increasing roadVill, FWC should continue to cooHerate with the Florida
1$04 MeHartment of LransHortation CMOLD to Hrovide solutions towards stabilibing or
1$0& reducing road Vills to increase human safety and reduce bear mortalityK Criteria
1$0' should be develoHed to Hrovide minimum standards for road Hro`ects in bear
1$0( habitat, imHact evaluation of develoHment Hro`ects on bear habitat, and effective
1$0) methods to reduce bear Hresence in areas Hrone to bearavehicle striVesK
1$0* 5f larger bear subHoHulations continue to grow at their current rates, at some
1$10 Hoint they may eTceed what suitable habitat can suHHortK Lhere are several
1$11 oHtions to stabilibe HoHulationsK Strategies may include translocation to areas
1$12 below the minimum HoHulation ob`ective, habitat modification to lower carrying
1$1$ caHacity or regulated huntingK Uecent translocation Hro`ects have established new
1$14 subHoHulations in low density areas by caHturing females with cubs before they
1$1& emerge from their dens CRastridge and ClarV 2001, ClarV et alK 2002, Ienson and
1$1' Chamberlain 200(DK Another Hotential source for females could be to use other
1$1( oHHortunities when FWC catches females without documented humanabear conflict
1$1) behaviorK A female bear caHtured inadvertently, for eTamHle, while attemHting to
1$1* caHture another bear involved in a conflict could be translocated to an area with low
1$20 bear densitiesK While not as successful as moving a female with deHendent cubs,
1$21 some of those females could become established in new areasK

1$22 "esearch and Monitoring for Population Conservation


1$2$ Survival and reHroduction should be tracVed Heriodically to ensure that
1$24 subHoHulations are sustainable and management measures should be imHlemented

$(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1$2& to ensure the bear subHoHulation levels are maintained or increased where desiredK
1$2' 5f the IM\ subHoHulation is significantly below the minimum HoHulation ob`ective
1$2( CiKeK, o@]e.ti=e is oCtside the esti-ate’s M^_ .on4iden.e inter=a5X actions such as
1$2) habitat imHrovement should be evaluated to increase the subHoHulationK
1$2* SubHoHulations should be monitored Heriodically to assess whether interchange
1$$0 CiKeK, natural disHersal or resulting from management actionsD has restored genetic
1$$1 diversityK Such research will be more imHortant for the smaller subHoHulationsK

1$$2

1$$$

$)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1$$4 Table 5. Strategies and actions involving the Population Conservation Ob\ective, with estimates
1$$& of resources available to implement the action, and associated timeframes for implementation.
"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires J J J J J J J J B B
Other resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J

Strategy J.J: Collect data to monitor bear subpopulations.

Rstimate HoHulation trend in each


1K1K1 Other
subHoHulation every 10 yearsK
Rstablish bear demograHhic Harameters such
1K1K2 as survival, fecundity and HoHulation growth Other
for each subHoHulationK
MeveloH HartnershiHs within each IM\ to
1K1K$ assist with monitoring distribution and RTisting
abundanceK
Maintain statewide database for bear vehicle
1K1K4 RTisting
collisions and other sources of mortalityK
Rstimate Hroductivity for each
1K1K& Other
subHoHulationK
Metermine maTimum sustainable mortality
1K1K' Other
for each subHoHulationK
Assess the current and anticiHated future
1K1K( imHacts of develoHment, roads, and habitat Other
conditions uHon bear subHoHulationsK

$*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires J J J J J J J J B B
Other resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
\Hdate HoHulation viability analyses for all
1K1K) subHoHulations using data from Actions 1K1K1, RTisting
1K1K2, 1K1K&, and 1K1K'K
Rstablish a minimum criterion for genetic
1K1K* Other
diversity within individual subHoHulationsK
Rstimate degree of connectivity among all
1K1K10 Other
subHoHulations statewide every 10 yearsK

Strategy J.B: Manage bear subpopulations to maintain their numbers at or above current levels.

Metermine the most significant needs of the


1K2K1 bear subHoHulations estimated to have less Other
than 200 bearsK
Assess the feasibility of bringing smaller
1K2K2 subHoHulations uH to minimum HoHulation RTisting
ob`ectivesK
Augment bear numbers in subHoHulations
1K2K$ that have less than 200 bears using bears Other
from highadensity HoHulations as donorsK
\se habitat modification to increase bear
1K2K4 Other
numbers in selected subHoHulationsK

40
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires J J J J J J J J B B
Other resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Ueduce illegal Villing of bears through
1K2K& education, incentives, increased enforcement, RTisting
or additional regulationsK
RTHlore oHtions to slow HoHulation growth in
1K2K' larger subHoHulations, including the use of RTisting
hunting and habitat modificationK
Monitor effectiveness of bear cub
rehabilitation Hrotocol, including
1K2K( Other
rehabilitation facility comHliance and
rehabilitated cub survival
Rstablish IlacV Iear Assistance ZrouHs in
1K2K) each IM\ and solicit local staVeholder inHut Other
on bear HoHulation management activitiesK

41
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conse

1$$' Ob\ective B: Habitat Conservation


1$$( Maintain habitat of sufficient quality, quantity, and connectivity to
1$$) support the statewide population of $lorida black bears in the
1$$* Population Conservation Ob\ective by:
1$40 Maintaining habitat capable of sustaining a stable or increasing
1$41 statewide population of $lorida black bears`
1$42 Maintaining habitat in at least one subpopulation capable of
1$4$ sustaining J,000 or more individuals`
1$44 -nsuring sufficient habitat to support subpopulations of at least B00
1$4& bears in each BMR` and
1$4' Improving habitat connectivity to promote genetic eOchange among
1$4( subpopulations.

1$4) Lhis Habitat Conservation Ob`ective was designed to Hrovide the habitat
1$4* needed to suHHort the PoHulation Conservation Ob`ectiveK Conservation actions are
1$&0 not liVely to return blacV bears to their full historic range, but it is Hossible to
1$&1 imHrove the current situationK 5deally, each bear subHoHulation in Florida would be
1$&2 large enough to be indeHendently viable and interconnected by a networV of
1$&$ habitat that would allow disHersal events often enough to maintain genetic health,
1$&4 thus oHerating similar to a metapopulationK Habitat management can affect
1$&& HoHulation abundance by increasing habitat ^uality and occupied range or
1$&' decreasing the oHHortunities for disHersal to other subHoHulationsK Habitat
1$&( fragmentation in some areas will challenge conservation efforts to move beyond
1$&) managing habitat only within occuHied bear range to areas with the Hotential to
1$&* linV bear subHoHulationsK

1$'0 Iear habitat usually is described as large, Hublically owned forestlands because
1$'1 most subHoHulations are centered on Hublic lands, but it is imHortant to
1$'2 acVnowledge that bears occuHy habitat regardless of ownershiHK Iear habitat can
1$'$ be defined a number of waysK OccuHied range is defined as the areas where bears
1$'4 consistently occur, so by definition it is caHable of sustaining bears at some scale

42
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conse

1$'& even if the landause tyHes are not normally considered bear habitatK For eTamHle,
1$'' bears regularly occur in residential neighborhoods in several towns near WeViva
1$'( State ParV because scattered woodlots and humanaHrovided foods offer ade^uate
1$') food, water and shelter that define an area as habitat( IC.h >Cr@an @ears? cause
1$'* many of the humanabear conflictsK FWC can identify areas beyond whether they
1$(0 are simHly occuHied by bears, but rather, whether the area they occuHy is suitableK
1$(1 Suitable habitats have areas large enough to suHHort bears and are outside of towns
1$(2 and other densely develoHed areasK

1$($ Lhere are many Hrivate and commercial land uses that Hrovide suitable bear
1$(4 habitat, including forestry and agricultureK Managed lands can increase the
1$(& amount of habitat diversity that is Hreferred by bearsK Limber harvests can benefit
1$(' bears by offering a diverse suite of food and cover associated with multiHle stages of
1$(( forest growth CClarV et alK 1**4, Yones and Pelton 200$DK Uow croHs such as corn
1$() and wheat are common foods in bear diets in the southeastern \KSK CMaddrey 1**&,
1$(* Maehr et alK 2001, Ienson and Chamberlain 200'DK Large cowacalf oHerations that
1$)0 have a miT of Hasture and woodlands Hrovide imHortant bear habitat in south
1$)1 central Florida CWade \lrey, \niversity of [entucVy, unHublished dataDK Suitable
1$)2 habitat can include Hrivate or commercial lands with uses comHatible with wildlife,
1$)$ Hrivate lands under some tyHe of conservation easement, governmentaowned land
1$)4 managed for wildlife, or even undeveloHed and unmanaged lands that become bear
1$)& habitat by defaultK Iear conservation efforts liVely will rely on suitable habitat in
1$)' all ownershiH tyHes, including land management regimes that Hrovide suitable bear
1$)( habitat but are not enrolled in official agreement or easement HrogramsK At this
1$)) time, however, we do not have an ade^uate measure of those lands, but can disHlay
1$)* Hotential bear habitat and conserved lands CiKeK, governmentaowned land managed
1$*0 for wildlife and Hrivate lands under a conservation easementD as maintained by the
1$*1 Florida Natural Areas 5nventory CFNA5_ Lable 'DK

1$*2 Lo identify IM\s with higher Hriority needs for bear habitat, Lable ' comHares
1$*$ the area needed to sustain the minimum HoHulation ob`ective with the estimated

4$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1$*4 Table A. Area needed to the meet the minimum population ob\ective, potential bear habitat, and
1$*& bear habitat in conservation lands for each Bear Management Rnit.

Area to Support Minimum Area of Potential Area of Potential Bear Habitat


Bear Management Rnit Population Ob\ectivea Bear Habitatb in Conservation Landsc
(acresZ (acresZ (acresZ

West Panhandle 1,1*),4'1 1,))',2)* (2$,0&1


Rast Panhandle 2,$&*,)&' 4,2(),2*0 1,22*,*1'
Iig Iend &4*,)0* 1,'2&,$$* 4(),042
North 4&(,14& 1,(41,'1& 411,&41
Central 1,0'2,&&$ $,&$1,($& 1,$10,1*1
South Central &)0,'*) 2,4((,(&$ ))$,2(0
South 1,$22,014 1,'04,2'2 1,1($,(&'
LOLAL (,&$0,&$( 1(,14&,2)4 ',20*,(''
1$*'
1$*( aK Minimum PoHulation Ob`ectives are listed in Lable 4K
1$*) bK Potential bear habitat combines Hrimary and secondary bear habitat categories identified in Rndries et alK 200* CHK *0DK
1$** cK Conservation lands were taGen 4ro- 85orida RatCra5 Preas `n=entory Q8RP`X’s -ana7ed areas F`I 4i5eB whi.h in.5Cdes ease-ents and
1400 other lessathanafee conservation landsK

44
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1401 density of the bear subHoHulation in current occuHied range CSimeV et alK 200&D, the
1402 amount of Hotential bear habitat, and the amount of that habitat that eTists on
140$ conserved lands CFNA5 200*DK Potential bear habitat meets or eTceeds the amount
1404 of habitat needed to suHHort the minimum bear HoHulation ob`ective in each IM\
140& CLable 'DK While the Central and South Central HMO’s conserved lands eTceed the
140' total acreage necessary to suHHort the minimum HoHulation ob`ective, those areas
140( may still need habitat connections to ensure long term Hersistence of bears in the
140) IM\K Additionally, some areas CeKgK Iig Iend IM\D have sufficient Hotential bear
140* habitat on conservation lands but most of it is unoccuHied by bearsK

1410 Mefining a IM\asHecific habitat ob`ective is comHlicated because it relies on


1411 estimates of occuHied range and density as correlates of what bears are actually
1412 doingK OccuHied range can only be measured across the state imHrecisely and at a
141$ large scale, therefore the current occuHied range CFigure 1D is an overaestimate
1414 because it includes towns and other landause tyHes that, at a small scale, are not
141& actually occuHied by bearsK For this reason, occuHied bear range should be
141' considered a general, largeascale reHresentation of the eTtent of occurrence of the
141( sHecies in FloridaK Lhe only available estimates of bear densities were calculated
141) from high ^uality, Hrotected habitat within Hrimary bear rangeK However, accurate
141* density estimates for secondary range are not Hossible given the fragmented nature
1420 and variability of both habitat and bear Hresence in this range tyHeK

1421 Lhe Habitat Conservation Ob`ective of this Hlan seeVs to conserve suitable bear
1422 habitat CiKeK, areas both caHable of maintaining bears and desirable from a
142$ management HersHectiveD and Hromote connectivity between subHoHulationsK
1424 HelHing bears reacolonibe unoccuHied habitat will suHHort both the PoHulation and
142& Habitat Conservation Ob`ectivesK Whether an area is occuHied by bears is often a
142' Hroduct of distance from currently occuHied habitat and management more than
142( ownershiHK Maintaining and linVing bear subHoHulations will re^uire ^uality
142) habitat of sufficient ^uantity and in the right areasK Lo successfully accomHlish the
142* Habitat Conservation Ob`ectives, occuHied bear habitat cannot be restricted to

4&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

14$0 Hublic lands_ bears must be able to live on and traverse Hrivate landsK Iecause it is
14$1 clear that Hotential bear habitat eTists in large ^uantities on Hrivate lands, this
14$2 Hlan will hoHefully instill an increased aHHreciation and value for bears so that
14$$ Hrivate landowners will continue to voluntarily manage or imHrove their lands to
14$4 Hrovide habitat for bearsK FWC can Hrovide landowners with habitat management
14$& information for creating favorable or unfavorable bear habitat, deHending on the
14$' 5andowner’s interestsK 5n areas Hrone to humanabear conflicts where habitat
14$( structure and sHatial Hositioning are eTacerbating the Hroblem, for eTamHle, habitat
14$) management techni^ues should be emHloyed to minimibe negative imHactsK
14$* Lechni^ues such as fre^uently clearing or burning a Herimeter area surrounding
1440 the develoHed area could be emHloyedK FWC can identify ways to maVe the
1441 Hresence of bears a benefit rather than a liability for landownersK Landowner
1442 incentive Hrograms that can be used to establish or manage ^uality bear habitat,
144$ from short term costashare agreements to HerHetual conservation easements, can be
1444 conveyed through FWC’s Landowner Assistance Program CLAPDK
144& FWC and its Hartners must continue to Hroactively engage Hrivate landowners
144' and encourage landause Hractices comHatible with suitable bear habitatK Vital to
144( the success of this ob`ective is cooHeration from Hrivate landowners, esHecially
144) regarding the use of conservation agreements, easements, conservation and
144* mitigation banVs, lessathanafee simHle, and fee simHle ac^uisitionK Areas under
14&0 Hublic management or conservation easements can be maHHed, but it is e^ually
14&1 imHortant to identify how much additional Hrivatelyaowned lands are currently
14&2 managed under suitable habitat conditions within each IM\K
14&$ LandscaHe connectivity that allows movement among bear subHoHulations is
14&4 crucial for genetic integrity and HoHulation viabilityK 5t is imHortant to maintain
14&& eTisting connections, augment near connections, and establish connectivity among
14&' isolated habitatsK Lhe intended outcome is an interconnected networV of bear
14&( subHoHulations that form a functional metaaHoHulationK Lhus, Hrivate landowner
14&) cooHeration is critical to maintaining an increasing or stable statewide bear
14&* HoHulationK FWC and its Hartners should use and eTHand on Hrograms that assist

4'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

14'0 Hrivate landowners in continuing to use their lands in ways that result in suitable
14'1 bear habitat, with an eye for bringing multiHle landowners together around a
14'2 common HurHose of habitat connectivityK 5nterested landowners may benefit by
14'$ HarticiHation in Hrograms that retain their desired use of the HroHerty while
14'4 restricting or mitigating future develoHment HotentialK
14'& Habitat that Hrovides imHortant resources for bears needs to be maHHed in each
14'' IM\K Similarly, imHortant corridors with suitable habitat must be identified and
14'( efforts made to worV with landowners for mutually beneficial land management
14') HracticesK RTisting bear habitat and comHatible land management regimes need to
14'* be evaluated and ranVed for their ^uality and suitability for bearsK A monitoring
14(0 Hrotocol for habitat ^uality should be established to assist interested landownersK
14(1 Lhe bear is often identified as an umbrella species for many conservation
14(2 efforts because a diverse array of wildlife and Hlant sHecies benefit when Hrotected
14($ habitat is eTHansive enough to allow bears to Hersist in an areaK Maintaining a
14(4 diversity of habitat tyHes over eTtensive acreage is imHortant because it Hrovides
14(& blacV bears with the nutritional re^uirements over all seasonsK An imHortant
14(' element in this regard is identification of a regional conservation vision C[eddy
14(( 200*D and coordination with other largeascale conservation effortsK For eTamHle,
14() habitats needed for bears overlaH heavily with those needed for goHher tortoise
14(* .onser=ation and 5ands identi4ied as <art o4 85orida’s U.o5o7i.a5 RetworG Csee
14)0 ChaHter 'W Coordination with Other RffortsDK Lhis overlaH of Hriority landscaHes
14)1 should lead to imHroved conservation and leveraging of resourcesK Consideration
14)2 should be given to areas that Hresently have suitable bear habitat as well as areas
14)$ that can be restoredK Many areas have been conserved to increase and enhance
14)4 blacV bear habitatK CorVscrew Uegional Rcosystem Watershed located in Collier
14)& and Lee counties, for eTamHle, was ac^uired with the HurHose of Hrotecting habitat
14)' for wildlife, Harticularly bearsK Areas identified through efforts by Lhe Nature
14)( Conservancy such as oellow Uiver Uavines and Zulf Coast Plain Rcosystem
14)) PartnershiH have been marVed as areas imHortant for bearsK Lhe '00aacre Searcy
14)* Rstate Hurchase in AHalachicola National Forest identified the blacV bear as an

4(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

14*0 imHortant sHeciesK Public lands Hurchased Hrimarily for conserving blacV bears
14*1 should be reviewed and monitored to maVe certain the management regimes are
14*2 comHatible with the needs of bearsK Such a review and monitoring systems will
14*$ need to be establishedK

14*4 Habitat Connectivity


14*& Landscape connectivity is an imHortant comHonent of habitat conservation
14*' in bear management because bear movements are so eTtensive that their habitats
14*( must be evaluated and managed at the landscaHe scaleK Noss and CooHerrider
14*) C1**4D discuss connectivity as they relate to movements within home ranges CHK
14** 1&$D, disHersal, including estimates of dimensions CHK 1&4D, and in resHonse to
1&00 climate change CHK 1&'DK While climate change effects on Florida blacV bears have
1&01 not received much attention, Whittle C200*D Hredicted a one, three, and five meter
1&02 rise in sea level would reduce bear habitat by nine, 20, and $1 Hercent, resHectivelyK
1&0$ LandscaHe connectivity related to bears in Florida is eTHlained in great deHth in
1&04 Maehr et alK C2001, HK 2*a$&DK
1&0& While the range of the Florida blacV bear is fragmented into subHoHulations
1&0' that looV similar to metaHoHulations CMaehr et al 2001, HK 40D, Hoor connectivity
1&0( among subHoHulations may Hrevent them from truly functioning as such CClarV et
1&0) a5( SKKYX( Ho.tor QSKKJX and barGin et a5( QSKKNX ran se=era5 >5east .ost <athway?
1&0* simulations to model landscaHe connectivity between each subHoHulationK Lhose
1&10 simulations revealed obstacles to bear movements between distant subHoHulations
1&11 that helH focus conservation HlanningK Managing lands between subHoHulations to
1&12 encourage natural interchange will result in a more functional statewide HoHulation
1&1$ CMaehr et alK 2001, HK 42DK
1&14 8WC’s o@]e.ti=e is to maintain eTisting connections meKgK, OVefenoVee National
1&1& Wildlife Uefuge CNWUD to Osceola NFn, solidify and strengthen near connections
1&1' CeKgK, Ocala NF to Osceola NFD, and worV toward creating more distant connections
1&1( CChassahowitbVa WMA to Lower Suwannee NWUDK Creating these connections will
1&1) be challenging, esHecially for the more distant ones, but as an umbrella sHecies,

4)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1&1* efforts to imHrove connectivity for bears also should imHrove landscaHe connectivity
1&20 for many other sHeciesK

1&21 As human develoHment continues to imHact natural systems, landscaHe


1&22 connectivity among bear HoHulations will be imHortant to retain genetic integrity
1&2$ and HoHulation viabilityK LandscaHe connections should allow for several biological
1&24 Hrocesses CClevenger and WierbchowsVi 200'D including the necessities CiKeK, food,
1&2& matesD and movements within and between subHoHulations CiKeK, disHersal and
1&2' genetic interchangeDK Factors that imHact whether a connection is functional
1&2( include habitat ^uality and distance between habitat HatchesK Uoads are
1&2) imHediments to connectivity for bears at local and landscaHe levels_ wildlife
1&2* structures can decrease those barrier effects CClevenger and WierbchowsVi 200'DK
1&$0 MeveloHment directly reduces habitat and, deHending on its shaHe, can imHede bear
1&$1 movementsK Habitat tyHes that are avoided by bears also affect their movementsK
1&$2 Maehr et alK C2001D Hrovides an eTcellent summary of landscaHe ecology in relation
1&$$ to bear managementK

1&$4 Conne.ti=ity as a .on.e<t is >entire5y s.a5e and tar7et de<endent? QCrooGs and
1&$& Ian]ayan SKKYB <( JXB ran7in7 4ro- s-a55 s.a5e ><at.h .onne.ti=ity? to 5ar7e s.a5e
1&$' >5ands.a<e .onne.ti=ity? Q*is.hendor4 and Fahrig 2001DK Local movements to obtain
1&$( food and other necessities occur daily and seasonally_ moderate movements in
1&$) resHonse to disHersal events or natural disasters might occur every few years_ and
1&$* longer movements allowing genetic interchange between distant subHoHulations
1&40 might only occur occasionally, HerhaHs once each generation CHarris and SchecV
1&41 1**1DK Harrison C1**2D suggested one home range as the minimum width of
1&42 landscaHe connections so the area would contain enough suitable habitat for the
1&4$ animal to occuHy it rather than `ust Hass through itK MeveloHments often have
1&44 >7reen s<a.es? that are .onsidered .orridors 4or wi5d5i4e( P5thoC7h the ter- .orridor
1&4& has been used for all scales of connectivity, in this conteTt the Hhrase e^uates to
1&4' Hatch connectivityK Short, local connections between habitat Hatches re^uire cover
1&4( that is traversable by bears, but not necessarily habitat suitable for occuHancyK 5f

4*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1&4) they are functional, those corridors are imHortant for local bear movements that
1&4* occur within a subHoHulationK
1&&0 Lhis Hlan seeVs to maintain or imHrove the Hatch connectivity within
1&&1 subHoHulations and imHrove the landscaHe connections among subHoHulationsK
1&&2 High landscaHe connectivity allows larger, stable subHoHulations to sustain smaller
1&&$ subHoHulations CeKgK, Ocala NF connection with WeViva Uiver IasinDK Currently,
1&&4 the most imHortant landscaHe connections to imHrove for bears are for the
1&&& ChassahowitbVa, ZladesdHighlands, and Rglin subHoHulations because they are
1&&' small and isolatedK Lhese landscaHeasibed connections are often envisioned as
1&&( comHlete swaths of habitat, but other ways to increase longadistance movements of
1&&) bears include habitat mosaics, imHroving the Hermeability of surrounding HroHerty,
1&&* and to create islands of habitat that allow bears to move from one Hatch to another
1&'0 liVe steHHing stones CCrooVs and San`ayan 200', HK 12, Noss and Maly 200'DK While
1&'1 the disHersal ability of male bears is high, females seldom disHerse far from their
1&'2 natal areas_ therefore, bears are slow to colonibe emHty habitats CCostello et alK
1&'$ 200)DK Longadistance movements have been documented in blacV bears CMaehr et
1&'4 alK 1*)), Stratman et alK 2001D but conservation efforts should not rely uHon these
1&'& rare eTamHles for connectivity or range eTHansionK

1&'' Habitat Management


1&'( Lhe use of fire by land managers to Hromote restoration and maintenance of fire
1&') climaT communities Hrovides wellaestablished benefitsK Lhe fre^uent aHHlication of
1&'* fire creates a Hlant community structure and successional sere that is beneficial
1&(0 to an array of wildlifeK However, bears and many other sHecies benefit from habitat
1&(1 Hatches with Hrolonged fire intervalsK Several studies have indicated the
1&(2 imHortance of saw Halmetto and oaV mast for food CMaehr and Irady 1*)2, Land et
1&($ alK 1**4, Uoof 1**(, Stratman and Pelton 200(D and the use of dense understory
1&(4 including Halmetto as concealing cover for natal dens CZarrison et alK 200(DK
1&(& However, fire can be fatal to oaVs CZarren 1*4$D and reduce fruiting of Halmettos
1&(' burned more fre^uently than every five years CHilmon 1*'), Carrington and

&0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1&(( Mullahey 200'DK Conse^uently, bears in Florida use areas with burn intervals of at
1&() least five years more fre^uently than they do areas with shorter burn cycles
1&(* CStratman and Pelton 200(DK Land management comHatible with bear needs would
1&)0 include a diverse mosaic of forest communities where some forest comHartments are
1&)1 burned less fre^uently than every five yearsK Conversely, the fre^uent aHHlication
1&)2 of fire could helH reduce the abundance of bears in areas where that is a
1&)$ management ob`ectiveK
1&)4 Longaterm conservation of the Florida blacV bear will be deHendent uHon
1&)& Hrudent management of large contiguous woodlands which are unliVely to be under
1&)' a single ownershiHK With some consideration for bear habitat needs, landscaHe
1&)( level, multiasHecies management regimes can be comHatible with ^uality bear
1&)) habitatK Present efforts to enhance redacocVaded woodHecVer HoHulations, for
1&)* eTamHle, involve controlled burns and longleaf Hine restoration_ however, fre^uent,
1&*0 largeascale winter burning may reduce the diversity and abundance of foods
1&*1 available to bears and Vill cubs in densK A coordinated management effort will
1&*2 Hrovide much needed habitat for bears, scruba`ays, snaVes and other wildlife sHecies
1&*$ that will re^uire alternate habitats while burns are underwayK Lherefore,
1&*4 coordinating landamanagement activities that sHan the landscaHe, address the
1&*& seasonal conditions, and the varying re^uirements of individual sHecies is
1&*' imHortant for establishing successful habitat conservation efforts for bears and
1&*( other wildlife sHeciesK
1&*) Management goals and desired conditions for other wildlife sHecies, Harticularly
1&** listed sHecies, may not always result in Hrime bear habitatK Current management
1'00 regimes on Hublic lands should be reviewed at local and landscaHe levels to ensure
1'01 habitat re^uirements for bears are being addressed while managing for other
1'02 sHeciesK Potential ^uantitative and ^ualitative imHacts of management actions
1'0$ CeKgK, herbicides, Hrescribed fire, timber harvest, Halmetto berry harvestD should be
1'04 identifiedK Lhe sHatial arrangement of diverse forest communities under varying
1'0& management regimes at a landscaHe level will ensure the needs of many sHecies
1'0' with seemingly divergent needs are metK A handbooV that describes Hreferred

&1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1'0( management Hractices for bears should be develoHed and distributed to assist land
1'0) managersK

1'0* "esearch and Monitoring for Habitat Conservation


1'10 5nformation is needed on how habitat ^uality, ^uantity and connectivity can be
1'11 measured at aHHroHriate scales and managed to affect bear numbers in sHecific
1'12 areasK Uesearch may be needed to Hrovide land managers with habitat
1'1$ management Hractices to increase or decrease bear numbers where needed or to
1'14 determine why sHecific areas of seemingly high ^uality bear habitat are not
1'1& occuHiedK
1'1' A system will need to be imHlemented to maH suitable bear habitats, including
1'1( Hrivately owned lands that are not in agreement or easement Hrograms but still
1'1) Hrovide for bear habitatK Conversely, conservation Hlanning can be better focused if
1'1* areas that no longer Hrovide suitable habitat because they are isolated by largea
1'20 scale human develoHment are removed from further considerationK MeveloHment of
1'21 methodologies that can assess the cumulative imHacts of habitat declines will be
1'22 necessaryK
1'2$ Uesearch should also categoribe habitat characteristics that Hromote landscaHe
1'24 Hermeability so the most imHortant landscaHe connections can be identifiedK Where
1'2& high ^uality, suitable bear habitat is far from occuHied bear range, research may be
1'2' needed to determine the feasibility and acceHtance of restocVing bearsK Similar
1'2( budget and staVeholder worV would be needed to augment bears in areas where
1'2) their density is very lowK For conservation lands where bears are a target sHecies,
1'2* results of management actions should be monitored to ensure they benefit bearsK

&2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1'$0 Table b. Strategies and actions involving the Habitat Conservation Ob\ective, with estimates of
1'$1 resources available to implement the action, and associated timeframes for implementation.
1'$2
"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Strategy B.J: Determine clear criteria for categoriding habitat quality and then assess the current
quality, at an appropriate scale, of occupied and unoccupied but potentially suitable
bear habitat in each BMR.
MeveloH criteria to evaluate and categoribe
the ^uality of bear habitat by a combination
2K1K1 RTisting
of eTisting habitat models at statewide and
IM\ levelsK
\Hdate designation of occuHied and suitable
2K1K2 bear habitat by habitat tyHe, ownershiH and RTisting
land management regime within each IM\K
MeveloH fine scale bear habitat ^uality
2K1K$ Other
measures in each IM\K
Metermine the minimum amount and
distribution of suitable bear habitat needed
2K1K4 RTisting
within each IM\ to meet minimum
HoHulation ob`ectivesK

&$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Assess the current and Hro`ected imHacts of
develoHment, including transHortation
2K1K& corridors, landause conversion and landa Other
management Hractices on bear habitat
^uality in each IM\K
5dentify isolated habitat areas where
2K1K' develoHment is Hro`ected to significantly
imHact bear habitat and remove them from Other
further consideration as suitable bear
habitatK
Rvaluate areas of unoccuHied, but Hotentially
suitable habitat in each IM\ CeKgK, Zreen
2K1K( SwamH, IlacVwater Uiver State ForestD to Other
identify any habitatabased reasons for the
absence of bears in those areasK
Coordinate with Hartner agencies and
organibations to identify and integrate bear
habitat conservation Hriorities that are
2K1K) shared with other eTisting landscaHealevel RTisting
Hlanning and management efforts CeKgK,
ZoHher Lortoise Management Plan, Lhe
RatCre Conser=an.y’s 85orida Pssess-entX(

&4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Strategy B.B: Conserve or increase good quality bear habitat to meet ob\ectives within each BMR.

WorV with the FWC Landowner Assistance


Program to identify oHHortunities for
2K2K1 Other
landowners to helH increase habitat ^uality
to increase bear numbersK
Collaborate with Hublic and Hrivate Hartners
to create a bear habitat incentive Hrogram to
2K2K2 enhance conservation of large, highaHriority Other
tracts of good ^uality bear habitat within
each IM\K
WorV with FWC Landowner Assistance
Program biologists to assist willing
landowners HarticiHating in voluntary,
incentiveabased Hrograms to establish or
2K2K$ RTisting
manage ^uality bear habitat or HarticiHate in
feeasimHle and less than feeasimHle Hrograms
to enhance longaterm conservation of ^uality
bear habitat on their landsK

&&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Promote use of the comHrehensive
conservation Hlanning tools incorHorated in
the Florida Wildlife Conservation Zuide to
2K2K4 more effectively address Hotential imHacts of RTisting
develoHment, including transHortation
corridors, landause conversion, and landa
management Hro`ects on bear habitatK
UanV mitigation banVs by bear habitat
^uality and develoH mitigation oHtions to
2K2K& Other
suHHlement the loss of higha^uality bear
habitatK

Strategy B.G: Manage bear habitat on public and private lands.


5dentify Hractices to minimibe Hotential
negative imHacts on habitat ^uality for bears,
in ^uantitative and ^ualitative terms, from
2K$K1 RTisting
management actions CeKgK, herbicides,
Hrescribed fire, timber harvest, Halmetto
berry harvestDK
WorV with Hartners to develoH Hrotocols for
2K$K2 monitoring habitat ^uality for bears at fine RTisting
scales within each IM\K

&'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
MeveloH a system to identify and review all
Hublic lands that have been Hurchased
2K$K$ Hrimarily to conserve bears and Hromote RTisting
aHHlication of Iest Management Practices for
bear habitatK
Rngage the IlacV Iear Assistance ZrouHs in
each IM\ to assist Hrivate landowners and
other organibations who are seeVing
2K$K4 assistance with comHarison and selection of Other
landowner incentive Hrograms or other
Hrograms for enhanced conservation of high
^uality bear habitat on their landsK

Strategy B.a: Promote connectivity within and among $lorida black bear subpopulations by
maintaining, improving, and[or creating landscape connectivity.

Metermine landscaHe connectivity


characteristics CeKgK, habitat tyHe, length,
2K4K1 Other
widthD that facilitate movement of individual
bears within and among subHoHulationsK

&(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
5dentify and Hrioritibe eTisting landscaHe
connections used by bears to move within
and among subHoHulations_ determine
ownershiH and land management aHHroaches
for individual Harcels of land that maVe uH
2K4K2 Other
each connection_ determine which Harcels are
Hublicly owned or covered by conservation
easements_ worV with Hrivate landowners to
Hromote land management Hractices that
offer suitable bear habitatK
Rvaluate landscaHe connections to identify
full or Hartial barriers CeKgK, roads, lacV of
corridorsD to bear movement and determine
2K4K$ Other
where additional infrastructure CiKeK, fencing,
clear road shouldersD is needed to overcome
those barriersK
Rvaluate the comHatibility of longaterm
2K4K4 highway use and traffic Hro`ections with Other
landscaHe connectivityK

&)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Coordinate with and Hrovide minimum
standards for Hro`ects to Florida MeHartment
of Rnvironmental Protection, LransHortation,
and Community Planning, as well as other
2K4K& RTisting
relevant agencies to ensure that bear
habitats and landscaHe connections are
Vnown and considered in state and regional
conservation HlanningK
1'$$
1'$4

&*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1'$& Ob\ective G: Human-Bear Conflict Management


1'$' "educe human-bear conflicts as measured by bear-related calls to $WC
1'$( at or below average B008 to B0J0 levels (J,HaH annual core complaintsZ
1'$) and near or below the corresponding levels for each BMR (Table 8Z by:
1'$* Coordinating with county government officials in all counties in
1'40 primary bear range to implement methods for reducing conflicts`
1'41 "evising $WC bear policies to create a comprehensive approach to
1'42 human-bear conflict management`
1'4$ Creating protocols to capture institutional knowledge, standardide
1'44 response, and improve effectiveness in conflict management` and
1'4& Create partnerships that will help $WC resolve human-bear
1'4' conflicts.
1'4( Lhe intent of this ob`ective is to achieve the delicate balance between the needs
1'4) of bears and the needs of HeoHle by worVing with communities to Hromote local
1'4* resHonsibility and enact meaningful solutionsK Many techni^ues that facilitate the
1'&0 Heaceful coeTistence of humans and bears eTist and Hromotion of these methods can
1'&1 helH avoid or reduce humanabear conflictsK FWC can worV with local communities
1'&2 to create a shared resHonsibility for 85orida’s wi5d5i4eK

1'&$ Lhere is an overlaH between the Conflict Management and Rducation and
1'&4 Outreach Ob`ectives, because both center on humanabear interactionsK Lhe main
1'&& difference is the Rducation and Outreach Ob`ective aHHroaches conflicts through
1'&' education and resHonsible homeowner behavior to avoid humanabear conflicts while
1'&( the Conflict Management Ob`ective focuses more on direct actions resHonding to
1'&) humanabear conflictsK FWC acVnowledges several actions within each ob`ective
1'&* contain asHects that will helH achieve the other ob`ectiveK

1''0 FWC staff decided a reasonable aHHroach to measure success in conflict


1''1 management would be to eTamine beararelated calls to FWCK Core complaints, a
1''2 subset of calls, were used instead of all calls because some calls are informative
1''$ CeKgK, sicVdin`ured bearD, some are comHlaints, and some can be either deHending on

'0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1''4 Table 8. /umber of core complaints for each Bear Management Rnit,
1''& B008-B0J0.

/umber of Core Complaints


Bear
Subpopulation
Management
/ame Tear
Rnit
Mean
B008 B00H B0J0

West Rglin 2)' &4$ &*( 4(&


Panhandle

Rast AHalachicola 22$ $)$ &11 $(2


Panhandle

Iig Iend ChassahowitbVa 14 1) 12 1&

North Osceola ( 12 ' )

Central OcaladStK Yohns *2& )(* 12$* 1014

South Central ZladesdHighlands $ 1& 1$ 10

South Iig CyHress $2 )1 4( &$

Statewide 1,4*0 1,*$1 2,42& 1,*4*


1'''

1''( the caller CeKgK, a bear in the area_ Figure bDK Core comHlaints included the following
1'') call tyHesW 5n Iuilding, 5n CroHs, 5n Feed, 5n Feeder, 5n Zarbage, ProHerty Mamage,
1''* AHiary, LhreateneddAttacVedd[illed Animal, and Lhreatened HumanK Core
1'(0 comHlaint levels closely follow the same annual trends as overall levels CFigure )DK
1'(1 CCrrent 5e=e5s o4 .ore .o-<5aints strain @oth 8WC’s resoCr.es as we55 as .ommunity
1'(2 tolerance, and increases in comHlaints may lead to decreased ability to resHond by
1'($ FWC and a devaluation of bears by citibens, which would negatively imHact bear
1'(4 conservation effortsK

'1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1'(& Lhe number of beararelated reHorts to FWC has been increasing over the Hast
1'(' 20 years CFigure )DK 5ncreasing humanabear conflicts are a concern in Florida as
1'(( both human and bear HoHulations increase, occuHied bear range eTHands, and
1'() human develoHment continues to reduce and encroach uHon bear habitatK >\rban
1'(* bears? are becoming more Hrevalent in many areas of Florida as those changes
1')0 move the edge of occuHied bear range from rural areas into suburban or even urban
1')1 locationsK Managing blacV bears in residential areas is esHecially comHleT_ bears in
1')2 close HroTimity to humans create a range of issues from Herceived threats CeKgK,
1')$ seeing a bear on the edge of the forestD to relatively serious issues CeKgK, a bear in a
1')4 city center disruHting trafficDK CaHturing and relocating bears usually is not
1')& effective because there are few remote Hlaces in Florida where relocated bears will
1')' not come into contact with humansK 5t has become increasingly imHortant to
1')( Hrovide government officials and other decision maVers with Hractical and effective
1')) management techni^ues to reduce humanabear conflictsK

1')* Statewide, core comHlaints have increased 10'c in the Hast five years ending in
1'*0 2010K 5f this level of conflict continues in high comHlaint areas, there is concern it
1'*1 could create broad Hublic antagonism towards bears, increase fear of bears, and
1'*2 Hromote a HerceHtion of bears as verminK Rducation, waste management, technical
1'*$ assistance, traHHing, relocation, and euthanasia have all been used to helH mitigate
1'*4 comHlaintsK

1'*& Rliminating food sources that attract bears is the first and most imHortant
1'*' action to resolve HroblemsK When bears forage on garbage, Het food, and other
1'*( attractants, they learn to ignore the close HroTimity of humans CiKeK, become
1'*) habituatedD and to seeV humanasources of food CiKeK, food conditionedD_ such
1'** bears may become a threat to human safetyK Lhe current FWC Nuisance IlacV
1(00 Iear Policy relies heavily on .o-<5ainant’s Hersonal resHonsibility for eliminating
1(01 attractants and thereby reducing or eliminating bear HroblemsK Many Hroblems are
1(02 resolved this way_ however, relying solely on voluntary actions has not been
1(0$ sufficient because it re^uires continued vigilance and nearly 100c comHliance

'2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1(04 across entire neighborhoods to succeedK FWC assists local governments in


1(0& identifying waste management comHanies that can Hrovide bear resistant
1(0' dumHsters, helH local governments and citibens identify vendors that suHHly
1(0( residential bear resistant garbage cans, and encourage waste Hrovider comHetition
1(0) to imHrove servicesK FWC also can Hrovide temHlate language for municiHalities
1(0* and develoHers to incorHorate into charters, homeowner association covenants, and
1(10 develoHment ordersK \ltimately, FWC will need to worV with local governments
1(11 and law enforcement agencies to draft ordinances and statutes in areas with chronic
1(12 humanabear conflictsK

1(1$ Management actions will be re^uired to stabilibe humanabear conflicts,


1(14 Harticularly in and around urban settingsK Iears fre^uenting urban areas are more
1(1& liVely to become habituated and Hose more of a Hublic safety risV due to the volume
1(1' of encounters with humans comHared to bears in rural areasK A multiatiered
1(1( resHonse to humanabear conflicts could be emHloyed, with the level of resHonse
1(1) deHendent uHon where the conflicts occurK While residents living in rural areas
1(1* within Hrimary bear range will need the Vnowledge and willingness to taVe the
1(20 necessary steHs to coeTist with bears, a lower eTHectation might be aHHroHriate for
1(21 urban residentsK

1(22 MeHredation of livestocV has become an increasing concern, with documented


1(2$ attacVs on animals such as hogs, goats and chicVensK Lhe Hlan calls for an
1(24 evaluation of the Hotential use of blacV bear deHredation Hermits to mitigate for
1(2& bears that reHeatedly Vill livestocVK Lhis Hermit could also be evaluated for use in
1(2' other humanabear conflict situations including other tyHes of deHredation and
1(2( human safety issuesK

1(2) FWC field resHonse to humanabear conflicts CiKeK, onasite insHections, traHHing
1(2* efforts, retrieving vehicleaVilled bearsD is currently conducted by either FWC
1($0 biologists or Hrivate contractors with the Iear UesHonse Program CIUPDK Humana
1($1 bear conflict resHonse is only one of the many `ob duties of FWC biologistsK As the
1($2 need for bear resHonse continues to increase, FWC has relied heavily on the IUP to

'$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1($$ Hrevent bear resHonsibilities from overly interfering with other FWC staff dutiesK
1($4 Lhe Hlan HroHoses to continue to adaHt and transition field resHonse resHonsibilities
1($& from general FWC staff to Iear Management Program HersonnelK FWC could
1($' eTHand the duties of IUP to allow contractors to handle more of the worVload in the
1($( field, Hotentially decreasing resHonse time and increasing the efficiency of comHlaint
1($) resolutionK An additional oHtion is to increase Iear Management Program staffing
1($* to a level where they could taVe on the role of coordinating humanabear conflict
1(40 resHonse and other bear management duties Csee ChaHter 'W Uesources for
1(41 5mHlementationDK As this transition continues, it will be imHortant to revise the
1(42 current FWC Nuisance IlacV Iear Policy to Hrovide a more comHrehensive set of
1(4$ guidelines that will increase the effectiveness and standardibation of 8WC’s
1(44 resHonse to humanabear conflictsK FWC Hersonnel charged with imHlementing the
1(4& Holicies would attend a bear worVshoH training to ensure uniform understanding
1(4' and eTecutionK Uevised Holicies would Hrovide guidance to staff on standard
1(4( resHonses to tyHical situations while leaving some level of fleTibility with field staffK
1(4) Further Vnowledge and eTHerience can be gained by coordinating and sharing
1(4* information among other local, state, and federal agencies eTHeriencing similar
1(&0 humanabear conflictsK Iear worVshoH training sessions Hrovide an ideal avenue for
1(&1 information sharing with Hartner agenciesK

1(&2 "esearch and Monitoring for Human-Bear Conflicts


1(&$ Uesearch is needed to address the Conflict Management Ob`ective and includes
1(&4 imHroving techni^ues to alter bear and human behaviors and monitoring
1(&& characteristics affecting humanabear conflictsK FWC needs to eTamine the
1(&' effectiveness of sHecific habing or aversive conditioning techni^uesK Outreach
1(&( efforts, ordinances, and Holicies should be reviewed to determine which aHHroach or
1(&) combination of aHHroaches results in the most citiben HarticiHation in reducing
1(&* attractantsK Monitoring local abundance of natural foods will helH managers
1('0 understand fluctuations in the numbers and intensity of humanabear conflicts and
1('1 tailor agency resHonses accordinglyK Metermining which natural foods and food

'4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1('2 availability cycles CiKeK, bumHer croH and mast failureD most affect humanabear
1('$ conflicts and how best to monitor the abundance of these foods will be imHortantK
1('4 Uesearch is also needed to determine the most effective habitat management
1('& techni^ues to reduce or eTclude bears from areas where the severity and fre^uency
1('' of humanabear conflicts eTceed Conflict Management Ob`ectivesK

'&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1('(

1(') Table H. Strategies and actions involving the Conflict Management Ob\ective, with estimates of
1('* resources available to implement the action, and associated timeframes for implementation.
"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J

Strategy G.J: Mitigate human-bear conflicts.

WorV with local and county governments to


Hass ordinances that reduce humanabear
$K1K1 RTisting
conflicts, habituation and food conditioning of
bears to humansK
Coordinate with local, state, and federal
$K1K2 agencies eTHeriencing similar humanabear RTisting
conflicts to eTchange Vnowledge and resourcesK
RTHlore the caHabilities of the Iear UesHonse
$K1K$ Program to handle more resHonsibilities, Other
increase efficiency, and reduce FWC staff timeK
Continue use of euthanasia in humanabear
$K1K4 RTisting
conflict situations according to FWC HolicyK
Assess the effectiveness of different methods
$K1K& for securing attractants and deterring bears Other
and imHlement the most effective techni^uesK

''
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Rncourage businesses eTHeriencing humana
$K1K' bear conflicts to secure their waste and other RTisting
attractantsK
MeveloH and imHlement landamanagement
$K1K( techni^ues to deter bear Hresence in areas Other
Hrone to humanabear conflictsK
5dentify areas of high humanabear conflict,
$K1K) ranV areas in order of conflict levels, and use RTisting
ranVed areas for management actionsK
Rvaluate and recommend effective, safe and
humane bear habing techni^ues that can be
$K1K* used by the Hublic to reduce the liVelihood of Other
bears becoming acclimated to HeoHle and
causing a conflict or safety threatK
Provide training, materials, and a Hermit
system emHowering Hartner agency staff, the
Iear UesHonse Program contractors, and FWC
$K1K10 RTisting
staff to better understand bear behavior, and to
use habing or other methods to discourage
bears from interacting with HeoHleK

'(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
MeveloH beararesHonse bones in heavily
HoHulated human areas with high levels of
humanabear conflict and bear habitat
$K1K11 availability is lowK 5mHlement a multiatiered RTisting
resHonse to handling humanabear conflicts
deHendent on the location of the comHlaintK
RTHlore oHtions regarding use of deHredation
Hermits to mitigate conflicts and build
$K1K12 acceHtance of bears and suHHort for bear RTisting
conservationK
Continue to seeV grants and Hartner with nota
$K1K1$ foraHrofit organibations to increase availability RTisting
of bear resistant cans and technical assistanceK
\Hdate FWC Nuisance Iear Policy and
$K1K14 guidance documents to create a comHrehensive RTisting
aHHroach to managing humanabear conflictsK
Mocument Hublic recreation areas in Hrimary
$K1K1& bear range eTHeriencing humanabear conflicts RTisting
and determine Hractical solutionsK
WorV with IlacV Iear Assistance ZrouHs in
$K1K1' each IM\ to solicit local staVeholder inHut and Other
cooHeration in reducing humanabear conflictsK
1((0
')
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1((1 Ob\ective a: -ducation and Outreach


1((2 Increase public understanding of bears, support for bear conservation,
1(($ and a willingness to coeOist with bears by:
1((4 -ngaging, educating and informing residents and visitors through
1((& ongoing education, information and outreach programs`
1((' Maintaining eOisting, and developing new partnerships with state,
1((( county and local governments, non-governmental organidations and
1(() other stakeholders to meet the ob\ectives of this plan`
1((* Developing Bear Smart Communities in areas of high bear activity`
1()0 and
1()1 Achieving compliance from at least b5g of the people who receive
1()2 $WC advice on human-bear conflict resolution.
1()$
1()4 5t is vital that the HeoHle of the state of Florida, including residents, visitors,
1()& staVeholders and governmental entities, understand, suHHort, and, where
1()' aHHlicable, integrate comHonents of this Hlan into their daily lives, Hrograms and
1()( management HracticesK Lhe Rducation and Outreach Ob`ective develoHs and
1()) delivers the tools and messages necessary to accomHlish this challenging tasVK Lhe
1()* Rducation and Outreach Ob`ective integrates the communication comHonents
1(*0 necessary to suHHort bear conservation measures addressed in the PoHulation
1(*1 Conservation and Habitat Conservation Ob`ectives, and conflict resolution in the
1(*2 Conflict Management Ob`ectiveK Achieving all of those ob`ectives re^uires a strong,
1(*$ unified, and effective education and outreach effortK

1(*4 Black Bear Population and Habitat Conservation


1(*& Strong, effective education Hrograms foster suHHort for blacV bear conservationK
1(*' Floridians must value blacV bears and want to conserve them for HoHulation and
1(*( habitat measures to be effectiveK Without broadabased suHHort, conservation efforts
1(*) for wide ranging sHecies such as blacV bears will be difficultK Outreach efforts must

'*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1(** address the differing beliefs and needs of rural, suburban and urban communities
1)00 regarding bears and bear conservationK
1)01 As a wildlife conservation agency, conservation is 8WC’s toH HriorityK However,
1)02 it cannot be assumed that target audiences understand or value wildlife
1)0$ conservation or that they will instantly acceHt 8WC’s message or adviceK Rducation
1)04 and outreach must be continuous, sustained and systemic to achieve desired
1)0& outcomesK
1)0' ProHosed Hro`ects in this Hlan target many age levels, bacVgrounds and
1)0( outcomesK Uesearch indicates that children who HarticiHate in conservation
1)0) education Hrograms before the age of 12 are more liVely to become environmentally
1)0* resHonsible adults C[ellert and Westervelt 1*)$, Yaus 1*)4, 5obbi 1*)*DK 5t is
1)10 imHortant that education and outreach efforts include youth as well as the current
1)11 adult HoHulationK
1)12 Mecades of research have clearly shown that in order to Hromote ecological
1)1$ literacy and conservationaoriented behavior, educational Hrograms should focus on
1)14 five ma`or outcomesW awareness, Vnowledge, attitudes, Hroblem solving and decision
1)1& maVing sVills, and oHHortunities for individual and grouH action C\NRSCO 1**(,
1)1' NAARR 1**)DK 5n addition, shortaterm awareness level messages do not always
1)1( result in longaterm sustained changes in environmental behaviorK While awareness
1)1) level messages can Hromote simHle changes in behavior, significant lifestyle
1)1* changes only occur when individuals are eTHosed to Hrograms sHecifically designed
1)20 to result in additional outcomes such as Vnowledge and attitudes CNRRLF 2001DK
1)21 Lhis Hlan attemHts to address all five outcomesK
1)22 Rducation and outreach efforts designed to Hromote a basic understanding of
1)2$ the biology and ecological role of bears as well as aHHroHriate actions are Howerful
1)24 tools for bear conservationK Lhese actions are based on receHtive, willing learners
1)2& and voluntary HarticiHationK However, suHHort for bear conservation is a
1)2' combination of sound management, education, and at times, regulation with
1)2( enforcement that gives the greatest chance of success CPeine 2001DK 5f the Hlan is to
1)2) be effective, all available management tools must be usedK

(0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1)2* Human-Bear Conflict


1)$0 Humanabear conflicts are a concern and managing blacV bears becomes
1)$1 increasingly challenging as both human and bear HoHulations increase, and human
1)$2 develoHment eTHands and encroaches on bear habitatK Iears and humans share
1)$$ much of the same sHace in Florida and the two must be able to live with minimal
1)$4 conflictK \nfortunately, resolving conflicts is much more comHlicated than simHly
1)$& managing the bears and their habitatK Managing human imHact involves
1)$' understanding target audiences, fostering Hositive attitudes, and building
1)$( Vnowledge and sVills that ideally result in imHlementing Hractices that are designed
1)$) to minimibe conflictK
1)$* 5t is more imHortant than ever for HeoHle to understand how their behavior can
1)40 significantly influence bear behavior, and what HeoHle can do to minimibe conflictK
1)41 One ob`ective of outreach and education outlined in this Hlan is to increase the
1)42 Hositive or neutral interactions between humans and bears, and reduce the negative
1)4$ onesK 5n order to be successful, the actions associated with this ob`ective Hrescribe
1)44 continuously and effectively engaging sHecific staVeholder grouHs, Harticularly those
1)4& that are affected by blacV bearsK
1)4' Rducation and outreach actions focus onW 1D attaining Hublic suHHort and
1)4( acceHtance of bear densities and distributions needed to achieve conservation
1)4) ob`ectives, 2D minimibing humanabear conflicts, $D worVing with citiben grouHs to
1)4* develoH locally relevant education and outreach methods, 4D building HartnershiHs,
1)&0 and &D educating youthK Assessing these actions is essential to imHroving and
1)&1 refining future education and outreach effortsK Where feasible, an assessment tool
1)&2 will be develoHed and imHlementedK
1)&$ Lhe ultimate goal of 8WC’s education and outreach efforts is a bearaliterate,
1)&4 suHHortive citibenry that voluntarily HarticiHates in Hractices that benefit both
1)&& HeoHle and bearsK Lo attain this goal, and because different strategies and actions
1)&' are necessary for different grouHs, the education and outreach efforts have been
1)&( develoHed for three ma`or audiencesW 1D Communities, 2D Private Landowners, $D
1)&) Zovernmental, Nongovernmental and Iusiness Organibations, and 4D FWC StaffK

(1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1)&* Communities
1)'0 One of the most effective ways to reduce humanabear conflicts is to engage
1)'1 citibens in communityawide efforts liVe the Bear Smart Community CISCD
1)'2 HrogramK Lhe mission of this Hrogram is to influence and guide communities to
1)'$ acceHt Hersonal and communal resHonsibility for reducing humanabear conflictsK A
1)'4 ISC is a sHecific and defined geograHhical area where the residents, local
1)'& government, businesses, and schools engage in behaviors that will resolve their
1)'' humanabear conflictsK
1)'( Iecoming a ISC is a rigorous Hrocess and taVes substantial time and effortK
1)') ISCs include an educational comHonent, Hrovisions for bear!resistant solid waste
1)'* handling and containers, aHHroHriate governance CiKeK, ordinances, covenants,
1)(0 bylawsD, and assessment measures to determine success CMavis et alK 2002DK A
1)(1 detailed eTHlanation of the ISC Hrogram, case studies, and strategies on how to
1)(2 engage communities can be found in AHHendiT 5VK
1)($ Volunteers who are trained, interested and enthusiastic are an invaluable
1)(4 resource in education and outreach effortsK Rstablishing an FWCasuHHorted
1)(& volunteer Hrogram where trained, local residents act as volunteer liaisons between
1)(' FWC and their neighbors could assist in reducing humanabear conflict and the
1)(( resulting bear comHlaintsK Volunteer liaisons could Hrovide information to fellow
1)() residents about seasonal increases or decreases in bear activity, maVe literature
1)(* available to new residents regarding Hreventable bear Hroblems, and be a Hoint of
1))0 contact to suggest common strategies for Hroblem resolutionsK Lhis communitya
1))1 based aHHroach can be successful because it Hromotes ownershiH, and residents may
1))2 be more liVely to follow advice from a neighbor than from a government officialK
1))$ FWC has an effective educational tool to reach elementary school studentsK
1))4 Originally Hublished in 1***, the ;-.r)d& 3-&*4 3(&r <$rr)*$-$' :$)d( CZuideD has
1))& recently been uHdated with 2010 data and two additional lessons that focus on
1))' avoiding humanabear conflictsK 5n addition, each lesson in the Zuide now refers
1))( teachers to sHecific segments o4 the re.ent5y <rodC.ed =ideo >bi=ing with Florida
1))) H5a.G Hears(?

(2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1))* Lhe uHdated Zuide is scheduled to be tested in the classroom in Fall 2011K
1)*0 FWC will marVet the uHdated Zuide to educators and their third to eighth grade
1)*1 students within the areas of high humanabear interactionK Rducators will receive
1)*2 the FCide and sC<<ortin7 -ateria5s in.5Cdin7 the >Hears and coC? a.ti=ity @ooG
1)*$ and >bi=in7 with 85orida H5a.G Hears? ded( Pro\ect WILD and other staff will
1)*4 hold worVshoHs for interested teachers so they can eTHerience imHlementing the
1)*& Zuide activities before bringing them into the classroomK

1)*' Private Landowners


1)*( Private landowners are essential to bear conservation by Hroviding imHroved
1)*) habitat for bears, while meeting their own land use ob`ectivesK Numerous
1)** government and Hrivate conservation Hrograms offer landowner assistance for
1*00 conversion of farm and timber land bacV to wildlife habitatK However, the many
1*01 Hrograms, different easement tyHes, costashare Hlans, and lengthy decisionamaVing
1*02 Hrocesses may Hreclude landowner involvementK 5nterested landowners may be
1*0$ unfamiliar with Hrograms and selecting the most aHHroHriate Hrogram for their
1*04 needs could be overwhelmingK 5nterested staVeholder grouHs can Hartner with
1*0& FWC’s LAP to Hrovide landowners with a summary of the different assistance
1*0' Hrograms offered by State and Federal agencies as well as Hrivate organibationsK
1*0( LAP can demonstrate how bears can be an asset to the landowner, as well as the
1*0) numerous Hrograms awarding Hreference to Harcels if they either have or
1*0* Hotentially could have bear habitatK Lhis Hrocess would helH elevate Harcels that
1*10 contain bear habitat above those without bear habitatK Lhis summary should
1*11 identi4y <ro7ra-s that @est sCit 5andowners’ needs and ^ualifications, assist in
1*12 finalibing conservation agreements, and act as a liaison between the landowner and
1*1$ LAPK
1*14 Iest management Hractices for bears need to be develoHed and added to LAP,
1*1& and those could then be added to the landause Hlanning and habitat management
1*1' Hlans created for landowners HarticiHating in incentive HrogramsK Landowner
1*1( 5ncentive Program CL5PD funds are distributed to Hrivate landowners whose

($
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1*1) HroHerties have the greatest Hotential benefits for rare sHeciesK However,
1*1* Hreference should also be given to HroHerties that would helH ensure that the bear
1*20 does not move bacV to a Lhreatened sHecies statusK FWC will use a GIS
1*21 CZeograHhic 5nformation SystemsD comHuter model to numerically ranV HroHerties,
1*22 which includes land cover imagery, current listed sHecies habitats, wildlife
1*2$ occurrence data, and Hotential listed sHecies habitat modelsK Iecause bears are an
1*24 umbrella sHecies, FWC could recommend that lands suHHorting bears should receive
1*2& a higher score and be distinguished from other sHecies when ranVing a HroHertyK
1*2' Lhe Wildlife Habitat 5ncentives Program CWH5PD encourages creation of high
1*2( ^uality wildlife habitat that suHHorts wildlife HoHulations of national, state, tribal,
1*2) and local significanceK Lhrough WH5P, the \K SK MeHartment of Agri.C5tCre’s
1*2* Natural Uesources Conservation Service Hrovides technical and uH to (& Hercent
1*$0 costashare assistance to establish and imHrove fish and wildlife habitatK 5n
1*$1 addition, Hrograms such as the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program CPartnersD,
1*$2 Healthy Forests Ueserve Program CHFUPD, Wetland Ueserve Program CWUPD,
1*$$ Rnvironmental puality 5ncentives Program CRp5PD, and Conservation Ueserve
1*$4 Program CCUPD Hrovide additional oHHortunities for conserving bear habitatK 5n
1*$& addition to government Hrograms, carbon banking could create imHortant
1*$' economic oHHortunities for Hrivate landowners as well as oHHortunities to create and
1*$( restore blacV bear habitatK
1*$) Another oHtion for Florida landowners is the HroHerty taT breaV that became
1*$* available after Yanuary 2010 CHI (1&( 200*D for Hrivatelyaowned conservation
1*40 landsK Lhe amendment Hrovides HroHerty taT relief to landowners managing for
1*41 conservation in certain situationsK Landowners with a Hermanent conservation
1*42 easement and meeting other re^uirements CeKgK not gaining income from
1*4$ conservation activitiesD could have reduced, or be eTemHt from, HroHerty taTesK
1*44 Also, those landowners choosing to manage for conservation through HreaaHHroved
1*4& activities could receive a conservation assessment from their HroHerty aHHraiser,
1*4' thus being eligible for a Hartial taT eTemHtionK

(4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1*4( Governmental, /ongovernmental, and Business Organidations


1*4) While FWC is the State agency constitutionally resHonsible for managing and
1*4* Hrotecting fish and wildlife resources, they must engage both Hublic and Hrivate
1*&0 Hartners in order to be successfulK Local and State governments Hlay Hivotal roles
1*&1 in landause Hlanning, ac^uisitions and easements, waste management and conflict
1*&2 resolutionK Private businesses need to be Hart of any discussion of largeascale
1*&$ conservation efforts, and organibations such as nonaHrofit grouHs have the ability to
1*&4 7aC7e their sC<<orters’ o<inions on di44erent -ana7e-ent o<tions and e5icit their
1*&& suHHort for actionK
1*&' 5t will be imHortant to engage local interest in bear management and solicit
1*&( staVeholder inHut on FWC actions in IM\sK FWC HroHoses to create a Black Bear
1*&) Assistance Group (BBAGZ in each IM\ that would be comHosed of
1*&* reHresentatives from local staVeholder grouHsK Rach IIAZ will consist of a variety
1*'0 of staVeholders which could include reHresentatives from local, State, anddor
1*'1 Federal governments, nonagovernmental organibations, and concerned citibensK
1*'2 Since the issues within each IM\ vary due to differences in bear abundance,
1*'$ human HoHulations, available habitat and social attitudes toward bears, the
1*'4 comHosition of each IIAZ will liVely vary by IM\K
1*'& IIAZs would facilitate community inHut and involvement in bear management
1*'' decisions, resulting in more acceHtance, comHliance, and suHHort of bear
1*'( management activitiesK IIAZs could engage the community in local bear
1*') management and conservation efforts through regularlyascheduled meetings,
1*'* coordinating Hresentations on blacV bear behavior and conflict avoidance, and
1*(0 introducing the ;-.r)d& 3-&*4 3(&r <$rr)*$-$' :$)d( to local schoolsK Lhrough the
1*(1 IIAZS, local communities would <ro=ide their in<Ct into 8WC’s de.isionamaVing
1*(2 Hrocess regarding land management, education and outreach, best waste
1*($ management Hractices, and human tolerance to bears CiKeK, social carrying caHacityD,
1*(4 but the final decisions would rest with the FWCK
1*(& 5n areas of growing human anddor bear HoHulations, local and county law
1*(' enforcement, HarVs and environmental staff, and animal control Hroviders are

(&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

1*(( increasingly involved in humanabear conflictsK 5n order to resHond effectively to


1*() these situations, it is imHerative that local government staff are aware of Hertinent
1*(* FWC regulations, bear management Holicies, and FWC resources available to themK
1*)0 Lo address this need, FWC’s Iear Management Program offers the Aversive
1*)1 Conditioning and Habing Iears WorVshoH to local government HartnersK From
1*)2 200( to 2010, FWC held 20 worVshoHs around the state and trained 1(1 individuals
1*)$ from local government agenciesK Lhis successful Hrogram will be uHdated and
1*)4 eTHanded to create a new resource manual and training MVM for government
1*)& agencies, and maVe these resources available in an online version for some of the
1*)' classroom Hortions of the HrogramK

1*)( $WC Staff


1*)) 8WC’s Co--Cnity Ve5ations "44i.e QCV"X is the a7en.y’s .o--Cni.ations
1*)* branch and is instrumental in develoHing Hrotocols and standards for consistent
1**0 messaging, delivering those messages, and Hroviding Hroducts and services for the
1**1 a7en.y’s di=isions in sC<<ort o4 their <rogramsK 5n order to ensure ^uality and
1**2 consistency, this Hlan calls for actions re^uiring education and outreach Hroducts,
1**$ including MVM, HhotograHhic, and electronic and Hrint literature, be coordinated
1**4 through the CUOK Coordination and collaboration with CUO will be emHloyed
1**& whenever Hossible to draw on their eTHertise to enhance outreach effortsK
1**' FWC staff from many different disciHlines within the agency is often involved
1**( with bear issuesK 5t is essential that staff resHonsible for communicating
1**) information about bears or Herforming bear management duties understand and
1*** sHeaV uniformly about statewide bear management Holicies, Hrotocols, and
2000 HroceduresK Lo facilitate internal communication, information uHdates and training
2001 will continue to be Hrovided to a wide range of emHloyees including, but not limited
2002 to, customer service Hersonnel, Hublic information coordinators, law enforcement
200$ officers, biologists, managers and others where aHHroHriateK
2004 From 200( to 2010, the Iear Management Program trained $&' FWC
200& emHloyees, including law enforcement, biological and Hublic information emHloyees,

('
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

200' through 2$ Aversive Conditioning and Habing WorVshoHsK A modified version of


200( the training is now offered to all FWC Mivision of Law Rnforcement cadets as Hart
200) of their regular courses at the Florida Public Safety AcademyK
200* FWC Iear Management and Uesearch Program biologists develoHed the 3(&r
2010 M&+&9('(+7 5&+d6..4 CHandbooVD to caHture the wealth of institutional
2011 Vnowledge and eTHeriences regarding bear management Hractices in FloridaK Lhe
2012 HandbooV will helH the agency be more effective and consistent in imHlementing
201$ bear management activities and messaging by serving as a living reference guide
2014 for biologists who Herform bear management activitiesK Lhe HandbooV is designed
201& to be revised as new ideas and issues ariseK \Hdates to the HandbooV are
201' facilitated through annual worVshoHs that bring together FWC staff involved in
201( bear management across the stateK Once the ma`ority of FWC staff involved in bear
201) management activities have HarticiHated in worVshoHs CeTHected in 2012D, the
201* HandbooV will be distributed to the regions for use as a reference manual for new
2020 regional staffK

2021 "esearch and Monitoring for -ducation and Outreach


2022 5t is i-<ortant to -easCre <eo<5e’s @eha=iora5 .han7es in res<onse to edC.ation
202$ and outreach effortsK FWC receives thousands of beararelated calls each year
2024 CFigure )DK Lhe Iear Management Program surveys a samHle of callers to find out
202& how 8WC’s ad=i.e is re.ei=ed and the resC5ts o4 that ad=i.e( CCrrent5yB -ore than
202' (&c of callers surveyed follow FWC advice, and of those callers, (0c reHort that
202( their bear conflicts were resolved CFWC, unHublished data, 2011DK FWC will
202) continue surveying callers, and will adaHt outreach aHHroaches based on
202* information gained from the surveysK For eTamHle, survey resHondents indicated
20$0 they were wary of using electric fencing, one of the most effective deterrents for
20$1 bearsK 5n resHonse, the Iear Management Program develoHed a video segment
20$2 >How to Ose U5e.tri. 8en.in7 to Ie.Cre coCr "Ctdoor Pttra.tants? in order to wa5G
20$$ HeoHle through the Hrocess and Hut them more at easeK Lhe video was Hosted on
20$4 8WC’s coC*C@e we@site and has re.ei=ed o=er ^BKKK =iews 4ro- ".to@er SKB SKLK to

((
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

20$& Yuly 1, 2011K Lhe survey results can be used to eTamine whether 8WC’s recent
20$' efforts have resulted in increased use of electric fencing among the HublicK
20$( Additional research will focus on identifying sHecific factors that influence
20$) behavior and Hublic HerceHtions and attitudes towards bears and bear conservationK
20$* FWC and its Hartners can tailor Hrograms and messages to address sHecific
2040 informational gaHs and build suHHort for bear conservation and managementK
2041 Although it is eTHected that this will be an ongoing effort, it will focus each year on
2042 sHecific communities with acute humanabear conflictsK UeHeating those surveys
204$ following management actions will allow FWC and its Hartners to monitor changes
2044 in Hublic awareness of bears and bear issuesK Lhe surveys also will helH FWC
204& assess eTisting Hrograms and focus efforts on areas of greatest needK
204'

()
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

204( Table J0. Strategies and actions involving -ducation and Outreach Ob\ective with estimates of
204) resources available to implement the action, and associated timeframes for implementation.
"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J

Strategy a.J: -ducation and Outreach for Citidens


Attend anddor organibe local staVeholder
grouH meetings to assess oHHortunities for
4K1K1 change in local behaviors, Holicies, rules RTisting
and ordinances that could suHHort bear
management goalsK
Maintain and regularly uHdate the 8WC’s
4K1K2 blacV bear website and social media RTisting
outletsK
5dentify Vey communication messageCsD and
target audiencesK MeveloH and imHlement
an educational camHaign using a variety of
4K1K$ RTisting
electronic and Hrint media outlets to
HreHare residents and visitors for liVely
encounters with bearsK

(*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Continue as an active Hartner in the
Florida IlacV Iear Festival in \matilla
and the Forgotten Coast IlacV Iear
Festival in Carrabelle, and looV for
4K1K4 RTisting
additional oHHortunities to establish new
bear festivals in other locationsK RTHlore
methods to evaluate festival imHact on
education and outreach ob`ectivesK
SeeV out and HarticiHate in eTisting
4K1K& RTisting
festivals and other outreach events
Continue to worV with FWC Community
Uelation Office to develoH and imHlement
4K1K' informational news releases as aHHroHriate RTisting
to Hromote bear conservation and conflict
management activitiesK
WorV with IlacV Iear Assistance ZrouHs
to identify siteasHecific outreach needs and
4K1K( Other
the most effective methods to address
themK
5mHlement Iear Smart Communities
4K1K) Other
Hrogram in high humanabear conflict areasK

)0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
MeveloH and imHlement communityabased
Iear Smart education and outreach
materials and activities that target
4K1K* Other
residents, landowners and businesses with
information and resources that result in an
increased use of Iear Smart HracticesK
Create an action checVlist for Iear Smart
4K1K10 activities that can be used by eTisting RTisting
communities to attain Iear Smart statusK
Provide temHlate language for Iear Smart
Hractices that municiHalities and
4K1K11 RTisting
residential develoHers can incorHorate into
local charters, statutes, or ordinancesK
Create and imHlement a branded Iear
4K1K12 Smart educational camHaign to suHHort Other
Iear Smart CommunitiesK
RTHlore HartnershiH with the \niversity of
85orida’s `nstitCte o4 8ood and P7ricultural
4K1K1$ Sciences county eTtension agents to Hrovide RTisting
assistance in develoHing and delivering
educational materials and HrogramsK

)1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Coordinate with 8WC’s Wi5d5i4e 8riend5y
Mesignation initiativeK 5nclude a
4K1K14 re^uirement to become a Iear Smart RTisting
Community when develoHments are located
in bear rangeK
RTHand use of the ;-.r)d& 3-&*4 3(&r
<$rr)*$-$' :$)d( and continue to train
4K1K1' RTisting
educators in target areas to incorHorate it
into their lesson HlanningK
WorV with interested schools in areas of
4K1K1( high humanabear conflict to imHlement a RTisting
bear education family science nightK
Provide bearaoriented materials for
students, Harents, and teachers to build
4K1K1) RTisting
Vnowledge, use of Iear Smart Hractices and
increase aHHreciation for bearsK

)2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Coordinate with 8WC’s Landowner
Assistance Program to develoH and
imHlement materials designed to educate
largeaacreage landowners about bears, best
management Hractices for bears in
4K1K1* RTisting
management Hlans when those Hractices
meet landowners land use ob`ectives,
habitat management techni^ues, incentive
Hrograms, easements, and fee simHle
ac^uisitionK
Advertise the Henalties for feeding bears
4K1K20 and Hromote the Wildlife Alert Hotline Other
Hhone number and reward HrogramK
Actively engage with eTternal Hartners
located in areas of high bear activity to
4K1K21 identify and resolve issues that Hrevent RTisting
imHlementation of initiatives to reduce
humanabear conflictK
Continue eTisting bear internshiH Hrogram
4K1K22 to conduct outreach activities and other RTisting
bear management Hro`ectsK

)$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Continue to survey individuals and
agenciesdorganibations who call FWC with
humanabear conflict comHlaints to measure
4K1K2$ RTisting
satisfaction with technical advice and
ensCre that .o-<5ian.e with 8WC’s
technical assistance is at least (& HercentK
Strategy a.B: -ducation and Outreach for Governmental, /ongovernmental, and Business
Organidations
WorV with IlacV Iear Assistance ZrouHs
4K2K1 in each IM\ to assist with bear education Other
outreachK
MeveloH community bear conservation
4K2K2 Hrograms that are suHHorted and funded by Other
local sourcesK
Uegularly uHdate state and local elected
officials and law enforcement leadershiH in
4K2K$ RTisting
bear range on bear research, management,
and Hublic education efforts in their areaK
MeveloH and distribute an information
resource HacVet to Hublic information
4K2K4 RTisting
sections of aHHroHriate local, state, and
federal agenciesK
MeveloH MVM and online version of bear
4K2K& Other
resHonse training for eTternal agenciesK

)4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J

Strategy a.G: -ducation and Outreach for $WC Staff


Provide materials, training, and messaging
to FWC emHloyees who are involved with
bear management, or who communicate
4K$K1 RTisting
about bears, to ensure agency Holicies and
Hrotocols are imHlemented correctly and
consistently statewideK
MeveloH MVM and online version of FWC
4K$K2 Other
emHloyee bear trainingK
Continue to uHdate eTisting 3(&r
4K$K$ M&+&9('(+7 5&+d6..4 and Hrovide to RTisting
emHloyees as reference guideK
Uegularly uHdate agency leadershiH on
4K$K4 humanabear conflict mitigation and RTisting
resolutionK
MeveloH oHHortunities for Iear UesHonse
4K$K& Program contractors to Hrovide outreach in Other
addition to site visits and canvassingK
Strategy a.a: -ducation and Outreach "esearch and Monitoring
Create tools to assess the effectiveness of
4K4K1 education and outreach actions where Other
aHHroHriateK

)&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

"esources Tear
Can be done with B B B B B B B B B B
Action Description of Action -Oisting resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O" requires Other J J J J J J J J B B
resources B G a 5 A b 8 H 0 J
Conduct community level surveys in areas
targeted for interventions to assess the
<C@5i.’s Gnow5ed7eB attitCdesB and
4K4K2 Other
willingness to cooHerate in achieving
management ob`ectives and imHlementing
conservation HlansK
Conduct focus grouH sessions within
4K4K$ communities to Hrovide a ^ualitative Other
comHlement to the survey in Action 4K4K2K
Measure effect of canvassing events and
4K4K4 talVs to communities on humanabear RTisting
conflictsK
204*

)'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

20&0 Bear Management Rnit Profiles

20&1

20&2 West Panhandle Bear Management Rnit


20&$ ;-.r)d& <.$+7)(#@
20&4 Rscambia, Holmes, OValoosa, Santa Uosa, and Walton
20&&
20&' >$6A.A$-&7).+ >)B(W
20&( Lhe current estimate of bears in the West Panhandle IM\ is below the minimum
20&) subHoHulation ob`ective, and therefore the management ob`ective is to increase the
20&* current bear subHoHulationK
20'0
20'1 Minimum subHoHulation ob`ective 200 bears
20'2 Rstimated subHoHulation in Hrimary range '$!101 bears
20'$ Iears Hotential bear habitat in conserved lands could suHHort 121 bears
20'4
20'& 5&6)7&7W
20'' Currently, conserved land is aHHroTimately (4 Hercent of that needed to suHHort the
20'( minimum subHoHulation ob`ectiveK Habitat conservation efforts should seeV to
20') eTHand occupied range and create the following critical landscaHe connectionsW
20'* along the oellow Uiver to IlacVwater Uiver State Forest_ with the AHalachicola
20(0 HoHulation by building on eTisting conserved habitat toward the Choctawhatchee
20(1 Uiver_ and P5a@a-a’s Mo@i5e @ear <o<C5ation throC7h CCne.Ch Rationa5 8orest(
20(2 5ncreasing genetic interchange with the bears in Alabama would benefit both of
20($ these small subHoHulationsK
20(4
20(& Habitat needed for 200 bears 1,1*),4'1 acres
20(' Potential Iear Habitat 1,))',2)* acres
20(( Potential Iear Habitat in Conservation Lands (2$,0&1 acres
20() Lotal area of the IM\ 2,')',2)' acres

)(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

20(*
20)0 3(&r <.'A-&)+7#W
20)1 FWC will taVe actions to reduce humanabear conflicts in this IM\K However, due
20)2 to increased residential develoHment, VeeHing comHlaints at the threeayear average
20)$ C200)!2010D of 4(& core bear comHlaints will be challengingK
20)4
20)& C?r(&7#W
20)' Lhis area is eTHeriencing raHid human HoHulation growth and habitat conversion,
20)( maVing this small HoHulation of bears vulnerable to demograHhic stochasticity
20)) and genetic isolationK
20)*

))
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

%U(## 

%U###  &$& 
&#) 
Vu@8er of Reports 

)## 

+## 
*&$  *&# 

*## 

(%" 
(##  %*" 
&(  %%" 
#  #  #  "  %+  (  '  %$  "*  ($  "#  %+  %' 

3ear 
20*0

20*1 $igure JB. Bear-related calls received by $WC in the West Panhandle
20*2 Bear Management Rnit between JHH0 and B0J0 (n e G,5bHZ.

5hreatened2  5hreatened Hu@an 
AttacFed2  %6 
Rilled Ani@al 
In FeedKerL2MiscN2  (6 
OnFnown 
In Area2In 3ard2In 
"6 
5ree 
*(6 
DicF2InGured2?ead 
Iear 
(6 

Property 
?a@a9e2In Crops2 
Apiary 
+6  In 7ar8a9e 
**6 

20*$
20*4 $igure JG. Bear-related call types received by $WC in the West
20*& Panhandle Bear Management Rnit between JH80 and B0J0 (n e G,5bHZ.

)*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

20*'

20*(
20*) $igure Ja. Bear range and conservation lands ($/AI B00HZ in the West Panhandle Bear
20** Management Rnit.

*0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2100 -ast Panhandle Bear Management Rnit

2101 ;-.r)d& <.$+7)(#@


2102 Iay, Calhoun, FranVlin, Zadsden, Zulf, YacVson, Yefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison,
210$ Laylor, WaVulla, and Washington
2104
210& >$6A.A$-&7).+ >)B(W
210' Lhe current estimate of bears in the Rast Panhandle IM\ is above the minimum
210( subHoHulation ob`ective, and therefore the management ob`ective is to maintain or
210) increase the current bear subHoHulationK
210*
2110 Minimum subHoHulation ob`ective &(0 bears
2111 Rstimated subHoHulation in Hrimary range 411!'&$ bears
2112 Iears Hotential bear habitat in conserved lands could suHHort 2*( bears
211$
2114 5&6)7&7W
211& Currently, conserved lands are insufficient to maintain the minimum acceHtable
211' subHoHulationK Habitat conservation efforts should seeV to create two landscaHe
211( connectionsW one with the West Panhandle IM\ that incorHorates Rconfina CreeV
211) Water Management Area and Choctawhatchee Uiver conservation areas, among
211* others_ and one with the Iig Iend IM\ using coastal conservation landsK
2120 Continuing to manage StK MarVs NWU and Aucilla WMA to Hrovide bear habitat
2121 would helH suHHort bear numbers for eTHansion into the Iig Iend IM\K
2122
212$ Habitat needed for &(0 bears 2,$&*,)&' acres
2124 Potential Iear Habitat 4,2(),2*0 acres
212& Potential Iear Habitat in Conservation Lands 1,22*,*1' acres
212' Lotal area of IM\ &,)$0,''4 acres
212(
212)

*1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

212* 3(&r <.'A-&)+7#W


21$0 Humanabear interactions have increased substantially since 2000 and need to be
21$1 reduced_ the threeayear average C200)!2010D of core comHlaints was $(2K
21$2
21$$ C?r(&7#W
21$4 5ncreasing humanabear conflicts and habitat fragmentation are threats in the Rast
21$& Panhandle IM\K
21$'

*2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

21$(
&## 
)() 
)## 

'## 
Vu@8er of Reports 

+##  $+) 

$## 
*%'  *#+ 
*## 
"(# 
"##  ('* 
(*# 
(## 
%(" 
%##  +%  $(  $"  +#  $&  ++ 
%"  #  )  %)  (%  *+  *$ 

3ear 
21$)
21$* $igure J5. Bear-related calls received by $WC in the -ast Panhandle
2140 Bear Management Rnit between JHH0 and B0J0 (n e G,A8aZ.
2141
5hreatened2  5hreatened Hu@an 
AttacFed2Rilled  %6 
Ani@al 
*6 
In FeedKerL2MiscN2 
OnFnown  In Area2In 3ard2 
*6  In 5ree 
")6 
DicF2InGured2 
?ead Iear 
)6 
Property ?a@a9e2In 
Crops2Apiary 
%%6 

In 7ar8a9e 
"*6 

2142
214$ $igure JA. Bear-related calls types received by $WC in the -ast
2144 Panhandle Bear Management Rnit between JH80 and B0J0 (n e G,A8aZ.

*$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

214&
214' $igure Jb. Bear range and conservation lands ($/AI B00HZ in the -ast Panhandle Bear Management
214( Rnit.

a*4a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

214) Big Bend Bear Management Rnit

214* ;-.r)d& <.$+7)(#@


21&0 Citrus, MiTie, Zilchrist, Hernando, Lafayette, Levy, and Pasco
21&1
21&2 >$6A.A$-&7).+ >)B(W
21&$ Lhe current estimate of bears in the Iig Iend IM\ is below the minimum
21&4 subHoHulation ob`ective, and therefore the management ob`ective is to increase the
21&& current bear subHoHulationK Iears are absent, or nearly so, in much of the unit,
21&' with the eTceHtion of a remnant grouH of bears in ChassahowitbVa COrlando 200$,
21&( Irown 2004D at the southern eTtent of the IM\K Lhe ChassahowitbVa bears have
21&) one of the lowest reHorted levels of genetic variability CMiTon et alK 200(D and are in
21&* need of genetic interchange and connectivityK
21'0
21'1 Minimum subHoHulation ob`ective 200 bears
21'2 Rstimated subHoHulation in Hrimary range 12 !2) bears
21'$ Iears Hotential bear habitat in conserved lands could suHHort 1(4 bears
21'4
21'& 5&6)7&7W
21'' Currently, conserved lands are sufficient to achieve the minimum subHoHulation
21'( ob`ectiveK However, conserved lands are highly fragmentedK Habitat conservation
21') should focus on establishing landscaHe connectivity between the ChassahowitbVa
21'* bears and unoccuHied, ^uality habitat in Withlacoochee State Forest and Zreen
21(0 SwamH Conservation Area and north to the AHalachicola subHoHulation using
21(1 landscaHe connection steHHing stones such as the Lower Suwannee National
21(2 Wildlife Uefuge, Iig Iend WMA, and other conservation landsK 5f landscaHe
21($ connectivity can be imHroved, eTisting conservation lands Hrovide additional
21(4 oHHortunities to connect with occuHied habitat in other IM\sK OccuHied habitat in
21(& Laylor County already connects with the Iig Iend IM\, and managing habitat in
21(' eTisting secondary range to maTimibe bears would Hromote natural reacolonibation

a*&a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

21(( in this IM\K Although eTisting develoHment in the southern Hortion of the Iig
21() Iend IM\ maVes habitat connections tenuous, the ChassahowitbVa bears would
21(* benefit from any connection to the Ocala subHoHulation, even if only from an
21)0 occasional disHersing animalK Such a connection might be Hossible through
21)1 Mar`orie Harris Carr Cross Florida Zreenway State Uecreation and Conservation
21)2 AreaK Lhe Suwannee Uiver and conservation lands toward the Osceola HoHulation
21)$ also may allow occasional disHersalsK
21)4
21)& Habitat needed for 200 bears &4*,)0* acres
21)' Potential Iear Habitat 1,'2&,$$* acres
21)( Potential Iear Habitat in Conservation Lands 4(),042 acres
21)) Lotal area of IM\ 2,*(0,42$ acres
21)*
21*0 3(&r <.'A-&)+7#W
21*1 Iear numbers in this IM\ are low and comHlaints are subse^uently not an issueK
21*2 Lhe threeayear average C200)a2010D of core bear comHlaints was 1&K
21*$
21*4 C?r(&7#W
21*& Lhe ChassahowitbVa bears Cq 20D are genetically isolatedK Parcels of conserved
21*' habitat within the IM\ are fragmented and small, and many are not occuHiedK
21*( Habitat fragmentation in the southern Hortion of the unit causes increased
21*) mortality and limits colonibation of suitable habitatK Coastal develoHment could
21** imHede natural reacolonibation from occurringK Poaching and general intolerance of
2200 bears by residents may be limiting range eTHansion from AHalachicolaK
2201

a*'a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

*$ 
*# 
*# 
"$ 
Vu@8er of Reports 

(&  (' 
"# 
($ 
(# 
%' 
%$ 
)  )  &  )  &  & 
%#  ' 
*  $  +  + 
$  "  " 
#  (  (  # 

3ear 
2202
220$ $igure J8. Bear-related calls received by $WC in the Big Bend Bear
2204 Management Rnit between JHH0 and B0J0 (n e B0BZ.

5hreatened Hu@an 
(6 

5hreatened2 
AttacFed2Rilled 
Ani@al 
$6 
In Area2In 3ard2 
In FeedKerL2MiscN2  In 5ree 
OnFnown  $+6 
%#6 

DicF2InGured2?ead 
Iear 
&6 

In 7ar8a9e 
Property ?a@a9e2  %"6 
In Crops2Apiary 
$6 

220&
220' $igure JH. Bear-related call types received by $WC in the Big Bend
220( Bear Management Rnit between JH80 and B0J0 (n e B0BZ.

a*(a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

220)
220* $igure B0. Bear range and conservation lands ($/AI B00HZ in the Big
2210 Bend Bear Management Rnit.

a*)a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2211 /orth Bear Management Rnit

2212 ;-.r)d& <.$+7)(#@


221$ IaVer, Columbia, Muval, Hamilton, Nassau, Suwannee, and \nion
2214
221& >$6A.A$-&7).+ >)B(W
221' Lhe current estimate of bears in the North IM\ is above the minimum
221( subHoHulation ob`ective, and therefore the management ob`ective is to maintain or
221) increase the current bear subHoHulationK Iears in the Osceola subHoHulation are
221* Hart of a larger HoHulation that includes bears in the OVefenoVee SwamH NWU in
2220 Zeorgia, which has an estimated HoHulation of (00 to )00 bears CZreg Nelms,
2221 Zeorgia MeHartment of Natural Uesources, Hersonal communication, 200*DK
2222
222$ Minimum subHoHulation ob`ective 2'0 bears
2224 Rstimated subHoHulation in Hrimary range 200!$1$ bears
222& Iears Hotential bear habitat in conserved lands could suHHort 2$$ bears
222'
222( 5&6)7&7W
222) Currently, conserved lands are sufficient to suHHort the minimum subHoHulation
222* ob`ectiveK Lhe Osceola subHoHulation is connected genetically and sHatially through
22$0 conserved habitat connectivity with a larger HoHulation in ZeorgiaK Habitat
22$1 conservation efforts should focus on Hreserving the functionality of the landscaHe
22$2 connection with the Ocala subHoHulationK As mentioned in the Iig Iend IM\
22$$ Hrofile, a landscaHe connection south toward the Iig Iend IM\ could aid Heriodic
22$4 disHersals if habitat was traversableK
22$&
22$' Habitat needed for 2'0 bears 4&(,14& acres
22$( Potential Iear Habitat 1,(41,'1& acres
22$) Potential Iear Habitat in Conservation Lands 411,&41 acres
22$* Lotal area of IM\ 2,(*&,1&' acres

a**a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2240
2241 3(&r <.'A-&)+7#W
2242 Iear comHlaints are not currently an issue in the North IM\ and FWC will
224$ attemHt to maintain that at the threeayear average C200)!2010D of eight core bear
2244 comHlaints Her yearK
224&
224' C?r(&7#W
224( CatastroHhic fires and increasing develoHment are threats in the North IM\K
224)

a100a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

+# 
$* 

$# 
*% 
"' 
*# 
Vu@8er of Calls 

"" 
"# 
(% 
(# 
%(  %"  %$  %+ 
%%  %# 
&  ) 
%# 
"  "  * 
%  (  (  % 

3ear 
224*
22&0 $igure BJ. Bear-related calls received by $WC in the /orth Bear
22&1 Management Rnit between JHH0 and B0J0 (n e BHbZ.
22&2

5hreatened2  5hreatened 
AttacFed2Rilled  Hu@an 
Ani@al  %6 
"6 

In FeedKerL2MiscN2 
OnFnown 
+6 
In Area2In 3ard2 
DicF2InGured2?ead  In 5ree 
Iear  '%6 
(6 
In 7ar8a9e 
Property  %#6 
?a@a9e2 
In Crops2Apiary 
'6 

22&$

22&4 $igure BB. Bear-related call types received by $WC in the /orth Bear
22&& Management Rnit between JH80 and B0J0 (n e BHbZ.

a101a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

22&'
22&( $igure BG. Bear range and conservation lands ($/AI B00HZ in the /orth Bear Management Rnit.

a102a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

22&) Central Bear Management Rnit

22&* ;-.r)d& <.$+7)(#@


22'0 Alachua, Iradford, Irevard, Clay, Flagler, LaVe, Marion, Orange, Putnam,
22'1 Seminole, St Yohns, Sumter, and Volusia
22'2
22'$ >$6A.A$-&7).+ >)B(W
22'4 Lhe current estimate of bears in the Central IM\ is above the minimum
22'& subHoHulation ob`ective, and therefore the management ob`ective is to maintain or
22'' increase the current bear subHoHulationK
22'(
22') Minimum subHoHulation ob`ective 1,0$0 bears
22'* Rstimated subHoHulation in Hrimary range )2&!1,22& bears
22(0 Iears Hotential bear habitat in conserved lands could suHHort 1,2($ bears
22(1
22(2 5&6)7&tW
22($ Currently, conserved lands are sufficient to maintain or increase bear numbers
22(4 above the minimum subHoHulation ob`ectiveK Habitat conservation efforts should
22(& focus on maintaining the functionality of the landscaHe connectivity between the
22(' North and Central IM\sK 5n addition, attention should be given to maintaining the
22(( connections within the Ocala subHoHulation, sHecifically between the WeViva and
22() StK Yohns areasK Wildlife crossing structures Hlanned for 5nterstate Highway 4 east
22(* of Meland may increase Hrimary range southeastwardK Further habitat
22)0 conservation efforts to linV the Central IM\ to the Iig Iend IM\ would be an
22)1 imHortant steH in sustaining the ChassahowitbVa bearsK
22)2
22)$ Habitat needed for 1,0$0 bears 1,0'2,&&$ acres
22)4 Potential Iear Habitat $,&$1,($& acres
22)& Potential Iear Habitat in Conservation Lands 1,$10,1*1 acres
22)' Lotal area of IM\ ',***,201 acres

a10$a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

22)(
22)) 3(&r <.'A-&)+7#W
22)* Humanabear interactions in the Central IM\ have increased at a faster rate than
22*0 FWC resources have been available to resHond in the most effective and timely
22*1 manner HossibleK An emHhasis should be Hlaced on reducing bear comHlaints in this
22*2 IM\K Lhe threeayear average C200)!2010D of core bear comHlaints was 1,014K
22*$
22*4 C?r(&7#W
22*& 5ncreasing fre^uency and severity of humanabear interactions are threatsK Habitat
22*' fragmentation has Hotential to isolate Hortions of the Ocala subHoHulationK
22*(

a104a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

(U$## 
(U(#" 

(U### 
%U'%%  %U'($ 
Vu@8er of Calls 

%U*)+  %U+%) 
%U$##  %U"&) 

%U%%* 
))$  &)' 
%U### 
''( 
$#& 
$## 
%)%  "#( %)% 
$+  $&  '*  %##  ''  (#  %& 

3ear 
22*)
22** $igure Ba. Bear-related calls received by $WC in the Central Bear
2$00 Management Rnit between JHH0 and B0J0 (n e J5,aH8Z.
2$01

5hreatened Hu@an 
5hreatened2  %6 
AttacFed2Rilled 
Ani@al 
$6  In Area2In 3ard2 
In 5ree 
"+6 
In FeedKerL2MiscN2 
OnFnown 
'6 
DicF2InGured2?ead 
Iear 
%%6 
In 7ar8a9e 
()6 

Property ?a@a9e2 
In Crops2Apiary 
%(6 

2$02
2$0$ $igure B5. Bear-related call types received by $WC in the Central
2$04 Bear Management Rnit between JH80 and B0J0 (n e J5,aH8Z.

2$0&

a10&a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2$0'
2$0( $igure BA. Bear range and conservation lands ($/AI B00HZ in the
2$0) Central Bear Management Rnit.

a10'a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2$0* South Central Bear Management Rnit

2$10 ;-.r)d& <.$+7)(#@


2$11 Charlotte, Me Soto, Zlades, Hardee, Highlands, Hillsborough, 5ndian Uiver,
2$12 Manatee, Martin, OVeechobee, Osceola, Pinellas, PolV, Sarasota, and St LucieK
2$1$
2$14 >$6A.A$-&7).+ >)B(W
2$1& Lhe current estimate of bears in the South Central IM\ is at the minimum
2$1' subHoHulation ob`ective, and therefore the management ob`ective is to maintain or
2$1( increase the current bear subHoHulationK However, methods used for this estimate
2$1) were not as rigorous as those of other IM\s, and so the needed action is to increase
2$1* the subHoHulation until the FWC receives more Hrecise estimatesK
2$20
2$21 Minimum subHoHulation ob`ective 200 bears
2$22 Rstimated subHoHulation in Hrimary range 1&0!200 bears
2$2$ Iears Hotential bear habitat in conserved lands could suHHort $42 bears
2$24
2$2& 5&6)7&7W
2$2' Lhis is the most fragmented subHoHulation of bears in Florida and the only one that
2$2( does not have a large blocV of Hublic land as its centerK Many Harcels of conserved
2$2) lands are small, isolated and of little value to bearsK Habitat conservation should
2$2* focus on increasing suitable bear habitat by worVing with local agricultural
2$$0 interests and creating or increasing connectivity between islands of habitat within
2$$1 the subHoHulation, Harticularly toward Avon ParV Air Force Uange and the
2$$2 [issimmee Uiver IasinK Rstablishing a landscaHe connection with the Iig CyHress
2$$$ subHoHulation is also a HriorityK
2$$4
2$$&
2$$'
2$$(

a10(a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2$$) Habitat needed for 200 bears &)0,'*) acres


2$$* Potential Iear Habitat 2,4((,(&$ acres
2$40 Potential Iear Habitat in Conservation Lands ))$,2(0 acres
2$41 Lotal area of IM\ ),2**,'1* acres
2$42
2$4$ 3(&r <.'A-&)+7#W
2$44 Iear comHlaints are not currently an issue in this IM\ and FWC will attemHt to
2$4& maintain that at the threeayear average C200)!2010D of ten core bear comHlaints Her
2$4' yearK
2$4(
2$4) C?r(&7#W
2$4* Lhe HoHulation inhabits mostly nonaconservation lands maVing it vulnerable to
2$&0 habitat conversionK Zenetic isolation increases the risV of genetic driftK Significant
2$&1 Harcels of conserved lands are of little value to bears and are not occuHiedK
2$&2

a10)a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2$&$
$# 
*+ 
*$ 
*#  "' 
"$  "$ 
"% 
Vu@8er of Calls 

"#  "#  "# 


('  (' 
(* 
($ 
(# 
(#  %)  %)  %' 

%$  %" 
&  )  &  &  )  %% 
%# 
$  ( 

3ear 
2$&4
2$&& $igure Bb. Bear-related calls received by $WC in the South Central
2$&' Bear Management Rnit between JHH0 and B0J0 (n e aBHZ.

5hreatened Hu@an 
5hreatened2  #6 
AttacFed2Rilled 
Ani@al 
)6 

In Area2In 3ard2 
In FeedKerL2MiscN2  In 5ree 
OnFnown  **6 
&6 

DicF2InGured2 
?ead Iear 
%*6 
In 7ar8a9e 
%&6 
Property ?a@a9e2 
In Crops2Apiary 
+6 
2$&(
2$&)
2$&* $igure B8. Bear-related call types received by $WC in the South Central
2$'0 Bear Management Rnit between JH80 and B0J0 (n e aBHZ.

a10*a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2$'1
2$'2 $igure BH. Bear range and conservation lands ($/AI B00HZ in the South Central Bear Management
2$'$ Rnit.

a110a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2$'4 South Bear Management Rnit

2$'& ;-.r)d& <.$+7)(#@


2$'' Iroward, Collier, Hendry, Lee, MiamiaMade, Monroe, and Palm Ieach
2$'(
2$') >$6A.A$-&7).+ >)B(W
2$'* Lhe current estimate of bears in the South IM\ is above the minimum
2$(0 subHoHulation ob`ective, and therefore the management ob`ective is to maintain or
2$(1 increase the current bear subHoHulationK
2$(2
2$($ Minimum subHoHulation ob`ective (00 bears
2$(4 Rstimated subHoHulation in Hrimary range &1'!)() bears
2$(& Iears Hotential bear habitat in conserved lands could suHHort '22 bears
2$('
2$(( 5&6)7&7W
2$() Currently, conserved lands are sufficient to maintain or increase bear numbers
2$(* above the minimum subHoHulation ob`ectiveK Habitat conservation should focus on
2$)0 establishing a landscaHe connection northward with the ZladesdHighlands
2$)1 subHoHulationK Habitat and connectivity efforts for bears should be combined with
2$)2 similar initiatives for Florida HanthersK
2$)$
2$)4 Habitat needed for (00 bears 1,$22,014 acres
2$)& Potential Iear Habitat 1,'04,2$2 acres
2$)' Potential Iear Habitat in Conservation Lands 1,1($,(&' acres
2$)( Lotal area of IM\ ',(&',(11 acres
2$))
2$)* 3(&r <.'A-&)+7#W
2$*0 Iear comHlaints are low in this IM\ but efforts to reduce them in locally, acute
2$*1 areas are neededK Lhe threeayear average C200)!2010D of core bear comHlaints was
2$*2 &$K

111
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2$*$
2$*4 C?r(&7#W
2$*& Habitat fragmentation and degradation from residential and roadway develoHment
2$*' will liVely further isolate subHoHulationsK 5ncreasing fre^uency and severity of
2$*( humanabear interactions also may imHact conservation of bearsK 5n addition,
2$*) Hotential sea level rise due to climate change could reduce the amount of available
2$** habitat to bears CWhittle 200*DK
2400

112
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

2401
($# 

%&& 
(## 
%+* 
Vu@8er of Reports 

%$# 
%"# 
%#$  %#' 
%##  &#  &" 
)"  '*  '+ 
+& 
$+ 
$# 
(' 
%& 
%(  %)  )  %"  ' 
$  $ 

3ear 
2402
240$ $igure G0. Bear-related calls received by $WC in the South Bear
2404 Management Rnit between JHH0 and B0J0 (n e J,GA0Z.
240&
5hreatened Hu@an 
5hreatened2  %6 
AttacFed2Rilled 
Ani@al 
)6 
In Area2In 3ard2 
In FeedKerL2MiscN2  In 5ree 
OnFnown  ")6 
%#6 

DicF2InGured2 
?ead Iear 
*6 
In 7ar8a9e 
Property ?a@a9e2  "%6 
In Crops2Apiary 
)6 

240'
240( $igure GJ. Bear-related call types received by $WC in the South Bear
240) Management Rnit between JH80 and B0J0 (n e J,GA0Z.

11$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter a: Conservation $ocus Areas

240*
2410 $igure GB. Bear range and conservation lands ($/AI B00HZ in the South
2411 Bear Management Rnit.

114
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter 5: "egulation and -nforcement

2412 CHAPT-" 5: "-GRLATIO/ A/D -/$O"C-M-/T

241$ "egulations

2414 Lhe ma`or threats to long term survival of bears are habitat loss and
241& fragmentation and uncontrolled humanacaused mortalityK 5n order to minimibe
241' those threats, meet the ob`ectives of this management Hlan, and ensure that the
241( bear will not again be classified as a threatened sHecies, a new rule is HroHosed
241) CAHHendiT VDK Lhis rule will Hrohibit unauthoribed taVe of bears and establish the
241* management Hlan as the guidance document for future habitat conservation and
2420 HrotectionK

2421 Lhe HroHosed rule maVes it unlawful to taVe, Hossess, in`ure, shoot, wound,
2422 traH, collect, or sell bears or their HartsK Ziven the Hotential for illegal trade in bear
242$ Harts and bear hides, the level of sHecificity and detail in this rule are considered
2424 necessary to aid in successful enforcement and HrosecutionK Lhe HroHosed rule
242& Hrovides criteria that FWC considers in the authoribation of intentional taVe that
242' will allow the continuation of local governments and other Hartners assisting FWC
242( in bear managementK Lhe rule also affirms that FWC will continue to engage with
242) Hrivate landowners and regulating agencies to guide future land use so that it is
242* comHatible with the goal and ob`ectives of this HlanK

24$0 5n order to ensure that the bear remains off 85orida’s Lhreatened SHecies list,
24$1 sufficient ^uantity of habitat that is interconnected to allow for interaction between
24$2 bear subHoHulations will be essential to suHHort stable or increasing bear numbersK
24$$ Lo accomHlish this aim, the rule ensures that FWC will continue to worV with State
24$4 regulatory agencies to avoid, minimibe, and mitigate imHacts to bear habitat from
24$& land develoHmentK FWC currently comments on land use changes to reduce
24$' negative imHacts on wildlife sHeciesK Lhere are a number of statutes and rules that
24$( re5ate to 8WC’s ro5e in <ro=idin7 .o--ents to re7C5atory a7en.ies( 8WC has and
24$) will continue to Hrovide comments and technical assistance regarding bears and
24$* bear habitat to State regulatory agencies such as the MeHartment of Rconomic

11&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter 5: "egulation and -nforcement

2440 OHHortunity, water management districts, the MeHartment of Rnvironmental


2441 Protection, counties and municiHalitiesK

2442 Section 20K$$1 of Florida Statutes CFKSKD Hrovides FWC with commenting
244$ aCthority and re[Cires that .o--ents @e >f@ased on .redi@le, factual, scientific
2444 dataKK(?K Whi5e statCtes -aGe .5ear that 8WC’s .o--ents are not @indin7 on the
244& regulatory agencies, they also indicate that comments from FWC are to be
244' considered for consistency with the Florida Coastal Management Program under
244( subsections $($K42), $)0K2$, and 40$K&0(K

244) Lhe goal and ob`ectives of the Hlan will be considered in develoHment of agency
244* technical assistance, best management Hractices, and formal commentsK
24&0 Accordingly, in those areas where the bear HoHulation is not meeting the stated
24&1 conservation ob`ectives, FWC will evaluate the HroHosed Hro`ect on how it would
24&2 imHact meeting the ob`ectives of that sHecific Iear Management \nitK

24&$ Penalties

24&4 Lhe Florida Constitution Hrovides that Henalties for violating FWC rules are
24&& established by the Legislature, which has been done in Part V555 of Florida Statutes
24&' CFKSKD ChaHter $(*K Most relevant for this sub`ect, r$(*K401, FKSK, lays out a tiered
24&( system under which various violations are grouHed and the aHHlicable Henalty is
24&) HrescribedK Lhe tiers are designated as Levels One through Four, with Level One
24&* e^uating to noncriminal infractions for which civil Henalties can be levied by a court
24'0 of law and Level Four reHresenting those violations the Legislature has determined
24'1 warrant Hunishment as a third degree felonyK

24'2 \nless otherwise sHecifically Hrovided for, violations of FWC rules or orders
24'$ constitute a Level Lwo violationK Lherefore, violation of the new rule above is
24'4 considered a Level Lwo violation and as such is a misdemeanorK Lhe sHecific fines
24'& anddor Hrison time is deHendent on the sHecifics of the case and records Cif anyD of
24'' Hrior violationsK Zenerally, the Henalty violation of this rule is less severe than the
24'( Henalties for intentionally wounding or Villing a threatened sHecies, which is a

11'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter 5: "egulation and -nforcement

24') felonyK 5t is not anticiHated that the change in Henalty for intentionally Villing or
24'* wounding a bear from the Hresent felony to a misdemeanor will have a significant
24(0 imHact on illegal taVe of bearsK 5n fact, in some `urisdictions it may Hrove to be
24(1 easier to successfully Hrosecute a misdemeanor violation under the new rules given
24(2 that some state attorneys are reluctant to Hrosecute for a Hossible felony convictionK
24($ 5f there is evidence that the reduced Henalty is hindering the Hrotection of bears, or
24(4 undermining achieving the goals of this Hlan, FWC will worV with staVeholders to
24(& address Hossible statutory changes if they are deemed necessary and aHHroHriateK

24(' -nforcement

24(( FWC’s Mivision of Law Rnforcement CLRD has the Hrimary resHonsibility for
24() enforcing conservation laws related to bearsK 5llegal intentional taVe of bears as
24(* defined in this Hlan and under the HroHosed bear rule could include such activities
24)0 as Hoaching, shooting, chasing with dogs, illegal Hossession, or trafficVing in bear
24)1 HartsK FWC LR can worV cooHeratively with other sworn officers from counties or
24)2 municiHalities in investigating and Hrosecuting such casesK FWC will worV with
24)$ local law enforcement officials to Hrovide training and information regarding
24)4 enforcement of the blacV bear ruleK

24)& Lhe Hrohibition against feeding bears Hresents a Harticular challenge for
24)' enforcementK Lhe HurHose of this rule is to reduce the liVelihood of conflict with
24)( bears and the creation of Hotential human safety risVsK Consistent and fair
24)) enforcement of regulations is imHortant in helHing the Hublic and local governments
24)* share resHonsibility for reducing humanabear conflictsK However, this can be a very
24*0 challenging and at times difficult Hrocess to accomHlishK Lhe Vey is good
24*1 communication and training by FWC for the involved agenciesK Lhe establishment
24*2 of agency sub`ect matter eTHerts that will worV with and share resHonsibility with
24*$ FWC under this Hlan is also imHortantK Over time, sound Hractices should be
24*4 established and community conflicts resolvedK

11(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter 5: "egulation and -nforcement

24*& PeoHle continue to intentionally and unintentionally feed bears, demonstrating


24*' a need to develoH more stringent and immediate Henalties for residents whose
24*( actions attract bearsK Rffective and consistent enforcement, whether it comes from
24*) city, county or State regulations, will be Haramount in achieving comHliance at a
24** level that will successfully reduce negative humanabear interactionsK 5f this is not
2&00 Hossible through the eTisting agency feeding rule CFKAKCK ')Aa4K001m$nD, changes in
2&01 law enforcement and regulations need to be consideredK City and county ordinances
2&02 will be needed to ensure the level of resHonsibility by the Hublic is both recognibed
2&0$ and ade^uate to deter bears from seeVing garbage or other attractantsK PerhaHs
2&04 eTisting regulations through local sanitation deHartments or Hublic health entities
2&0& .an @e Csed as we55( Pdditiona55yB 8WC’s Wi5d5ife Alert Hotline C1a)))a404a$*22D
2&0' should be more widely advertised for HeoHle to reHort individuals in their
2&0( community whose actions attract bearsK 5ncreasing awareness with a strong
2&0) outreach effort and accountability Hractices will be very critical in convincing area
2&0* residents to recognibe their role in reducing humanabear conflicts as wellK
2&10 Rstablishing an initial Hhase in the enforcement HhilosoHhy is also Vey to educating
2&11 individuals with a fair warning system, followed by a management Hractice to
2&12 increase the level of enforcement based on the violation and the true intent of the
2&1$ violatorK Additionally, direct and constant coordination with the local `urisdiction
2&14 and the `udicial courts system with a comHlete understanding of the regulations,
2&1& enforcement Hractices, and Henalties are Haramount in the accountability efforts
2&1' needed to achieve effective, communityaoriented enforcement HracticesK

2&1( Permitting $ramework

2&1) FWC currently issues the following bear related Hermits and licensesW 1D
2&1* Scientific CollectiondUesearch CSalvageD, 2D Permanent Possession of CaHtive
2&20 Wildlifealisted sHecies, $D Wildlife RThibit, 4D Uehabilitation Permits, and &D
2&21 Aversive Conditioning and HabingK Lhose Hermits will continue to be issued under
2&22 this HlanK

11)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter 5: "egulation and -nforcement

2&2$ Permits and licenses associated with bears are Hrocessed and issued through
2&24 several Hrograms within FWC and therefore are maintained in seHarate databasesK
2&2& Lhis Hrocess creates confusion for users and administrators of these Hermits and
2&2' licensesK Additionally, several of the licenses that should be linVed to Hermits are
2&2( not, which creates further confusionK A need eTists to review, refine and uHdate the
2&2) eTisting Holicies, Hrocedures, and guidelines for Hermits and licenses related to
2&2* bearsK

2&$0 Permits and licenses related to bears should be consolidated where aHHlicable
2&$1 and eliminated where feasibleK Procedures should be develoHed that outline how to
2&$2 Hermit anddor license individuals or entities both internal and eTternal to FWCK
2&$$ Additionally, Hermit and license timetables, eTHiration dates, insHections, and
2&$4 reviews should be reviewed and synchronibed where feasibleK New methodologies
2&$& should be considered in an effort to encomHass needed comHonents for Hermitting or
2&$' licensingK Lhese may include shifting staff resources to allow actions that have a
2&$( clear and desired conservation benefit and value, recognibing new Hermits or
2&$) licenses needed CeKgK, deHredation HermitsD, and designating a fee scheduleK FWC
2&$* has initiated a Hermit and licensing web aHHlication system that could minimibe
2&40 FWC staffing re^uirements and Hrovide oHtimal customer serviceK Rfforts such as
2&41 the webabased system could streamline the beararelated Hermit and license
2&42 Hrocesses, there@y redC.in7 8WC sta44 ti-e and i-<ro=in7 the end Cser’s
2&4$ HersHective of the system and the agencyK

2&44 An additional need is to Hrovide FWC staff, contracted individuals, and


2&4& resHonse Hartners with training so that FWC Holicies and Hrotocols are
2&4' administered correctly and uniformly statewideK Lhese actions may re^uire the
2&4( creation of Hermits or licenses to involve contractors and resHonse Hartners to assist
2&4) FWC with resHonding to incidents involving bears and develoHing Iear Smart
2&4* CommunitiesK

2&&0

2&&1

11*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter A: Implementation Strategy

2&&2 CHAPT-" A: IMPL-M-/TATIO/ ST"AT-GT

2&&$ Lhe bear management Hlan is a Hlan for all of Florida, not `ust FWCK ComHleT
2&&4 natural resource Hroblems cannot be solved by one government agency, or by
2&&& government aloneK Nonagovernmental organibations, business interests, and the
2&&' citibens of Florida will Hlay a significant role in imHlementing the bear management
2&&( HlanK While 8WC’s Hear Mana7e-ent Tro7ra- wi55 @e res<onsi@5e 4or o=erseeing
2&&) the imHlementation of this Hlan, all of FWC must coordinate and worV together as
2&&* well as with others outside the agency for successful imHlementation of this
2&'0 management HlanK

2&'1 Implementation Schedule

2&'2 Lhis Hlan will commence the year in which it is adoHted by FWC and was
2&'$ designed to be in use for ten years( *he <5an’s 7oa5 and o@]e.ti=es CChaHter 4D are
2&'4 long term_ therefore, actions may be ad`usted to eTtend the life of the Hlan if it still
2&'& meets the state’s bear management needs at the end of the tenayear HeriodK

2&'' All of the actions located in ChaHter 4 have attached timeframes from one to ten
2&'( yearsK Lhe action tables indicate the yearCsD in which the action should be
2&') imHlemented and the anticiHated comHletion year CLables &, (, *, and 10DK Some of
2&'* the actions are on a recurring schedule and will taVe Hlace throughout the
2&(0 timeframeK Many of the actions deHend on the comHletion of other actions before
2&(1 they can be imHlementedK Actions suHHorting the Habitat Ob`ective, for eTamHle,
2&(2 are aimed at identifying functioning bear corridors between IM\sK Once these
2&($ areas have been identified and Hrioritibed, other actions may be imHlemented to
2&(4 investigate the conservation status of those areas, conduct outreach to Hrivate
2&(& landowners, and eTHlore long term conservation actionsK Not all of the actions
2&(' identified in this Hlan can be initiated or worVed on simultaneouslyK 5t is imHortant
2&(( to note that many of the actions which can be imHlemented with eTisting resources
2&() could be enhanced and comHleted sooner if other resources were made availableK
2&(* While fully establishing and worVing with IIAZs in each IM\ will re^uire other

120
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter A: Implementation Strategy

2&)0 resources, for eTamHle, there are some comHonents of establishing these grouHs that
2&)1 can be accomHlished in a few IM\s with eTisting resources CLable 10DK

2&)2 Current "esources for Implementation

2&)$ FWC has been successful in bear conservation efforts with relatively modest
2&)4 resources, and therefore continued Hrogress will be made without the need for
2&)& significant changes in resourcesK 8WC’s Hear Management and Uesearch Programs
2&)' have four fullatime emHloyees and three temHorary Hartatime emHloyees that worV
2&)( solely on blacV bears with an oHerating budget of aHHroTimately l14$,000 Her yearK
2&)) Lhe Iear Management Program also has an internshiH Hrogram that hosts 1& to 20
2&)* students from local universities each year to comHlete management Hro`ects,
2&*0 Herform outreach, and assist in database maintenanceK Zrants from the Conserve
2&*1 Wildlife license Hlate fund suHHort the Iear UesHonse Program, which is a grouH of
2&*2 10 contracted, Hrivate individuals who assist with humanabear conflict
2&*$ managementK 5n addition to the Iear UesHonse Program, the Conserve Wildlife
2&*4 license Hlate also has funded imHortant bear management and research Hro`ects
2&*& over the yearsK

2&*' Outside of the bear Hrograms, there are over 40 FWC emHloyees who are
2&*( available to resHond to humanabear conflictsK Lhe Northwest Uegion, for eTamHle,
2&*) currently sHends the e^uivalent to one man year sHread across 14 staff dealing with
2&** bears in some caHacityK FWC also emHloys five temHorary wildlife assistance
2'00 biologists to assist the thousands of HeoHle who call FWC each year with ^uestions
2'01 or concerns about bears and other wildlifeK Lhose Hositions form an information
2'02 hub between the office and field Hersonnel, relaying information to senior staff and
2'0$ disHatching emHloyees when necessaryK

2'04 "esource Considerations

2'0& Lhe temHorary and Hartatime staff currently involved in bear management
2'0' activities Hrovides critical services to 8WC’s @ear <ro7ra-sK Lhose Hositions are
2'0( currently funded either from Conserve Wildlife license Hlate funds or state trust

121
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter A: Implementation Strategy

2'0) funds, neither of which are dedicated to bearsK Lhe undedicated funding sources
2'0* and high turnover rates for those Hositions create a challenge for FWCK 5f
2'10 additional or redirected resources were available, changing those Hositions from
2'11 temHorary Hartatime to fullatime would increase the Hositions’ `ob security and
2'12 benefits, which could reduce turnover and allow FWC to attract and maintain
2'1$ eTHerienced staff in these imHortant HositionsK Similarly, the contractors hired
2'14 under the Iear UesHonse Program do not have a dedicated funding sourceK Lhe
2'1& Hrogram has been funded since 200* with Conserve Wildlife license Hlate grants,
2'1' but has no assurances that those funds will remain available for this HrogramK

2'1( FWC is fortunate it can rely on such a large number of staff for humanabear
2'1) conflict resHonseK However, those staff members have multiHle `ob resHonsibilities
2'1* and, under the current agency structure, cannot be eTHected to dedicate a large
2'20 amount of their time on bear management activities on a regular basisK Rfficient
2'21 imHlementation of the Hlan could be best served by having several staff with a large
2'22 Hortion, if not all, of their time dedicated to bear management Hositioned
2'2$ throughout the stateK Lhe Hlan calls for the creation of seven Iear Management
2'24 \nits CIM\D across the state to accommodate the different characteristics and
2'2& issues of each of the main bear subHoHulationsK Lhe Hlan HroHoses the creation of a
2'2' IIAZ for each of the seven IM\s, which would be a forum within which interested
2'2( staVeholder grouHs could meet with FWC and Hrovide their inHut on bear
2'2) management issuesK An FWC Hosition in each IM\ with a significant amount of
2'2* time dedicated to bear management could focus on localibed management issues
2'$0 and collaborating with IIAZsK

2'$1 Lhere are a number of ways FWC could redirect internal Hrogrammatic
2'$2 resources to accomHlish effective Hlan imHlementation without a significant increase
2'$$ in resourcesK FWC could decide, for eTamHle, to consolidate bear management
2'$4 activities into a few staff HositionsK Lhose Hositions would have an increase in time
2'$& dedicated to bear management while significantly reducing the amount of time the
2'$' ma`ority of other staff sHends on bear management activitiesK Lhis aHHroach would

122
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter A: Implementation Strategy

2'$( taVe advantage of eTisting eTHerience with the local area and bear management
2'$) issues while freeing uH many more emHloyees to focus on their worVloads associated
2'$* with their assigned wildlife management areasK An alternative strategy is to use a
2'40 matriT management aHHroach, where staff suHervision changes deHending on what
2'41 activities they are conductingK An FWC staff Herson conducting a Hrescribed burn,
2'42 for eTamHle, would be suHervised under the Lerrestrial Habitat Conservation and
2'4$ Uestoration SectionK When that same Herson is traHHing a bear, they would be
2'44 suHervised under the Iear Management ProgramK Lhis aHHroach allows staff to
2'4& comHlete a variety tasVs with confidence that their suHervisor will have the
2'4' eTHertise to guide themK

2'4( MeHending uHon the level of imHlementation, the actions identified in the Hlan
2'4) could cost uH to l200,000 to l$00,000 additional to the eTisting annual oHerating
2'4* budget for the bear HrogramsK Lhose costs could be met using additional funds or
2'&0 from reHrioritibing eTisting funding within FWCK Lhe action tables indicate which
2'&1 actions can be imHlemented with eTisting resources and which may re^uire other
2'&2 resources CLables &, (, *, and 10DK A fully detailed budget based on this Hlan will be
2'&$ develoHed at a later date_ however, the Hlan offers four eTamHles of action items,
2'&4 one from each of the four ob`ectives, that would benefit from other resources CLable
2'&& 11DK Rach Hro`ect has a firm basis to estimate costs and is also a high Hriority
2'&' actionK Costs are estimated over the tenayear timeframe of the Hlan, although not
2'&( all Hro`ects would be active in each of the ten yearsK
2'&) Lhere are several avenues of securing additional resources outside of FWC if
2'&* deemed aHHroHriate for Hlan imHlementationK Lhe first steH is to HroHose a
2''0 comHrehensive budget with estimates on both staff and resources needed for full
2''1 imHlementation of the actions listed in this HlanK Lhe Hlan would Hrovide a
2''2 blueHrint with which a detailed HroHosal can be built that will be Hart of more
2''$ formal re^uests to eTternal funding sourcesK Lhe aHHroach most liVely to be
2''4 successful in obtaining funds in the near term would be seeVing various foundation
2''& grants for sHecific bear management and research Hro`ectsK 5mHlementation of long

12$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter A: Implementation Strategy

2''' Table JJ. Ten-year cost estimates for one action item from each
2''( ob\ective in the Draft Bear Management Plan that would benefit
2'') from other resources.
Ob\ective Description Ten-Tear
Cost -stimate
PoHulation SubHoHulation abundance estimates a l'00,000
5dentify and Hrioritibe landscaHe
Habitat l100,000
connections among subHoHulations
Conflict Iear UesHonse Program annual
l&00,000
Management contractor costs
Rducation and 5dentify, recruit and assist communities
l(0,000
Outreach in becoming Iear Smart Communities b
2''* aK Lhere are five subHoHulations that will not have had abundance estimates within two years of the
2'(0 Hlan aHHroval, and each estimate costs l120,000 and taVes three years to comHleteK
2'(1 bK 5mHlementation of the Iear Smart Community Hrogram assumes FWC can identify four candidate

2'(2 areas and will assist at least one community in meeting the criteria in each of the seven IM\sK
2'($
2'(4 term management or research Hro`ects described in this Hlan, however, would only
2'(& be sustainable if the funds were dedicated in multiayear grantsK For longaterm
2'(' Hro`ects and sustained Hrograms, FWC could submit a funding re^uest for increased
2'(( legislative sHending authority for bear conservationK
2'() FWC also can seeV greater collaboration with Hublic and Hrivate Hartners to
2'(* comHlete actions currently lacVing outside suHHortK FWC can imHlement sHecific
2')0 actions increasing eTisting eEterna5 resoCr.es 4or 8WC’s Hartners in bear
2')1 conservationK FWC can develoH a strategy to increase sales of the Conserve Wildlife
2')2 license Hlate, for eTamHle, or steer corHorate sHonsorshiHs, endowments, and
2')$ donations to the Wi5d5i4e 8oCndation o4 85orida’s Dbear account’K Lhese actions
2')4 center on creating formal HartnershiHs to Herform certain actions and finding
2')& funding to imHlement themK Mefenders of Wildlife, for eTamHle, has been a very
2')' active Hartner with FWC on many occasions to assist with Hro`ects, but these funds
2')( are, of course, not dedicated and therefore cannot be relied on to suHHort regular
2')) conservation activitiesK FWC can also attemHt to match local sources of funding
2')* with localibed bear conservation activities, liVe the Iear Smart Community
2'*0 Hrogram CChaHter 4, Rducation and OutreachDK

124
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter A: Implementation Strategy

2'*1 Coordination with Other -fforts

2'*2 Iears re^uire large areas for sustainable HoHulations, thus their needs
2'*$ overlaH with hundreds of other sHecies and therefore serve as an umbrella species
2'*4 in habitat conservation effortsK Coordination across various Hlanning and
2'*& conservation efforts will be critical to ensure effective use of limited resourcesK Lhe
2'*' additional 1K$ million acres of bear habitat needed to meet the minimum HoHulation
2'*( ob`ectives identified in this Hlan CLable 'D falls well within the range of acreages
2'*) designated in other Florida Hlanning efforts CLable 12DK Many to nearly all of these
2'** bear habitat acres overlaH with those in other HlansK Lhe ZoHher Lortoise
2(00 Management Plan CFWC 200(D, for eTamHle, calls for the Hreservation of an
2(01 additional '1&,000 acres of habitatK Lhis acreage, while not eTHlicitly demarcated,
2(02 falls largely within the same areas needed for bearsK Careful consideration should
2(0$ be given to overlaH Hriorities of HroHosed lands to maTimibe resoCr.es( 8WC’s bear
2(04 Hrograms, as currently staffed and funded, can Herform some of the necessary
2(0& duties, but more resources will be needed to fully coordinate with landscaHe
2(0' conservation endeavorsK

2(0( Table JB. Landscape-scale wildlife habitat planning efforts in $lorida.


Total
Total
-ffort [ Plan Private
Acres
Acres
FL Panther Protection Program CPrivate effort for SW FLD 1*&,000 1&0,000a
FWC ZoHher Lortoise Management Plan 1,*&&,000 '1&,000
Florida Forever 2,00*,1)2 2,00*,1)2
FWC draft IlacV Iear Management Plan (,&$0,&$' 1,2'$,*44
FWC Closing the ZaHs UeHort 11,(00,000 4,)20,000
FWC 5ntegrated Wildlife Habitat UanVing System 14,'2),'$* ',0&4,0)2
LNC Florida Assessment 1&,)'1,$') ',*01,'22
Critical Lands i Waters 5dentification Pro`ect CP1iP2D 2&,((4,((0 11,$(),4)(
Zreenways and Lrails Rcological NetworV 2&,'01,2&0 14,'1&,212
2(0) aK Private lands with no more than 4&,000 acres develoHment and at least 1&0,000 acres conservationK

12&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter b: Anticipated Impacts

2(0* CHAPT-" b: A/TICIPAT-D IMPACTS

2(10 Humans and bears have interacted with one another throC7hoCt 85orida’s
2(11 historyK 85orida’s bears generally try to avoid contact with HeoHle but encounters do
2(12 o..Cr as a resC5t o4 @ears’ large home ranges and adaHtable behavior, and the landa
2(1$ use and lifestyle decisions of HeoHleK Iears are charismatic animals and many
2(14 HeoHle en`oy the oHHortunity to view bears near their homesK However, the
2(1& develoHment of residential communities in close HroTimity to bear HoHulations and
2(1' eTHanding bear range has created the Hotential for increased humanabear
2(1( interactionsK Negative humanabear interactions can occur when Hreferred bear
2(1) foods are Hlanted or maintained near homes, and when human food is made easily
2(1* available to bearsK 5nteractions are more liVely when natural bear foods become
2(20 scarce, such as during years of drought or mast failureK Lhis management Hlan
2(21 addresses managing the imHacts of society on bears as well as the effects bears have
2(22 on HeoHleK 5n this section of the Hlan, the social, economic, and ecological imHacts of
2(2$ imHlementing or not imHlementing this management Hlan will be consideredK

2(24 Social Impacts

2(2& PeoHle value wildlife, including bears, for many reasons and their HersHectives
2(2' vary according to individual interests C[ellert 1*)0DK Lhe overall imHact of bears on
2(2( society deHends on how individuals with differing interests Herceive and eTHerience
2(2) humanabear interactions C[ellert 1**4DK
2(2* Originally, bears in Florida were valued strictly for Hractical reasonsK Lhey
2($0 were used for their meat, hides, and other Hroducts but otherwise treated as vermin
2($1 because HeoHle considered bears a threat to livestocV and a comHetitor with humans
2($2 for foodK *his =iew<oint do-inated <eo<5e’s intera.tions with @ears well into the
2($$ 20th century and liVely resulted in severe reductions in the abundance of bearsK 5n
2($4 the second half of the 20th century, however, several factors led to a more Hositive
2($& attitude towards wildlife and Hredators in HarticularW a shift in the economy Cfrom
2($' unsustainable to sustainableD_ greater understanding of the ecological imHortance of
2($( large carnivores CI`erVe and [altenborn 1***D_ and the listing of bears as a

12'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter b: Anticipated Impacts

2($) threatened sHecies CZFC 1*(4DK MesHite this overall shift in the Hublic oHinion of
2($* bears, a wide range of attitudes towards bears still eTists in Florida because of
2(40 <eo<5e’s di44erin7 eE<erien.es with @ears and =aryin7 interests in the- CMiller et alK
2(41 200)DK Ialancing such viewHoints in a management Hlan is challengingK
2(42 *he 4re[Cen.y and natCre o4 a <erson’s intera.tions with @ears in45Cen.es their
2(4$ oHinion of those interactions as good or bad, and ultimately leads to an overall
2(44 Hositive or negative view towards bears C[ellert 1**4DK For eTamHle, a beeVeeHer
2(4& with an aHiary near a forest might have low Hersonal tolerance for bears, if bears
2(4' caused severe and costly damage to the bee yardK On the other hand, urban
2(4( residents traveling to the same forest to view blacV bears might Herceive the bear
2(4) HoHulation as too small if a bear is not seen while visitingK Metermining the social
2(4* carrying capacity for bears re^uires balancing benefits HeoHle gain from bears
2(&0 against human tolerance for negative humanabear interactionsK Lower tolerance for
2(&1 bears in areas of higher human HoHulations will limit bear HoHulations before
2(&2 available resources become a limiting factor or the biological carrying capacity
2(&$ is reached C[ellert 1**4DK MeveloHment of management ob`ectives to meet the social
2(&4 carrying caHacity is sub`ective and involves a combination of social, economic,
2(&& Holitical and ecological HersHectivesK
2(&' 5mHlementation of this Hlan should result in fewer negative humanabear
2(&( interactions and a higher social carrying caHacity for bearsK Uesidents may have a
2(&) sense of ownershiH and increased resHonsibility for bears in their area if they are
2(&* allowed to Hrovide inHut into local bear management activities through Hrograms
2('0 such as IIAZsK Habitat conservation efforts on behalf of bears will Hrovide many
2('1 additional direct benefits to residents while negative humanabear interactions
2('2 should decline as a result of changes in waste management Holicies by local
2('$ governments and the Hotential relocation of bears from areas of dense human
2('4 HoHulationsK Rducation and outreach regarding living with bears is critical to the
2('& success of this HlanK Although there has never been a life threatening in`ury or
2('' Hredatory attacV by a blacV bear on a human in Florida, there have been reHorted
2('( incidents of bears biting or scratching HeoHleK 5n those incidents, the bears were

12(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter b: Anticipated Impacts

2(') defending cubs, food, or themselvesK Rducating the Hublic about bear behavior and
2('* what HeoHle can do to reduce bear activity in their neighborhoods should increase
2((0 Hublic safetyK
2((1 5f, however, the management Hractices outlined in this Hlan are not
2((2 imHlemented, there is a high liVelihood of increasing negative interactions between
2(($ bears and HeoHleK Without an outreach camHaign to educate HeoHle on successfully
2((4 living near bears, human food will continue to be available to bears, thus creating
2((& Hotential Hublic safety issuesK 5f current trends continue the number of negative
2((' humanabear interactions may increase and could lead to a diminished oHinion of
2((( bears by FloridiansK 5f residents are not allowed to be involved in local bear
2(() management decisions through Hractices such as IIAZs, there could be a lower
2((* social carrying caHacityK

2()0 -conomic Impacts

2()1 Positive economic benefits of bears may include the stimulation of local
2()2 economies near bears and conservation easements for owners of occuHied bear
2()$ habitat, while negative economic imHacts include HroHerty damage Cincluding
2()4 damage caused by vehicleabear collisionsD and the cost of bear managementK
2()& Rducational events such as the Florida IlacV Iear Festival in \matilla attract
2()' visitors to rural areasK Such festivals can boost the local economy by Hroviding
2()( oHHortunities for vendors to sell merchandise and Hromote their businessesK Ieara
2()) related activities can lead to the creation of Hrivate sector `obs and increase the
2()* sales of e^uiHment, food, fuel, and lodging at local businesses, which then Hrovides
2(*0 revenue to the State via sales taTesK
2(*1 Lhe designation of bear scenic byways may further develoH local economies by
2(*2 increasing the standing of an area and attracting more visitorsK 5n February 200),
2(*$ Hortions of State Uoads 40 and 1* were designated as the Florida IlacV Iear Scenic
2(*4 Iyway through a cooHerative effort among Marion, LaVe, Putnam, and Volusia
2(*& county government officials, Ocala National Forest staff, and businesses, land
2(*' owners, and local residents along the corridorK Iyways such as this are eligible to

12)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter b: Anticipated Impacts

2(*( receive Federal funding for the construction of informational ViosVs and
2(*) interHretive areas, and to aHHly for status as a National Scenic HighwayK
2(** Another benefit of following the habitat conservation and management
2)00 recommendations in this Hlan may be the economic stimulation of local communities
2)01 through bear viewing oHHortunitiesK PeoHle en`oy visiting areas that afford
2)02 oHHortunities to see bearsK Surveys show visitors in the Zreat SmoVy Mountains
2)0$ National ParV Hreferred seeing a bear to seeing any other wildlife sHecies
2)04 CIurghardt et alK 1*(2DK Lhis attraction of HeoHle to bears can lead to Hositive
2)0& economic imHactsK 5n Florida, ecotourism near blacV bear HoHulations may
2)0' sti-C5ate rCra5 e.ono-ies @y attra.tin7 a <ortion o4 the Itate’s annCa5 ZS -i55ion
2)0( tourists CVisit Florida 200*DK
2)0) 5mHlementation of this Hlan also will result in economic benefits for large
2)0* landowners of suitable bear habitat or who have bears on their landK FWC and
2)10 members of IIAZs can assist landowners with negotiating conservation easements
2)11 CtaT saving Hrograms associated with VeeHing their land in a natural stateDK
2)12 Iears may be a financial liability when they interact negatively with humans,
2)1$ Harticularly if the interaction results in HroHerty damageK ProHerty damage was
2)14 reHorted in aHHroTimately 11 Hercent of comHlaints to FWC from 1*)0 through 2010
2)1& CFWC unHublished dataDK Vehicleabear collisions are of Harticular concern because
2)1' they not only result in HroHerty damage, but can also Hose a safety issueK
2)1( Conservation actions such as warning signs, slower Hosted sHeed limits, and wildlife
2)1) underHasses reduce the risV of such collisionsK Lhe fre^uency and severity of other
2)1* negative humanabear interactions can be reduced if the number of humana
2)20 habituated bears declinesK Lhis can be achieved by decreasing the availability of
2)21 humanaHrovided foodsK As the number of negative interactions between bears and
2)22 humans droHs, economic costs associated with HroHerty damage should also declineK
2)2$ Lhe cost to agencies and local economies of imHlementing this Hlan is another
2)24 Hotentially negative economic imHact of bearsK 5f meeting Hlan ob`ectives re^uires
2)2& large amounts of habitat to be Hurchased and Hlaced in conservation, significant
2)2' resources will be re^uiredK Alternatively, not imHlementing various asHects of this

12*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter b: Anticipated Impacts

2)2( management Hlan could also result in significant economic costs to agencies and
2)2) local economiesK Without organibed management efforts, bear ecotourism will be
2)2* minimibed, whereas humanabear conflicts will liVely increase, Harticularly among
2)$0 rural communities and large landowners in bear rangeK Lhose individuals will have
2)$1 to incur the cost of reHeated conflicts with bears, yet will receive limited economic
2)$2 benefits from themK An increase in humanabear conflicts will Hrove costly to
2)$$ agencies resHonsible for handling those comHlaints and is a significant threat to
2)$4 bear conservation effortsK

2)$& -cological Impacts

2)$' Iears are an umbrella species because they re^uire large home ranges and
2)$( diverse natural Hlant communities, so Hreserving and managing healthy bear
2)$) HoHulations Hrovides habitat for many other sHecies as wellK Additionally, corridors
2)$* established and maintained for bears can be used by other sHecies, either as
2)40 corridors or as habitatK Iears also may serve an imHortant ecological role in their
2)41 communities as seed disHersers CAuger et alK 2002DK Conserving bears and bear
2)42 habitat ensures bears can continue such meaningful ecological rolesK
2)4$ Although bears comHete with other animals for certain foods such as acorns,
2)44 and occasionally Vill individual Halms or breaV oaV branches, they are nutritional
2)4& generalists that feed on a wide variety of foods based on seasonal availability
2)4' CMaehr and Irady 1*)4DK Lhus, no single Hlant or animal sHecies could be
2)4( considered vulnerable to increased bear HoHulationsK On the other hand, no sHecies
2)4) is reliant on bears as their Hrimary source of HreyK
2)4* 5t is imHortant to eTamine the liVely ecological conse^uences of not
2)&0 imHlementing this management HlanK Considering the high rate of urbanibation
2)&1 and human HoHulation growth in Florida, a concerted effort is re^uired to conserve
2)&2 native habitat and decrease habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentationK 5f the
2)&$ conservation actions detailed within this management Hlan are not acted on and
2)&4 ade^uate bear habitat is not conserved, bear subHoHulations may decline and

1$0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Chapter b: Anticipated Impacts

2)&& sHatial and genetic isolation will increaseK PoHulations of other flora and fauna
2)&' reliant on the same intact habitat as bears will suffer similar fatesK
2)&( As additional habitat is degraded and fragmented, bears will liVely be forced to
2)&) forage closer to human dwellingsK Iears will become more habituated and food
2)&* conditioned to HeoHle, causing the fre^uency and severity of humanabear conflicts to
2)'0 increaseK Iecause those outcomes collectively could lead to a significant reduction
2)'1 in Hublic suHHort for bears, conse^uences to statewide conservation efforts could be
2)'2 farareaching and drasticK
2)'$ 5mHlementation of this Hlan should not only result in a healthy and geneticallya
2)'4 connected bear HoHulation in Florida, it should also enhance the HoHulations of a
2)'& wide variety of other Hlants and animalsK

1$1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

2)'' LIT-"ATR"- CIT-D

2)'( Auger, YK, SKRK Meyer, and HKLK IlacVK 2002K Are American blacV bears C!r#$#
2)') &'(r)*&+$#D legitimate seed disHersers for fleshyafruited shrubss American
2)'* Midland Naturalist 14(W $&2a$'(K

2)(0 Ienson, YK FK, and MK YK ChamberlainK 200'K Food habits of Louisiana blacV bears
2)(1 C!r#$# &'(r)*&+$# -$7(.-$#D in two subHoHulations of the Lensas Uiver IasinK
2)(2 American Midland Naturalist 1&'W 11)!12(K

2)($ Ienson, YK and MK ChamberlainK 200(K SHace use, survival, movements, and
2)(4 reHroduction of reintroduced Louisiana blacV bearsK Yournal of Wildlife
2)(& Management (1W 2$*$a240$K

2)(' Ientbien, MK MK 1**0K Notice of finding on HetitionK Federal Uegister &&W4222$K

2)(( Ientbien, MK MK 1**1K Finding on Hetition to list the Florida blacV bear as a
2)() Lhreatened SHeciesK Federal Uegister m nW ! K

2)(* Ientbien, MK MK 1**)K New 12amonth finding for a Hetition to list the Florida blacV
2))0 bearK Federal Uegister '$&m2$&nW'('1$!'('1)K

2))1 I`erVe, LK and IK PK [altenbornK 1***K Lhe relationshiH of ecocentric and


2))2 anthroHocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivoresK Yournal of
2))$ Rnvironmental Psychology 1*W 41&!421K

2))4 Irady, YKUK and MKSK MaehrK 1*)&K Mistribution of blacV bears in FloridaK Florida
2))& Field NaturalistK 1$W1a(K

2))' Irady, YKUK, and YKCK McManielK 1*()K Status reHort for FloridaK Rastern IlacV
2))( Iear WorVshoHK 4W&a*

2))) Irown, YKHK 2004K Challenges in estimating sibe and conservation in blacV bear in
2))* westacentral FloridaK Lhesis, \niversity of [entucVy, LeTington, [entucVyK

2)*0 Iurghardt, ZKMK, UKOK Hietala, and MKUK PeltonK 1*(2K [nowledge and attitudes
2)*1 concerning blacV bears by users of the Zreat SmoVy Mountain National ParVK
2)*2 Pages 2&&a2($ in SK Herrero (d)7.r Iears ! their biology and managementK
2)*$ 5\CN New Serial Publication 2$K 5nternational \nion for Conservation of
2)*4 Natural Uesources, Morges, SwitberlandK

2)*& Iunnell, FKZK and MKRKNK LaitK 1*)0K Iears in models and realityaimHlications to
2)*' managementK 5nternational Conference on Iear Uesearch and Management
2)*( 4W1&a24K

1$2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

2)*) Carrington, MKRK and YK YK MullaheyK 200'K Rffects of burning season and
2)** fre^uency on saw Halmetto CSerenoa reHensD flowering and fruitingK Forest
2*00 Rcology and Management 2$0W '*a()K

2*01 ClarV, YK MK, MK LK ClaHH, [K ZK Smith, IK RderingtonK 1**4K IlacV bear habitat use
2*02 in relation to food availability in the interior highlands of ArVansasK
2*0$ 5nternational Conference on Iear Uesearch and Management *W $0*!$1)K

2*04 ClarV, YK MK, MK Huber, and CK ServheenK 2002K Iear reintroductionsW Lessons and
2*0& challengesK \rsus 1$W $$&a$4&K

2*0' ClarV, YK RK, FK LK van Manen, and YK MK ClarVK 200'K Patch occuHancy models for
2*0( blacV bears in the coastal Hlain and interior highlands of the southeastern \KSK
2*0) Final reHort to the \KSK Federal Highway Administration, ArVansas Zame and
2*0* Fish Commission, and Louisiana MeHartment of Wildlife and FisheriesK

2*10 Clevenger, AK PK and YK WierbchowsViK 200'K Maintaining and restoring


2*11 connectivity in landscaHes fragmented by roadsK Pages &02!&$& )+ [K CrooVs
2*12 and MK San`ayan, editors, Connectivity ConservationK [K CrooVs and MK
2*1$ San`ayan, editorsK Connectivity ConservationW Maintaining Connections for
2*14 NatureK Cambridge \niversity Press, Cambridge, \K[K

2*1& Costello, CK MK, SK UK Creel, SK LK [alinowsVi, NK VK Vu, and HK IK puigleyK 200)K


2*1' SeTabiased natal disHersal and inbreeding avoidance in American blacV bears
2*1( as revealed by sHatial analysesK Molecular Rcology 1(W4(1$a4(2$K

2*1) Cowell, MKCK 1**)K Historical change in vegetation and disturbance on the Zeorgia
2*1* HiedmontK American Midland Naturalist 140W()a)*K

2*20 CoT, YK UK, UK [autb, MK McLaughlin, and LK ZilbertK 1**4K Closing the gaHs in
2*21 85orida’s wi5d5i4e ha@itat .onser=ation syste-( 85orida Fa-e and 8resh Water
2*22 Fish Commission, Office of Rnvironmental ServicesK Lallahassee, FloridaK 2$*
2*2$ HHK

2*24 CrooVs, [KUK and MK San`ayanK 200'K Connectivity conservationW maintaining


2*2& connections for nature Hgs 1a1* )+ Connectivity Conservation edsK [KUK CrooVs
2*2' and MK San`ayanK Cambridge \niversity Press, New oorVK

2*2( Cunningham, MKWK, SK Lerrell, IK Feree, and LKMK PenfoldK 200(K RHibootiology of
2*2) generalibed Memodicosis in a Florida blacV bear HoHulationK Proceedings of
2*2* &'th Annual Wildlife Misease Association ConferenceK Rstes ParV, ColoradoK

2*$0 Mavis, HK, MK Wellwood, and LK CiarnielloK 2002K Iear Smart Community ProgramW
2*$1 IacVground UeHortK Iritish Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air
2*$2 ProtectionK Victoria, Iritish Columbia, CanadaK

1$$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

2*$$ MiTon, YKMK, MK[K Oli, MKCK Wooten, LKHK Rason, YKWK McCown, and MKWK
2*$4 CunninghamK 200(K Zenetic conse^uences of habitat fragmentation and lossW
2*$& the case of the Florida blacV bear C\rsus americanus floridanusDK
2*$' Conservation Zenetics )W4&&a4'4K

2*$( Mobey, SK, MKVK Masters, IK[K ScheicV, YKMK ClarV, MKUK Pelton, and MKRK Sun^uistK
2*$) 200&K Rcology of Florida blacV bears in the OVefenoVeeaOsceola RcosystemK
2*$* Wildlife MonograHhs 1&)K

2*40 Rason, LK HK 200$K Conservation strategy for the blacV bear in FloridaK Florida
2*41 Iear Conservation WorVing ZrouH, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
2*42 Commission, Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*4$ Rast, IK 1*((K IearsK Crown Publishers, 5ncK, New oorVK 2(& HHK

2*44 Rastridge, UK and YK MK ClarVK 2001K Rvaluation of 2 softarelease techni^ues to


2*4& reintroduce blacV bearsK Wildlife Society Iulletin 2*W11'$a11(4K

2*4' Rbert, MKCK, CK Haag, MK [irVHatricV, MK UieV, YKWK Hottinger, and VK5K Pa`unenK
2*4( 2002K A selective advantage to immigrant genes in a MaHhnia metaHoHulationK
2*4) Science 2*&W4)&a4))K

2*4* Rdwards, AK SK 2002K Rcology of the blacV bear C!r#$# &'(r)*&+$# ,-.r)d&+$#D in
2*&0 southwestern AlabamaK Lhesis, \niversity of Lennessee, [noTville, LennesseeK
2*&1 (4 HHK

2*&2 Rndries, MK, IK Stys, ZK Mohr, ZK [ratimenos, SK Langley, [K Uoot, and UK [autbK
2*&$ 200*K Wildlife Conservation Habitat Needs in FloridaK Fish and Wildlife
2*&4 Uesearch 5nstitute Lechnical UeHort LUa1&K 1() HK

2*&& FMOLaFlorida MeHartment of LransHortationK 2010K Florida Highway Mileage and


2*&' Lravel CMVMLD UeHorts a State Highway SystemK Accessed & Mecember 2010
2*&( httHWddwwwKdotKstateKflKusdHlanningdstatisticsdmileagearHtsdshsKshtm

2*&) ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1*$&K Wildlife Code of the
2*&* State of FloridaK Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*'0 ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1*40K Iiennial UeHortK
2*'1 Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*'2 ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1*(1K Florida bear
2*'$ dilemma, for your informationK Florida Zame and Fresh Water Fish
2*'4 Commission, 5nformation and Rducation Mivision, Lallahassee, FloridaK

1$4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

2*'& ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1*(4K Mistribution of the
2*'' blacV bear in Florida in 1*(4K Staff UeHortK Florida Zame and Fresh Water
2*'( Fish Commission, Lallahassee, Florida

2*') ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1*()K Wildlife Code of the
2*'* State of FloridaK Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*(0 ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1*(*K Uules of the Zame
2*(1 and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*(2 ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1**$K Management of the
2*($ blacV bear in FloridaW A staff reHort to the commissionersK Florida Zame and
2*(4 Fresh Water Fish Commission, Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*(& ZFCaFlorida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1**&K Habitat
2*(' management guidelines for the AHalachicola blacV bear HoHulationK
2*(( AHalachicola Iear Management Committee, Florida Zame and Fresh Water
2*() Fish Commission, Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*(* FWCaFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionK 200(K ZoHher Lortoise
2*)0 Management PlanK Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2*)1 Lallahassee, FloridaK

2*)2 FNA5aFlorida Natural Areas 5nventoryK 200*K Florida Natural Areas 5nventory
2*)$ F`I 5ayer o4 .onser=ation 5ands entit5ed >45-a(sh<?g hCne SKKM =ersion
2*)4 downloaded from wwwKfnaiKorgdgisdataKcfmK

2*)& Forrester, MKYK 1**2K Parasites and diseases of wild mammals in FloridaK
2*)' \niversity Press of Florida, Zainesville, FloridaK

2*)( Foster, ZKWK, LKAK Cames, and MKYK ForresterK 1**)K ZeograHhical distribution of
2*)) D('.d(E $r#) in blacV bears from FloridaK Yournal of Wildlife Miseases $4W1'1a
2*)* 1'4K

2**0 FranVham, UK 1**'K UelationshiH of genetic variation to HoHulation sibe in wildlifeK


2**1 Conservation Iiology 10W1&00a1&0)K

2**2 FranVham, UK, YK Iallou, and MK IriscoeK 2002K 5ntroduction to conservation


2**$ geneticsK Cambridge \niversity Press, New oorVK

2**4 Frye, OKRK, IK PiHer, and LK PiHerK 1*&0K Lhe blacV bearW saint or sinners Florida
2**& Wildlife 4W'a(K

2**' Zarrison, RKPK 2004K UeHroductive ecology, cub survival, and denning ecology of
2**( the Florida blacV bearK Lhesis, \niversity of Florida, Zainesville, FloridaK

1$&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

2**) Zarrison, RKPK, YKWK McCown, and MK[K OliK 200(K UeHroductive ecology and cub
2*** survival of Florida blacV bearsK Yournal of Wildlife Management (1W(20a(2(K

$000 HIaHouse Iill (1&( C200*D House Finance i LaT Councild SenK Altman !
$001 5mHlementation of Amendment t4, Ad Valorem LaT RTemHtions for
$002 Conservation LandsK

$00$ Hall, RK UK 1*)1K Lhe mammals of North AmericaK 2nd edK volK 2K Yohn Wiley and
$004 Sons, New oorVK

$00& Hall, RK UK, and [KUK [elsonK 1*&*K Lhe mammals of North AmericaK Lhe Uonald
$00' Press, New oorVK

$00( Harlow, UKFK 1*'1K Characteristics and status of Florida blacV bearK Lransactions
$00) of the North American Wildlife ConferenceK 2'W4)1a4*&K

$00* Harlow, UKFK 1*'2K IlacV bear HoHulation investigationsK Pro`ect Wa41aUa*K
$010 Florida Zame and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Lallahassee, Florida

$011 Harris, LK MK and YK SchecVK 1**1K From imHlications to aHHlicationsW the disHersal
$012 corridor HrinciHle aHHlied to the conservation of biological diversityK PHK 1)*a
$01$ 220 in MK AK Saunders, and UK YK Hobbs CedsKD Nature Conservation, volK 2, Lhe
$014 Uole of CorridorsK ChiHHing Norton, NSW, AustraliaW Surrey Ieatty and SonsK

$01& Harrison, UK LK 1**2K Loward a theory of interarefuge corridor designK


$01' Conservation Iiology 'W2*$a2*&K

$01( Hilmon, YK IK 1*')K Autecology of saw Halmetto CSerenoa reHensDK Missertation,


$01) MuVe \niversity, Murham, North CarolinaK

$01* Hoctor, LK SK 200$K Uegional LandscaHe Analysis and Ueserve Mesign to Conserve
$020 85orida’s Hiodi=ersityB dissertationB Oni=ersity o4 85oridaB Faines=i55eB 85orida(

$021 Hostetler, YKAK, YKWK McCown, RKPK Zarrison, AKMK Neils, MKAK Iarrett, MKRK
$022 Sun^uist, SKLK SimeV, and MK[K OliK 200*K MemograHhic conse^uences of
$02$ anthroHogenic influencesW Florida blacV bears in northacentral FloridaK
$024 Iiological Conservation 142W24&'a24'$K
$02&
$02' HristienVo, HK, IKSK Yimeneb, and MKSK MitchellK 2010K A survey summary of blacV
$02( bear management in eastern Canada and the \nited StatesK Western IlacV
$02) Iear WorVshoH 10W&2!&*K

$02* 5obbi, LKAK 1*)*K What research says to the educator, Part oneW Rnvironmental
$0$0 education and the affective domainK Yournal of Rnvironmental Rducation,
$0$1 20C$DW$a*K

1$'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

$0$2 Yaus, HKHK 1*)4K Lhe develoHment and retention of environmental attitudes in
$0$$ elementary school childrenK Yournal of Rnvironmental Rducation, 1&C$DW$$a$'K

$0$4 Yones, RKuK 1*1&K First Annual UeHort of the MeHartment of Zame and FishK
$0$& Lallahassee, FloridaK

$0$' Yones, MK MK, and MK UK PeltonK 200$K Female American blacV bear use of managed
$0$( forest and agricultural lands in coastal North CarolinaK \rsus 1$W 1))!1*(K
$0$)
$0$* [asbohm, YKWK 2004K ProHosed rule_ notice of Hetition findingK Federal Uegister
$040 '*m*nW2100a210)

$041 [asbohm, YK WK and MK MK IentbienK 1**)K Lhe status of the Florida blacV bearK
$042 \KSK Fish and Wildlife Service, YacVsonville, FloridaK

$04$ [eddy, PK AK 200*K LhinVing bigW A conservation vision for the southeastern coastal
$044 Hlain of North AmericaK Southeastern Naturalist )W21$a22'K

$04& [ellert, SK UK 1*)0K ContemHorary values of wildlife in American societyK Pages


$04' $1!'0 )+ WK WK Shaw and RK HK uube, editorsK Wildlife ValuesK UocVy
$04( Mountain Forest RTHeriment StationK Service UeHort t1K Fort Collins,
$04) ColoradoK

$04* [ellert, SK UK 1**4K Public attitudes towards bears and their conservationK
$0&0 5nternational Conference on Iear Uesearch and Management *W 4$!&0K

$0&1 [ellert, SKUK and MKOK Wester=e5t( LMZJ( Chi5dren’s attitCdesB Gnow5ed7eB and
$0&2 behaviors toward animals CUeHort t024a010a00'41a2DK Washington, MKCKW\KSK
$0&$ Zovernment Printing OfficeK

$0&4 [endricV, IK and IK WalshK 200(K A history of Florida forestsK \niversity of


$0&& Florida Press, Zainesville, FloridaK

$0&' LacVey, CK and UK AK IeausoleilK 2010K Proceedings of the 10th Western IlacV Iear
$0&( WorVshoH, May 1) to 22, 200*K Ueno, Nevada, \SAK

$0&) Land, RKMK, MKSK Maehr, YKCK Uoof, and YKWK McCownK 1**4K Southwest Florida
$0&* blacV bear distribution, movements, and conservation strategyK Florida Zame
$0'0 and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK LallahasseeK

$0'1 LarVin, YKLK, MKSK Maehr, LKSK Hoctor, MKAK Orlando, and [K WhitneyK 2004K
$0'2 LandscaHe linVages and conservation Hlanning for the blacV bear in westa
$0'$ central FloridaK Animal Conservation (W1a12K

$0'4

1$(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

$0'& Maddrey, UK CK 1**&K MorHhology, reHroduction, food habits, croH deHredation, and
$0'' mortality of blacV bears on the NeusedPamilco Heninsula, North CarolinaK
$0'( Lhesis, \niversity of Lennessee, [noTville, Lennessee, \SAK
$0')
$0'* Maehr, MK SK 1*)4K Lhe blacV bear as a seed disHerser in FloridaK Florida Field
$0(0 Naturalist 12W40a42K

$0(1 Maehr, MK SK, and YK UK IradyK 1*)2K Fall food habits of blacV bears in IaVer and
$0(2 Columbia counties, FloridaK Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of
$0($ Fish and Wildlife Agencies $'W&'&a&(0K

$0(4 Maehr, MKSK and YKUK IradyK 1*)4K Food habits of Florida blacV bearsK Yournal of
$0(& Wildlife Management 4)W2$0a2$&K

$0(' Maehr, MK SK, LK SK Hoctor, LK YK puinn, and YK SK SmithK 2001K IlacV bear habitat
$0(( management guidelines for FloridaK Lechnical UeHort NoK 1(K Florida Fish
$0() and Wildlife Conservation CommissionK

$0(* Maehr, MKSK, YKNK Layne, RKMK Land, YKWK McCown and YKCK UoofK 1*))K Long
$0)0 distance movements of a Florida blacV bearK Florida Field Naturalist 1'W1a'K

$0)1 Mansfield, [KZK and RKMK LandK 2002K CryHtorchidism in Florida Hanthers, and
$0)2 influence of genetic restorationK Yournal of Wildlife MiseasesK $)W'*$a'*)K

$0)$ McCown, YKWK, LKHK Rason, and MKWK CunninghamK 2001K IlacV bear movements
$0)4 and habitat use relative to roads in Ocala National ForestK Florida Fish and
$0)& Wildlife Conservation CommissionK Final UeHort Contract ICa12) for Florida
$0)' MeHartment of LransHortationK

$0)( McCown, YKWK, PK [ubilis, LKHK Rason, and IK[K ScheicVK 2004K IlacV bear
$0)) movements and habitat use relative to roads in Ocala National ForestK Florida
$0)* Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionK Final UeHort Contract IMa01'
$0*0 for Florida MeHartment of LransHortationK

$0*1 McCown, YK WK, PK [ubilis, LK HK Rason, and IK [K ScheicVK 200*K Rffect of traffic
$0*2 volume on American blacV bears in central Florida, \SAK \rsus 20C1DW$*a4'K

$0*$ McManiel, YK 1*(4K Status of the blacV bear in FloridaK Rastern IlacV Iear
$0*4 WorVshoHK 2W12K

$0*& Merriam, CKHK 1)*'K Preliminary synoHsis of the American bearsK Proceedings of
$0*' the Iiological Society of WashingtonK 10W'&a)'

$0*( Meyers, UKLK 1*)&K Fire and the dynamic relationshiH between Florida sandhill
$0*) and sand Hine scrub vegetationK Iulletin of the Lorrey Iotanical Club
$0** 112W241a2&2K

1$)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

$100 Milanich, YKLK 1**&K Florida 5ndians and the invasion from RuroHeK \niversity of
$101 Florida PressK Zainesville, FloridaK

$102 Miller, CK AK, YK Agee, [K AK Loyd, NK Crawford, YK StracV, and U ChaHHellK 200)K
$10$ An assessment of attitudes toward Florida blacV bear HoHulations and
$104 management among Vey staVeholders in FloridaK Wildlife Foundation of
$10& FloridaK Final UeHort for Zrant Contract t&0'0*1K Lallahassee, FloridaK

$10' Moyer, MKAK, YKWK McCown, and MK[K OliK 200'K Moes genetic relatedness influence
$10( sHace use Hatterns A test on Florida blacV bearsK Yournal of Mammalogy
$10) )(W2&&a2'1K

$10* Moyer, MKAK, YKWK McCown, and MK[K OliK 200(K Factors influencing homearange
$110 sibe of female Florida blacV bearsK Yournal of Mammalogy ))W4')a4('K

$111 Myers, UKLK and YKYK RwelK 1**0K Rcosystems of FloridaK \niversity of Central
$112 Florida PressK Orlando, FloridaK

$11$ NAARRaNorth American Association of Rnvironmental RducatorsK 1**)K Lhe


$114 environmental education collectionW A review of resources for educatorsK UocV
$11& SHring, ZAK

$11' NRRLFaNational Rnvironmental Rducation and Lraining FoundationK 2001K Lhe


$11( ninth annual national reHort cardW Lessons from the environmentK
$11) Washington, MKCK

$11* Noss, UK FK, and CK AK CooHerriderK 1**4K Saving naturehs legacyW Hrotecting and
$120 restoring biodiversityK Mefenders of Wildlife and 5sland Press, Washington,
$121 MKCK

$122 Noss, UK FK, and [K MalyK 200'K 5ncorHorating connectivity into broadascale
$12$ conservation HlanningK Pages &)(!'1* )+ [K CrooVs and MK San`ayan, editorsK
$124 Connectivity ConservationW Maintaining Connections for NatureK Cambridge
$12& \niversity Press, Cambridge, \K[K

$12' Orlando, MK AK 200$K Lhe ecology and behavior of an isolated blacV bear HoHulation
$12( in west central FloridaK Lhesis, \niversity of [entucVy, LeTington, [entucVyK

$12) Peine, YK MK 2001K Nuisance bears in communitiesW strategies to reduce conflictK


$12* Human Mimensions of Wildlife 'W22$a2$(K

$1$0 Pelton, MK UK 1*)2K IlacV bearK PH &04a&14 in YKAK ChaHman and ZKAK Feldhamer,
$1$1 editors, Wild mammals of North AmericaK Lhe Yohns HoHVins \niversity
$1$2 Press, Ialtimore, MarylandK

1$*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

$1$$ Pelton, MK UK and UK ZK NicholsK 1*(2K Status of the blacV bear C\rsus americanusD
$1$4 in the southeastK PHK 1)a2$ in North American WorVshoH on IlacV Iear
$1$& Management and UesearchK Melmar, New oorVK

$1$' Pyne, SK YK 1*)2K Fire in AmericaW a cultural history of wildland and rural fireK
$1$( Princeton \niversity Press, Princeton, New YerseyK

$1$) Uoof, YK CK 1**(K IlacV bear food habits in the Lower WeViva Uiver basinK Florida
$1$* Field Naturalist 2&W*2a*(K

$140 Uoof, YK CK, and YK UK WoodingK 1**'K Rvaluation of SUa4' wildlife crossingK Florida
$141 CooHerative Fish and Wildlife Uesearch \nit, \KSK Iiological Service Lechnical
$142 UeHort &4K

$14$ Sandell, MK 1*)*K Lhe mating techni^ues of solitary carnivoresK PH 1'4a1)2 in YK


$144 Zittleman, editor, Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolutionK Cornell
$14& \niversity Press, 5thaca, New oorVK

$14' ScheicV, IK [K 1***K IlacV bear diet, movements, and habitat selection in north
$14( Florida and south ZeorgiaK Lhesis, \niversity of Florida, Zainesville, FloridaK

$14) SimeV, SK LK, SK AK YonVer, IK [K ScheicV, MK YK Rndries, and LK HK RasonK 200&K


$14* Statewide assessment of road imHacts on bears in siT study areas in Florida
$1&0 from May 2001 to SeHtember 200$K Final UeHort Contract ICa*(2K Florida
$1&1 MeHartment of LransHortation, Lallahassee, FloridaK

$1&2 SHencer, UK MK, UK AK Ieausoliel, and MK AK MartorelloK 200(K How agencies resHond
$1&$ to humanablacV bear conflictsW a survey of wildlife agencies in North AmericaK
$1&4 \rsus 1)W 21(a22*K

$1&& Stratman, MK UK 1**)K Habitat use and effects of fire on blacV bears in northwest
$1&' FloridaK Lhesis, \niversity of Lennessee, [noTville, LennesseeK

$1&( Stratman, MK UK, CK MK Alden, MK UK Pelton, and MK RK Sun^uistK 2001K Long


$1&) distance movement of a Florida blacV bear in the southeastern coastal HlainK
$1&* \rsus 12W&&a&)K

$1'0 Stratman, MK UK, and MK UK PeltonK 200(K SHatial resHonse of American blacV bears
$1'1 to Hrescribed fire in northwest FloridaK \rsus 1)W'2a(1K

$1'2 S\SaState \niversity SystemK 200&K S\S Migital LibraryaPALMMK


$1'$ httHWddwebKuflibKuflKedudlibcollKhtmlK

$1'4 Lischendorf, LK, and LK FahrigK 2001K On the use of connectivity measures in
$1'& sHatial ecologyW a reHlyK OiVos *&W1&2a1&&K

140
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Literature Cited

$1'' \NRSCOa\nited Nations Rducational, Scientific and Cultural OrganibationK 1**(K


$1'( Ielgrade CharterK ParisK

$1') \S Census IureauK 200*K Census of HoHulation and housingK Accessed 1' March,
$1'* 200*K httHWddwwwKcensusKgovdHroddwwwdabsddecenniald1*40KhtmK

$1(0 \SMO5aMeHartment of the 5nteriorK 1*'*K Rnvironmental imHact of the Iig


$1(1 CyHress SwamH `etHortK MimeoK 1&& HHK

$1(2 Visit FloridaK 200*K Calendar year visitor numbers for 200)K Accessed 10
$1($ SeHtember 200*K httHWddmediaKvisitfloridaKorgdresearchKHhHK

$1(4 Westemeier, UK LK, YK MK Irawn, SK AK SimHson, LK LK RsVer, UK WK Yansen, YK WK


$1(& WalV, RK LK [ershner, YK LK Ioubat, and [K NK PaigeK 1**)K LracVing the longa
$1(' term decline and recovery of an isolated HoHulationK Science 2)2W1'*&a1'*)K

$1(( Whittle, AK YK 200*K 5mHacts of land use and climate change on large carnivore
$1() habitat in FloridaK Lhesis, \niversity of [entucVy, LeTington, [entucVyK

$1(* Williams, IK[K, YKMK Nichols, and MKYK ConroyK 2002K Analysis and management of
$1)0 animal HoHulationsW modeling, estimation, and decision maVingK Academic
$1)1 PressK San Miego, California, \SAK
$1)2
$1)$ Wooding, YK IK 200(K IlacV Iear Survey in the Iig Iend of FloridaK Final UeHort
$1)4 Submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Lallahassee,
$1)& FloridaK 41 HHK

$1)' Wooding, YK IK and LK SK HardisVyK 1**2K Home range, habitat use, and mortality
$1)( of blacV bears in NorthaCentral FloridaK 5nternational Conference on Iear
$1)) Uesearch and Monitoring *W$4*a$&'K

141
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$1)* APP-/DIQ I. $LO"IDA BLAC, B-A" BIOLOGICAL STATRS "-SI-W "-PO"T


$1*0 (Supplemental "eport is available at:
$1*1 My$WC.com[wildlifehabitats[imperiled[biological-status[ Z

$1*2 Biological Status "eview


$1*$ for the
$1*4 $lorida black bear
$1*& C!r#$# &'(r)*&+$# ,-.r)d&+$#D
$1*' March GJ, B0JJ
$1*(
$1*) -Q-CRTIS- SRMMA"T
$1**
$200 Lhe Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission CFWCD directed staff to
$201 evaluate all sHecies listed as Lhreatened or SHecies of SHecial Concern as of
$202 November ), 2010 that had not undergone a status review in the Hast decadeK
$20$ Public information on the status of the Florida blacV bear was sought from
$204 SeHtember 1( to November 1, 2010K Lhe members of a Iiological Ueview ZrouH
$20& CIUZD met on November $a4, 2010K ZrouH members were Walter McCown CFWC
$20' leadD, Mel Sun^uist C\niversity of Florida, RmeritusD, and Iill Ziuliano C\niversity
$20( of FloridaD CAHHendiT 1DK 5n accordance with rule ')Aa2(K0012, Florida
$20) Administrative Code CFKAKCKD, the IUZ was charged with evaluating the biological
$20* status of the Florida blacV bear using criteria included in definitions in rule ')Aa
$210 2(K001, FKAKCK, and following the Hrotocols in the :$)d(-)+(# ,.r FAA-)*&7).+ ., 7?(
$211 G!<H I(d J)#7 <r)7(r)& &7 I(9).+&- J(=(-# KL(r#).+ M0NO and :$)d(-)+(# ,.r !#)+9
$212 7?( G!<H I(d J)#7 <&7(9.r)(# &+d <r)7(r)& KL(r#).+ P0QOK Please visit
$21$ httHWddmyfwcKcomdwildlifehabitatsdimHerileddlistingaactionaHetitionsd to view the
$214 listing Hrocess rule and the criteria found in the definitionsK Uule ')Aa2(K00$,
$21& FKAKCK, designates Florida blacV bears as Stateadesignated threatened throughout
$21' the State, but eTcludes those found in IaVer and Columbia counties and in
$21( AHalachicola National ForestK For the HurHoses of this review, however, we
$21) e=a5Cated the taEon’s statCs on a statewide basis, as the bears within these counties
$21* and national forest are not biologically distinguishable from those outside these
$220 areasB nor are they iso5ated @y these areas’ <o5iti.a5 @oCndaries(
$221
$222 5n late 2010, staff develoHed the initial draft of this reHort which included IUZ
$22$ findings and a Hreliminary listing recommendation from staffK Lhe draft was sent
$224 oCt 4or <eer re=iew and the re=iewers’ in<Ct has @een in.or<orated to .reate this
$22& final reHortK Lhe draft reHort, Heer reviews, and information received from the
$22' Hublic are available as suHHlemental materials at
$22( httHWddmyfwcKcomdwildlifehabitatsdimHerileddbiologicalastatusdK
$22)
$22* Lhe IUZ concluded from the biological assessment that the Florida blacV bear did
$2$0 not meet listing criteriaK Iased on the literature review, information received from

142
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$2$1 the Hublic, and the IUZ findings, staff recommends that the Florida blacV bear not
$2$2 be listed as a Lhreatened sHeciesK
$2$$
$2$4 Lhis worV was suHHorted by a Conserve Wildlife Lag grant from the Wildlife
$2$& Foundation of FloridaK FWC staff gratefully acVnowledges the assistance of the
$2$' biological review grouH members and Heer reviewersK Staff would also liVe to thanV
$2$( [aren Nutt who served as a data comHiler on the sHecies and contributed to this
$2$) reHortK
$2$*
$240 BIOLOGICAL I/$O"MATIO/
$241
$242 TaOonomic Classification 3 Lhe Florida blacV bear was initially described by
$24$ Merriam C1)*'D as a seHarate sHecies based on its long sVull and highly arched
$244 nasal bonesK Subse^uently, Hall and [elson C1*&*D and Harlow C1*'1D recognibed
$24& the Florida blacV bear as one of 1' subsHecies of the American blacV bearK
$24'
$24( Life History 3 Florida blacV bears are uniformly blacV eTceHt for a tan or brown
$24) mubble and occasionally a white chest Hatch CMaehr and Wooding 1**2DK Adult
$24* females weigh 1$0 to 1)0 lbsK, and adult males usually weigh 2&0 to $&0 lbsK
$2&0
$2&1 Lhe habitat used by Florida blacV bears is diverse and ranges from temHerate Hlant
$2&2 communities in northwestern Florida to subtroHical communities in southern
$2&$ Florida CMaehr and Wooding 1**2, Land et alK 1**4DK Iears inhabit cyHress
$2&4 swamHs, cabbage Halm forests, Hine flatwoods, miTed hardwood swamHs, sand Hine
$2&& scrub, miTed hardwood hammocVs, miTed hardwood Hine forests, oaV scrub, Hine
$2&' Hlantations, uHland hardwood forests, bay swamHs, sandhill communities, and
$2&( mangrove swamHs CHoctor 200$, Maehr and Wooding 1**2DK Iears are oHHortunistic
$2&) omnivores, eating a wide variety of Hlant material including soft fruits, hard mast,
$2&* and herbaceous material but also including insects and some vertebrates, CMaehr
$2'0 and Wooding 1**2DK Iears will alter their habitat use and home range sibe
$2'1 seasonally deHending on food availability and reHroductive status CMaehr and
$2'2 Wooding 1**2, \lrey 200), Moyer et alK 200(DK
$2'$
$2'4 Florida blacV bear females become seTually mature between $ and 4 years of age
$2'& CZarrison 2004DK Mating taVes Hlace in Yune or Yuly and females may mate with
$2'' several males CMaehr and Wooding 1**2DK UeHroductive females den for an average
$2'( of 11$ days beginning in midaMecember to midaYanuary, emerging in late March to
$2') late AHril CZarrison 2004, Mobey et alK 200&DK Mens are usually shallow deHressions
$2'* on the ground in dense thicVets of shrubs and vines CZarrison 2004, Maehr and
$2(0 Wooding 1**2DK Cubs are born in Yanuary or February in litters of two to four
$2(1 offsHring CMaehr and Wooding 1**2, Mobey et alK 200&, Zarrison et alK 200(DK Cubs
$2(2 weigh siT to eight Hounds when they leave the den at ten weeVs old CZarrison et alK
$2($ 200(DK Cubs remain with their mother until they are 1&a1( months oldK Males
$2(4 disHerse but females generally form a home range that overlaHs their natal home

14$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$2(& range CMoyer et alK 200'DK Variation in home range sibe and shaHe is influenced by
$2(' the temHoral and sHatial distribution of food, reHroductive status, and human
$2(( influencesK Annual home ranges of female Florida blacV bears vary from $K) Vm2 to
$2() 12'K* Vm2 CMobey et alK 200&, Moyer et alK 200(DK Home range sibe for male blacV
$2(* bears generally varies from *4 Vm2 to 1)& Vm2 CLand et alK 1**4, McCown et alK
$2)0 2004, \lrey 200)DK
$2)1
$2)2 Geographic "ange and Distribution 3 Lhe Florida blacV bear was historically
$2)$ widesHread throughout mainland Florida and the southern Hortions of Zeorgia and
$2)4 Alabama CMaehr and Wooding 1**2DK Currently, there is one subHoHulation in and
$2)& around the OVefenoVee National Wildlife Uefuge in Zeorgia_ one subHoHulation
$2)' near Mobile, Alabama_ five large Florida subHoHulations COcaladStK Yohns, Osceola,
$2)( Rglin, AHalachicola, and Iig CyHressD, and two small, remnant subHoHulations in
$2)) Florida CChassahowitbVa and ZladesdHighlandsD CFigure 1DK Lhis reHort assesses
$2)* the Hortion of the Florida blacV bear HoHulation within the state of FloridaK
$2*0
$2*1 Iear range in Florida was estimated CSimeV et alK 200&D by dividing the state into a
$2*2 systematic grid of 4,44( ha C10,000 acD cells based on estimates of minimum Hatch
$2*$ sibe needed for bears CCoT et alK 1**4, Maehr et al 2001DK Lhe Hresence of bears was
$2*4 determined within each cell using 1***a200$ locations of nuisance and roadVill
$2*& @earsB .a<tCresB te5e-etry dataB 8WC’s Wildlife Observation Mata Iase,
$2*' observations from FWC Hersonnel, and interviews with owners or managers of large
$2*( land holdingsK Iased on these data, each grid cell was coded to document the
$2*) distribution of bears as either breeding range Cfemales HresentD or nonabreeding
$2** range Cno females documentedDK Lhe eTtent of the calculated breeding range was
$$00 2',0** Vm2 and the nonbreeding range was estimated to be 1*,$0' Vm2K Within this
$$01 document, breeding range is considered to be e^uivalent to the 5\CN term Area of
$$02 OccuHancy CAOOD, and the breeding range and the nonabreeding range combined
$$0$ C4&,40& Vm2D are considered to be e^uivalent to the 5\CN term RTtent of
$$04 Occurrence CROODK
$$0&
$$0' Within Florida the largest eTHanse of virtually unoccuHied, but aHHarently suitable,
$$0( bear habitat is in the Iig Iend UegionK Meforestation and Hersecution by humans
$$0) in the early to mida 1*00s were Hrobably the Hrimary factors contributing to the
$$0* eTtirHation of bears thereK Subse^uent regrowth and reHlanting of forest cover,
$$10 however, has imHroved the Hotential habitat ^uality for bears in the areaK Hoctor
$$11 C200'D modeled the Hrobability of occuHancy of blacV bear habitat in Florida based
$$12 uHon land cover tyHe, Hatch sibe, distance from habitat Hatches, and connectivity
$$1$ and sibe of large habitat mosaicsK A conservative estimate of Hotential density C0K0)
$$14 ! 0K10 bearsdVm2D for the &, *4* Vm2 of the best bear habitat in the Iig Iend
$$1& suggests this area could suHHort 4(& ! &*0 bearsK 5t currently suHHorts q 100 bears
$$1' CFWC unHublished dataDK Although female bears normally establish home ranges
$$1( that overlaH their natal home ranges CMoyer et alK 200'D and thus are Hoor
$$1) disHersers, the Iig Iend shares a landscaHe connection with currently occuHied

144
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$$1* bear range in AHalachicola National Forest and is liVely to suHHort more bears over
$$20 timeK
$$21
$$22 Although the blacV bear is widesHread in Florida, its distribution is fragmented
$$2$ with limited landscaHe connectivity or genetic eTchange between subHoHulations
$$24 CMiTon et alK 200(, Maehr and Wooding 1**2DK IlacV bears in Florida currently
$$2& inhabit 1)c of their historic range totaling aHHroTimately 4&,40& Vm2 C1(,&$1 mi2D
$$2' CROOD, within which reHroduction occurs on aHHroTimately 2',000 Vm2 C10,0(( mi2D
$$2( CAOOD CFigure 1DK
$$2)
$$2* Population Status and Trend 3 Lhe full blacV bear sHecies, !r#$# &'(r)*&+$#, is
$$$0 .Crrent5y 5isted as beast Con.ern @y the `OCR @e.aCse >this s<e.ies is wides<readB
$$$1 with a large global HoHulation estimated at more than twice that of all other sHecies
$$$2 of bears combinedK Moreover, in most areas HoHulations are eTHanding numerically
$$$$ and 7eo7ra<hi.a55y( *hreats eEist on5y in a 4ew iso5ated <5a.es? QFarshe5is et a5(
$$$4 200)DK
$$$&
$$$' Lhe subasHecies of blacV bear in Florida became listed as a state Lhreatened sHecies
$$$( in 1*(4 but remained a game animal on Hrivate lands in IaVer and Columbia
$$$) counties, on the Osceola and AHalachicola national forests, and on Lyndall Air Force
$$$* Iase Cthrough 1*('DK Lhe threatened designation was removed from bears in IaVer
$$40 and Columbia counties and AHalachicola National Forest in 1*() and regulations
$$41 were established Hrohibiting the hunting of threatened sHecies in 1*(* CZFC 1**$DK
$$42 As a result, the blacV bear is currently listed as a Lhreatened sHecies by the State of
$$4$ Florida eTceHt in IaVer and Columbia counties and AHalachicola National ForestK
$$44 8or the <Cr<oses o4 this re=iewB howe=erB we e=a5Cated the taEon’s statCs on a
$$4& statewide basis as the bears within these counties and national forest are not
$$4' biologically distinguishable from those outside these areas, nor are they isolated by
$$4( these areas’ <o5iti.a5 @oCndaries(
$$4)
$$4* Obtaining a reliable HoHulation estimate of blacV bears is challengingK Lhey are
$$&0 reclusive animals with large home ranges and inhabit remote, densely forested
$$&1 habitats maVing direct counts imHracticalK MarVarecaHture HoHulation estimation
$$&2 techni^ues, however, are available that are reliable and scientifically sound
$$&$ CWilliams et alK 2002DK Lhese techni^ues have been used in combination with
$$&4 genetic analyses that allow identification of individual animals to Hrovide accurate
$$&& HoHulation estimates of a wide array of sHecies CLuiVart et alK 2010, ZuschansVi et
$$&' alK 200*DK Lhis aHHroach was used to estimate abundance of bears in the breeding
$$&( range CAOOD of five subHoHulations in the state in 2002K Study areas within
$$&) reHresentative habitat were selected in the Rglin, AHalachicola, Osceola, OcaladStK
$$&* Yohns, and Iig CyHress subHoHulationsK MarVarecaHture techni^ues Hrovided an
$$'0 abundance estimate for each study area, and, using the effective study area sibe, a
$$'1 density estimate was obtainedK Lhe density estimate for each study area was then
$$'2 eTtraHolated across the Hreviously identified breeding range CAOOD to obtain an

14&
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$$'$ abundance estimate for each subHoHulationK Lhe abundance of bears outside of the
$$'4 breeding range CAOOD was not estimatedK Uesulting abundance estimates for 2002
$$'& wereW AHalachicola &') bears_ Iig CyHress '*( bears_ Rglin )2 bears_ OcaladStK
$$'' Yohns 1,02& bears_ and Osceola 2&' bears CSimeV et alK 200&DK Iear abundance in
$$'( the ChassahowitbVa C20 bears_ Orlando 200$D and ZladesaHighlands C1(& bears_
$$') Yohn CoT \nivK of [entucVy 200* HersK commKD subHoHulations were estimated from
$$'* field studiesK Lhe total HoHulation estimate, therefore, was 2,)2$ g &* CSRDK
$$(0
$$(1 Rarly estimates of blacV bear abundance in Florida CFigure 2D were Hrimarily
$$(2 oHinions of FWC sHecies eTHerts with inHut from local staff and, therefore, may not
$$($ have been as reliable as the 2002 estimatesK Lhe various estimates do, however,
$$(4 suggest an increase in bear numbers over the Hast three decadesK Lhis aHHarent
$$(& increase is corroborated by the increase in nuisance bear calls during that time
$$(' CFigure $D and by the increase in distribution CFigure 4DK 5t is liVely the blacV bear
$$(( HoHulation in Florida will continue to increase over the neTt 24 years due to
$$() eTtensive conservation efforts and suitable habitat CHoctor 200'D that is currently
$$(* unoccuHied but ad`acent to occuHied rangeK
$$)0
$$)1 huantitative Analyses 3 Maehr et alK C2001D used the Hrogram VOULRv )K21
$$)2 CLacy et alK 1**&D and data from individual subHoHulations to Hredict a bero C0K0D
$$)$ Hrobability of eTtinction for the Rglin, AHalachicola, Osceola, Ocala and Zladesa
$$)4 Highlands HoHulations and 0K2 ! 0K4 Hercent chance of eTtinction for the
$$)& ChassahowitbVa HoHulation within the neTt 100 yearsK Hostetler et alK C200*D used
$$)' sHecific demograHhic data gathered from long term research to estimate that the
$$)( Ocala subHoHulation was growing at 1a2c Her yearK
$$))
$$)* BIOLOGICAL STATRS ASS-SSM-/T
$$*0
$$*1 Threats 3 Lhe greatest threats to Florida blacV bears are habitat loss and
$$*2 degradation and negative interactions with HeoHleK Lhe Florida blacV bear is
$$*$ Harticularly vulnerable to habitat loss because of its large home range sibes, low
$$*4 HoHulation sibe and density, and low Hroductivity CHostetler et alK 200*, Maehr and
$$*& Wooding 1**2DK 5ts habitat is also degraded by fragmentation from roads and
$$*' develoHment, which results in additional threats from increased interactions with
$$*( humans and their vehicles CHostetler et alK 200*, Maehr and Wooding 1**2DK
$$*) 5ncomHatible land management can also result in degradation of habitat ^ualityK
$$** Commercial saw Halmetto C>(r(+.& r(A(+#D berry harvesting and fire management
$400 regimes benefitting other sHecies may remove imHortant resources utilibed by blacV
$401 bears CMaehr et alK 2001, Stratman and Pelton 200(DK Although these Hractices do
$402 not threaten blacV bear HoHulations statewide, they may lower the biological
$40$ carrying caHacity of some local areasK
$404
$40& Lhe FWC addresses habitat loss and degradation in a number of waysK FWC
$40' emHloyees Hrovide comments and information to other agencies and nona

14'
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$40( governmental organibations to helH identify and conserve Harcels of high value to
$40) bearsK Lhey Hrovide comments on county comHrehensive Hlans and develoHments of
$40* regional imHact in bear range and have Hublished a wildlife conservation guide for
$410 Hlanners, develoHers, and consultants seeVing to reduce imHacts of develoHment on
$411 bearsK Lhey Heriodically uHdate and refine bear distribution maHs for use in
$412 conservation Hlanning, have identified landscaHe level corridors between bear
$41$ subHoHulations and Hromoted their conservation, and will begin research in 2011 to
$414 identify highavalue conservation lands in the Ocala to Osceola corridorK Lhey have
$41& identified FWCamanaged lands that suHHort bears, Hroduced a Hriority list of areas
$41' to be managed to benefit bears, and incorHorated conservation measures in the
$41( Wildlife Conservation Prioritibation and Uecovery Plans for these areasK FWC bear
$41) staff Hrovides guidelines for managing bear habitat to land managers and is
$41* cooHerating with Hlant monitoring staff to develoH ^uantitative descriHtions of
$420 oHtimal conditions for bears in ma`or Hlant communities in Florida that will be
$421 Hrovided to managers of critical bear habitatK Lhe FWC funded a synthesis of
$422 available literature on management of saw Halmetto and scrub Halmetto C>&6&-
$42$ (7.+)&OR critical comHonents of Florida blacV bear habitatK FWC bear staff also
$424 Hrovides instruction on managing habitat to benefit bears at multiaagency
$42& Hrescribed fire worVshoHsK
$42'
$42( Humanabear interactions have increased in Florida due to greater HoHulations of
$42) both bears and humans CFigure $DK Although some humandbear encounters are
$42* Hositive or neutral in their outcome, many are negative and can lead to death of the
$4$0 bear through vehicle collisions, illegal Villing, or euthanasia CAnnis 200), Hostetler
$4$1 et alK 200*, Maehr et alK 2004, McCown et alK 200*DK Furthermore, increased
$4$2 conflicts between humans and bears could lead to devaluation of the bear among
$4$$ Florida citibens, which could threaten bear conservation efforts in the StateK
$4$4
$4$& Mocumented bear mortality is largely due to human factors CHostetler et alK 200*,
$4$' Land et alK 1**4DK Iears are illegally Villed or hit by vehiclesK Iears come into
$4$( contact with humans more fre^uently in highly fragmented habitat, and humana
$4$) caused mortality in such habitat can be significant CIrown 2004, Hostetler et alK
$4$* 200*DK For eTamHle, adult female bears living ad`acent to Ocala National Forest
$440 eTHerienced levels of mortality that would not have been sustainable in a smaller,
$441 isolated HoHulation CMcCown et alK 2004DK Although the FWC documented 140
$442 bears illegally Villed in Florida between 1*)* and 200*, a rate of ( bears Her year,
$44$ the total number of bears Villed each year is unVnownK Lhe statewide mortality
$444 rate due to roadVill was 4K)c in 2002 CSimeV et alK 200&DK UoadVills can be
$44& significant to small isolated HoHulations but do not limit larger HoHulationsK
$44' PoHulations of blacV bears that are demograHhically similar to Florida blacV bears
$44( Cbreed at $ years of age, females have 2 cubs every other yearD can sustain an
$44) absolute annual mortality of uH to 2$c before the HoHulations begin to decline
$44* CIunnell and Lait 1*)0DK
$4&0

14(
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$4&1 FWC staff worVs to reduce humandbear conflicts with multiHle Hartners on a
$4&2 number of frontsK 5n 2010, staff and contract emHloyees resHonded to more than
$4&$ 4,000 beararelated calls from the Hublic with technical assistance, site visits, bear
$4&4 deterrent e^uiHment loans, or, when warranted, traHHing and removing Hroblem
$4&& bears Ctranslocation or euthanasiaDK UesHonses included canvassing neighborhoods
$4&' with fre^uent bear interactions and meeting oneaonaone with residents to Hrovide
$4&( information on avoiding conflictsK FWC staff Hrovides bear aversiveaconditioning
$4&) training to municiHal, county, and state law enforcement Hersonnel to enlist their
$4&* helH in deterring HroblemsK Staff worVs with staVeholders to Hroduce bear festivals
$4'0 in areas of high humanabear interactions and Hrovides bear educational
$4'1 Hresentations to schools and civic grouHsK, Lhe FWC Hrodu.ed a =ideoB >bi=in7 with
$4'2 the 85orida H5a.G HearB? to a55ow edC.ators and .i=i. 7roC<s to share the -essa7e
$4'$ with their students and constituentsK Staff worVed with Mefenders of Wildlife to
$4'4 Hroduce and uHdate the IlacV Iear Curriculum Zuide, which helHs elementary
$4'& school students learn math, science, and history while learning about bearsK Lhe
$4'' FWC has Hartnered with local governments and waste management comHanies to
$4'( maVe garbage less accessible to bears and beararesistant trash containers more
$4') available to homeowners and created and enforces a wildlife feeding ruleK Lhe draft
$4'* blacV bear management Hlan, currently in HreHaration, calls for the creation of
$4(0 >Hear I-art? .o--Cnities where the 8WC wi55 worG with 5o.a5 7o=ern-entsB
$4(1 businesses, and residents to reduce bear conflicts and serve as a model for other
$4(2 communitiesK
$4($
$4(4 5n an effort to reduce bear mortality resulting from vehicle collisions, the FWC
$4(& maintains a database of all roadVillsK Staff uses this information to coordinate with
$4(' the Florida MeHartment of LransHortation CFMOLD to identify and mitigate chronic
$4(( roadVill hot sHots and Hrovide comments on road Hro`ects in bear rangeK Lhe FMOL
$4() has constructed more than 24 large wildlife underHasses along highways targeting
$4(* Florida Hanthers anddor blacV bears as a resultK Lhese structures have Hroven
$4)0 effective in reducing mortality of bears from vehicular collisionsK Additionally,
$4)1 Hlans for future traffic enhancement Hro`ects in critical bear roadVill areas have
$4)2 incorHorated wildlife underHasses that target bears in the design HhaseK
$4)$
$4)4 FWC documents basic demograHhic Harameters of blacV bear subHoHulationsK Iear
$4)& staff worVs to uHdate and refine bear distributionK FWC Hrovides guidelines for
$4)' managing bear habitat to land managersK FWC bear staff has identified landscaHe
$4)( level corridors between bear HoHulations and Hromoted their conservationK FWC
$4)) will begin research in 2011 to identify highavalue conservation lands in the Ocala to
$4)* Osceola corridorK
$4*0
$4*1 Population Assessment 3 Findings from the Iiological Ueview ZrouH are
$4*2 included in the Iiological Status Ueview 5nformation Findings and Uegional
$4*$ Assessment tables followingK
$4*4

14)
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$4*&
$4*'
$4*( LISTI/G "-COMM-/DATIO/
$4*)
$4** Lhe IUZ concluded that the Florida blacV bear did not meet listing criteriaK Staff,
$&00 therefore, recommends that the blacV bear not be listed as a Lhreatened sHeciesK
$&01
$&02 SRMMA"T O$ TH- I/D-P-/D-/T "-SI-W
$&0$
$&04 Comments were received from five reviewersW MrK Mave Zarshelis, Minnesota
$&0& MeHartment of Natural Uesources, coachair 5\CN Iear SHecialist ZrouH_ MrK Madan
$&0' Oli, Professor, MeHartment of Wildlife Rcology and Conservation, \niversity of
$&0( Florida_ MrK Michael Pelton, Professor Rmeritus, MeHartment of Forestry, Wildlife
$&0) and Fisheries, \niversity of Lennessee_ MrK FranV van Manen, \S Zeological
$&0* Survey, \niversity of Lennessee, President 5nternational Association for Iear
$&10 Uesearch and Management_ and SteHhanie SimeV, MississiHHi State \niversity and
$&11 former FWC Iear Management Section leaderK Lheir reviews can be found at
$&12 MyFWCKcomK All of the reviewers suHHorted the findings of the IUZK AHHroHriate
$&1$ editorial changes were made and additional information was added as suggested by
$&14 the reviewersK SHecific comments and sta44’s res<onses are as 4o55ows;
$&1&
$&1' Lhree reviewers ^uestioned the validity of the HoHulation viability analysis CPVAD
$&1( conducted by Uoot and Iarnes C200'D because it used inaHHroHriate Harameters and
$&1) because it modeled one connected statewide HoHulation instead of individual
$&1* subHoHulationsK
$&20
$&21 D)#*$##).+ ., 7?( r(#$-7# ,r.' 7?)# 1LF S&# r('.=(d0 I(,(r(+*(# 7. r(#$-7# ,r.' .+(
$&22 .7?(r 1LF 6&#(d .+ #$6A.A$-&7).+# &+d & #A(*),)* A.A$-&7).+ '.d(- S(r( &dd(d0
$&2$
$&24 One reviewer suggested that more detail be Hrovided on Harameter estimates,
$&2& assumHtions, data, etcK used in the modelsK
$&2'
$&2( C?)# d(7&)- )# &=&)-&6-( )+ 7?( *)7(d r(,(r(+*(#R &+d )7# )+*-$#).+ S.$-d 6( 6(2.+d 7?(
$&2) #*.A( ., 7?)# r(A.r70
$&2*
$&$0 Lwo reviewers suggested caution in interHreting estimates of bear abundance Hrior
$&$1 to 2002 because the methods used were sub`ective and not scientifically validK
$&$2
$&$$ >7&,, &*4+.S-(d9(# 7?( -)')7&7).+# ., 7?(#( (#7)'&7(# &+d Ar.=)d(d *.''(+7# )+ 7?(
$&$4 r(A.r7 7. r(,-(*7 7?)#0
$&$&
$&$' Lwo reviewers noted the trend in nuisance bear incidents might suHHort the
$&$( contention that bear numbers had increasedK
$&$)

14*
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$&$* F ,)9$r( r(,-(*7)+9 7?( )+*r(&#( )+ *&--# *.+*(r+)+9 6(&r# r(*()=(d 62 7?( ;T< S&#
$&40 &dd(d 7. 7?( r(A.r70
$&41
$&42 One reviewer noted that the number of bears Villed on highways over time was not
$&4$ included in the reHort but may be an indicator of HoHulation statusK
$&44
$&4& T?(+ #7&,, (E&')+(d 7?( 7r(+d ., 6(&r# 4)--(d .+ 7?( ?)9?S&2#R )7 S&# '.r(
$&4' #$99(#7)=( ., 7r&,,)* -(=(- 7r(+d# 7?&+ ., 6(&r &6$+d&+*( 7r(+d#0
$&4(
$&4) Lwo reviewers noted that the method used to estimate 2002 bear abundance liVely
$&4* Hrovided a conservative estimate, and one suggested reaanalysis of the data using
$&&0 alternative methodologiesK
$&&1
$&&2 >7&,, *.+*$r# S)7? 7?(#( *.''(+7#0 C?( ;T< .+-2 (#7)'&7(d 6(&r +$'6(r# S)7?)+
$&&$ ,)=( 6r((d)+9 r&+9(# KFUUOR &+d 7?$# )7 S&# +.7 &+ (#7)'&7( ., &-- 6(&r# )+ ;-.r)d&0
$&&4 C(E7 S&# &dd(d 7. ('A?&#)B( 7?&7 6(&r# .$7#)d( ., 7?(#( &r(&# S(r( +.7 (#7)'&7(d0
$&&& ;$r7?(rR #7&,, +.7(# 7?&7 '&-( 6(&r# *.'Ar)#(d VVW ., &-- #&'A-(d 6(&r# d(#A)7( 7?(
$&&' ,&*7 7?&7 '&-(# (EA(r)(+*( & ?)9?(r '.r7&-)72 r&7( 7?&+ ,('&-( 6(&r# &+dR &# & r(#$-7R
$&&( 7?(r( #?.$-d 6( ,(S(r ., 7?('0 <.rr(*7).+ ,&*7.r# 7. &**.$+7 ,.r 7?)# 9(+d(rX6&#(d
$&&) 6(?&=).r&- r(#A.+#( S.$-d -)4(-2 r(#$-7 )+ &+ )+*r(&#( )+ 7?( (#7)'&7( &+dR 7?(r(,.r(R
$&&* S.$-d +.7 *?&+9( 7?( ,)+d)+9# ., 7?)# r(A.r70 F-#.R 7)'( d)d +.7 &--.S r(X&+&-2#)# .,
$&'0 7?( '&r4Xr(*&A7$r( d&7& ,.r 7?)# r(=)(S0
$&'1
$&'2 Lwo reviewers noted that the 5\CN criteria rely on an estimate of the number of
$&'$ mature CcaHable of reHroductionD individuals while FWC estimates of bear
$&'4 abundance do not distinguish mature individuals from immature individualsK
$&'&
$&'' D$( 7. 7?()r #'&-- #7&7$r(R *$6# S(r( $+-)4(-2 7. -(&=( ?&)r 7$,7# .+ 6&r6(dXS)r(
$&'( #7r&+d# YV &+d VN *'0 &6.=( 7?( 9r.$+d &+dR 7?(r(,.r(R S(r( $+-)4(-2 7. 6( )+*-$d(d
$&') )+ 7?( A.A$-&7).+ (#7)'&7(#0 >7&,, &*4+.S-(d9(# 7?&7 r(Ar.d$*7)=(-2 )''&7$r(
$&'* &+)'&-# KQXY 2(&r .-d 6(&r#O S(r( )+*-$d(d )+ 7?( (#7)'&7(#0 5.S(=(rR S( +.7( 7?&7R
$&(0 .=(r&--R 7?( 7(*?+)Z$( Ar.=)d(# & *.+#(r=&7)=( (#7)'&7( K&# 7S. r(=)(S(r# +.7(dO0
$&(1 F-7?.$9? 9(+(r&7)+9 & r(=)#(d (#7)'&7( 6&#(d $A.+ &+ $+7(#7(d *.rr(*7).+ ,&*7.r 7.
$&(2 )+*-$d( .+-2 '&7$r( )+d)=)d$&-# S.$-d r(d$*( 7?( A.A$-&7).+ (#7)'&7(R )7 -)4(-2
$&($ S.$-d +.7 *?&+9( 7?( A.A$-&7).+ 7r(+d .r 7?( ,)+d)+9 ., 7?)# r(A.r7 K)0(0R )7 )# $+-)4(-2
$&(4 7?( A.A$-&7).+ (#7)'&7( S.$-d 6( ,(S(r 7?&+ QRNNN '&7$r( )+d)=)d$&-#O0
$&(&
$&(' One reviewer recommended an alternative method for calculating and Hresenting
$&(( variation in the statewide HoHulation estimateK
$&()
$&(* <&-*$-&7).+# S(r( r(=)#(d &# r(*.''(+d(d &+d *?&+9(# S(r( '&d( 7. 7?( d.*$'(+70
$&)0
$&)1 Lwo reviewers noted there was no mention of habitat management conducted to
$&)2 benefit bearsK

1&0
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$&)$
$&)4 F #$''&r2 ., ?&6)7&7 '&+&9('(+7 (,,.r7# 62 ;T< 7. 6(+(,)7 6(&r# S&# &dd(d0
$&)&
$&)' One reviewer suggested that the document should eTHlain why the blacV bear is not
$&)( listed as Lhreatened in IaVer and Columbia counties and AHalachicola National
$&)) ForestK
$&)*
$&*0 >7&,, S&# $+&6-( 7. ,)+d d.*$'(+7&7).+ &# 7. S?2 6(&r# )+ 7?(#( &r(&# S(r( +.7 -)#7(d
$&*1 &# C?r(&7(+(d0
$&*2
$&*$ One reviewer suggested the variation between the criteria used to initially list the
$&*4 subasHecies and the current 5\CN criteria be reviewedK
$&*&
$&*' C?( *r)7(r)& $#(d 7. )+)7)&--2 -)#7 7?( #$6X#A(*)(# &r( +.7 &=&)-&6-(0
$&*(
$&*) One reviewer suggested that, because the HoHulation of bears in Florida is
$&** fragmented into several subHoHulations, the 5\CN criteria may be too laT to Hrovide
$'00 any meaning for the longaterm conservation of blacV bears within the State, and
$'01 suggested a few of the subHoHulations might meet the 5\CN criteria for listing if
$'02 the criteria were aHHlied to themK
$'0$
$'04 C?( G!<H *r)7(r)& S(r( d(=(-.A(d 62 +$'(r.$# (EA(r7# &+d 7(#7(d S.r-dS)d( .+
$'0& MNRNNN #A(*)(#0 C?( d(*)#).+ 7. $#( 7?(#( *r)7(r)& 7. &##(## 7?( 6).-.9)*&- #7&7$# ., [Q
$'0' #7&7(X-)#7(d #A(*)(# S&# & r(#$-7 ., (E7(+#)=( #7&4(?.-d(r )+=.-=('(+7 )+ d(=(-.A'(+7
$'0( ., 7?( -)#7)+9 Ar.*(##0 !he task assigned to the B/0 of evaluating the status of the black bear 
$'0) statewide in 9lorida was based on this process as specified in rule ;<=>?@.BBC?, 9.=.C.  !he criteria 
$'0* include measures of geographic range, fragmentation, and subpopulation structure. Gtaff, therefore, 
$'10 believes application of these criteria to assess the status of the 9lorida black bear on a statewide basis is 
$'11 appropriate.  
$'12
$'1$
$'14 LIT-"ATR"- CIT-D
$'1&
$'1' Annis, [KMK 200)K Lhe imHact of translocation on nuisance Florida blacV bearsK
$'1( LhesisK \niversity of FloridaK &$HHK
$'1)
$'1* Ientbien, MKMK 1**)K Rndangered and threatened wildlife and HlantsW new 12a
$'20 month finding for a Hetition to list the Florida blacV bearK Federal Uegister
$'21 '$W'('1$a'('1)K
$'22
$'2$ Irown, YKHK 2004K Challenges in estimating sibe and conservation of blacV bear in
$'24 westacentral FloridaK LhesisK \niversity of [entucVyK &)HHK
$'2&

1&1
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$'2' Iunnell, FKZK and MKRKNK LaitK 1*)0K Iears in models and realityaimHlications to
$'2( managementK 5nternational Conference on Iear Uesearch and Management 4W1&a
$'2) 24K
$'2*
$'$0 CoT, YK, UK [autb, MK MacLaughlin, and LK ZilbertK 1**4K Closing the gaHs in
$'$1 85orida’s wi5d5i4e ha@itat .onser=ation syste-( 85orida Fa-e and 8resh Water 8ish
$'$2 CommissionK LallahasseeK
$'$$
$'$4 MiTon, YKMK, MK[K Oli, MKCK Wooten, LKHK Rason, YKWK McCown, and MK PaetVauK
$'$& 200'K Rffectiveness of a regional corridor in connecting two Florida blacV bear
$'$' HoHulationsK Conservation Iiology 20C1DW1&&a1'2
$'$(
$'$) MiTon, YKMK, MK[K Oli, MKCK Wooten, LKHK Rason, YKWK McCown, and MKWK
$'$* CunninghamK 200(K Zenetic conse^uences of habitat fragmentation and lossW the
$'40 case of the Florida blacV bear C!r#$# &'(r)*&+$# ,-.r)d&+$#DK Conservation
$'41 Zenetics )W4&&a4'4
$'42
$'4$ Mobey, SK, MKVK Masters, IK[K ScheicV, YKMK ClarV, MKUK Pelton, and MKRK Sun^uistK
$'44 200&K Rcology of Florida blacV bears in the OVefenoVeeaOsceola RcosystemK
$'4& Wildlife MonograHhs 1&)K
$'4'
$'4( Florida Zame and Fresh Water Fish CommissionK 1**$K Management of the blacV
$'4) bear in FloridaW A staff reHort to the commissionersK Florida Zame and Fresh
$'4* Water Fish Commission, Lallahassee, FloridaK
$'&0
$'&1 Zarrison, RKPK 2004K UeHroductive ecology, cub survival, and denning ecology of
$'&2 the Florida blacV bearK LhesisK \niversity of FloridaK Zainesville, FloridaK
$'&$
$'&4 Zarrison, RKPK, YKWK McCown, and MK[K OliK 200(K UeHroductive ecology and cub
$'&& survival of Florida blacV bearsK Yournal of Wildlife Management (1W(20a(2(K
$'&'
$'&( Zarshelis, MKLK, MK Crider, and FK van ManenK 200)K !r#$# &'(r)*&+$#K 5nW 5\CN
$'&) 2010K 5\CN Ued List of Lhreatened SHeciesK Version 2010K$ wwwKiucnredlistKorg K
$'&* Mownloaded on 0( October 2010K
$''0
$''1 ZuschansVi, [K, LKVigilant, AK McNeilage, MK Zray, RK [agoda, and MKMK UobbinsK
$''2 200*K Counting elusive animalsW comHaring field and genetic census of the entire
$''$ mountain gorilla HoHulation of Iwindi 5mHenetrable National ParV, \gandaK
$''4 Iiological Conservation 142W2*0a$00K
$''&
$''' Hall, RKUK and [KUK [elsonK 1*&*K Lhe mammals of North AmericaK Lhe Uonald
$''( Press, New oorVK
$'')

1&2
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$''* Harlow, UKFK 1*'1K Characteristics and status of Florida blacV bearK Lransactions
$'(0 of the North American Wildlife Conference 2'W4)1a4*&K
$'(1
$'(2 Hoctor, LKSK 200$K Uegional landscaHe analysis and reserve design to conserve
$'($ 85orida’s @iodi=ersity( dissertationK \niversity of FloridaK $('HHK
$'(4
$'(& Hoctor, LK SK 200'K MeveloHing uHdated statewide Hotential habitat and habitat
$'(' significance for the Florida blacV bearK Final Hro`ect reHortK Florida Fish and
$'(( Wildlife Conservation CommissionK Lallahassee, Florida, \SAK
$'()
$'(* Hostetler, YKAK, YKWK McCown, RKPK Zarrison, AKMK Neils, MKAK Iarrett, MKRK
$')0 Sun^uist, SKLK SimeV, and MK[K OliK 200*K MemograHhic conse^uences of
$')1 anthroHogenic influencesW Florida blacV bears in northacentral FloridaK Iiological
$')2 Conservation 142W24&'a24'$K
$')$
$')4 Lacy, UKCK, MK Iorbat, and YKPK PollaVK 1**&K VorteTW A stochastic simulation of
$')& the eTtinction HrocessK Version )K21 IrooVfield, 5LW Chicago uoological SocietyK
$')'
$')( Land, RKMK, MKSK Maehr, YKCK Uoof, and YKWK McCownK 1**4K Southwest Florida
$')) blacV bear distribution, movements, and conservation strategyK Florida Zame and
$')* Fresh Water Fish CommissionK LallahasseeK &1HHK
$'*0
$'*1 LarVin, YKLK, MKSK Maehr, LKSK Hoctor, MKAK Orlando, and [K WhitneyK 2004K
$'*2 LandscaHe linVages and conservation Hlanning for the blacV bear in westacentral
$'*$ FloridaK Animal Conservation (W1a12K
$'*4
$'*& LuiVart, ZK, NK Uyman, MKAK Lallmon, MK[K Schwartb, and FKWK AllendorfK 2010K
$'*' Rstimation of census and effective HoHulation sibesW increasing usefulness of MNAa
$'*( based aHHroachesK Conservation Zenetics 11W$&&a$($K
$'*)
$'** Maehr, MKSK and YKIK Wooding 1**2K Florida blacV bear !r#$# &'(r)*&+$#
$(00 ,-.r)d&+$#K Pages 2'&a2(& in SKUK HumHhrey CedKD, Uare and endangered biota of
$(01 FloridaK VolK 5K MammalsK \niversity Press of FloridaK Zainesville, FloridaK
$(02
$(0$ Maehr, MKSK, LKSK Hoctor, LKYK puinn, and YKSK SmithK 2001K IlacV bear habitat
$(04 management guidelines for FloridaK Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
$(0& Commission Final UeHortK LallahasseeK
$(0'
$(0( Maehr, MKSK, YKSK Smith, MKWK Cunningham, MKRK Iarnwell, YKLK LarVin, and MKAK
$(0) OrlandoK 200$K SHatial characteristics of an isolated Florida blacV bear HoHulationK
$(0* Southeastern Naturalist 2C$DW4$$a44'K
$(10
$(11 Maehr, MKSK, YKNK Layne, LKSK Hoctor, and MKAK OrlandoK 2004K Status of the blacV
$(12 bear in southacentral FloridaK Florida Field Naturalist $2C$DW)&a101K

1&$
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$(1$
$(14 McCown, YKWK, PK [ubilis, LKHK Rason, and IK[K ScheicVK 2004K IlacV bear
$(1& movements and habitat use relative to roads in Ocala National ForestK Florida Fish
$(1' and Wildlife Conservation CommissionK Final UeHort Contract IMa01' for Florida
$(1( MeHartment of LransHortationK
$(1)
$(1* McCown, YKWK, PK [ubilis, LKHK Rason, and IK[K ScheicVK 200*K Rffect of traffic
$(20 volume on American blacV bears in central Florida, \SAK \rsus 20C1DW$*a4'K
$(21
$(22 Merriam, CKHK 1)*'K Preliminary synoHsis of the American bearsK Proceedings of
$(2$ the Iiological Society of WashingtonK 10W'&a)'K
$(24
$(2& Moyer, MKAK, YKWK McCown, and MK[K OliK 200'K Moes genetic relatedness influence
$(2' sHace use Hatterns A test on Florida blacV bearsK Yournal of Mammalogy )(W2&&a
$(2( 2'1K
$(2)
$(2* Moyer, MKAK, YKWK McCown, and MK[K OliK 200(K Factors influencing homearange
$($0 sibe of female Florida blacV bearsK Yournal of Mammalogy ))W4')a4('K
$($1
$($2 Orlando, MKAK 200$K Lhe ecology and behavior of an isolated blacV bear HoHulation
$($$ in west central FloridaK LhesisK \niversity of [entucVyK 10$ HHK
$($4
$($& SimeV, SKLK, SKAK YonVer, IK[K ScheicV, MKYK Rndries, and LKHK RasonK 200&K
$($' Statewide assessment of road imHacts on bears in siT study areas in Florida from
$($( May 2001 to SeHtember 200$K Final UeHort Contract ICa*(2K Florida MeHartment
$($) of LransHortation, Lallahassee, FloridaK
$($*
$(40 Stratman, MKUK and MKUK PeltonK 200(K SHatial resHonse of American blacV bears
$(41 to Hrescribed fire in northwest FloridaK \rsus 1)C1DW'2a(1
$(42
$(4$ \lrey, WKAK 200)K Home range, habitat use, and food habits of the blacV bear in
$(44 southacentral FloridaK LhesisK \niversity of [entucVyK 11(HHK
$(4&
$(4' Williams, IK[K, YKMK Nichols, and MKYK ConroyK 2002K Analysis and management of
$(4( animal HoHulationsW modeling, estimation, and decision maVingK Academic PressK
$(4) San Miego, California, \SAK

1&4
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$(4*
 Florida 8lacF 8ear 
Iiological Status Ueview 5nformation Findings Dpecies2taZon:   KHrsus americanus 
floridanusL\ ]ntire 
populationN  

 %%2"2(#%#  
?ate:  
Walter McCown, Mel Sun^uist, and Iill
Assessors:   Ziuliano
>.@ K8ased on ^ $## ! in 
    7eneration len9th:   F_C data8ase ` *N# yNoN a 
'N*L  
        
       

Criterion[Listing Measure Data[Information Data Criterion "eferences


Typei Metj

wMata LyHes a observed COD, estimated CRD, inferred C5D, susHected CSD, or Hro`ected CPDK Criterion met a yes CoD or no CNDK

(AZ Population Side "eduction, ANo of


Numbers have been increasing S No ZFC Historical
CaD1K An observed, estimated, inferred or susHected over the Hast 24 years C$ HoHulation estimates,
HoHulation sibe reduction of at least &0c over the last generationsD Pelton and Nichols
10 years or $ generations, whichever is longer, where 1*(2, [asbohm 2004,
the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible and and others Csee
understood and ceased1 Figures 2a4DK
Numbers have been increasing S No ZFC Historical
CaD2K An observed, estimated, inferred or susHected over the Hast 24 years C$ HoHulation estimates,
HoHulation sibe reduction of at least $0c over the last generationsD Pelton and Nichols
10 years or $ generations, whichever is longer, where 1*(2, [asbohm 2004,
the reduction or its causes may not have ceased or and others Csee
may not be understood or may not be reversible1 Figures 2 a4DK

a1&&a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

RTHected to increase over neTt P No Hoctor 200'


CaD$K A HoHulation sibe reduction of at least $0c 24 years due to conservation
Hro`ected or susHected to be met within the neTt 10 efforts and suitable vacant
years or $ generations, whichever is longer CuH to a habitat
maTimum of 100 yearsD 1
Numbers have been and P No Hoctor 200'
CaD4K An observed, estimated, inferred, Hro`ected or continue to increase due to
susHected HoHulation sibe reduction of at least $0c conservation efforts and
over any 10 year or $ generation Heriod, whichever is suitable vacant habitatK
longer CuH to a maTimum of 100 years in the futureD,
where the time Heriod must include both the Hast
and the future, and where the reduction or its causes
may not have ceased or may not be understood or
may not be reversibleK1

1based on Cand sHecifyingD any of the followingW CaD direct observation_ CbD an indeT of abundance aHHroHriate to the taTon_ CcD a decline in
area of occuHancy, eTtent of occurrence anddor ^uality of habitat_ CdD actual or Hotential levels of eTHloitation_ CeD the effects of introduced
taTa, hybridibation, Hathogens, Hollutants, comHetitors or HarasitesK

(BZ Geographic "ange, R5LHRU


ROO f (,(22 mi2 C1(,&$1 mi2D R No SimeV et alK 200&
CbD1K RTtent of occurrence q 20,000 Vm2 C(,(22 mi2 D
OU
AOO f ((2 mi2 C10,0(( mi2D R No SimeV et alK 200&
CbD2K Area of occuHancy q 2,000 Vm2 C((2 mi2 D

ANM at least 2 of the followingW

a( Ie=ere5y 4ra7-ented or eEist in i LK 5o.ations

bK Continuing decline, observed, inferred or Hro`ected


in any of the followingW CiD eTtent of occurrence_ CiiD
area of occuHancy_ CiiiD area, eTtent, anddor ^uality of
habitat_ CivD number of locations or subHoHulations_
CvD number of mature individuals

a1&'a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

cK RTtreme fluctuations in any of the followingW CiD


eTtent of occurrence_ CiiD area of occuHancy_ CiiiD
number of locations or subHoHulations_ CivD number of
mature individuals

(CZ Population Side and Trend


2,212 ! $,4$$ bears R oes SimeV et alK 200&
PoHulation sibe estimate to number fewer than
10,000 mature individuals ANM R5LHRU
Has increased for more than P No
CcD1K An estimated continuing decline of at least 10c last 24 yearsK RTHected to
in 10 years or $ generations, whichever is longer CuH increase over neTt 24 years due
to a maTimum of 100 years in the futureD OU to conservation efforts and
suitable vacant habitatK
Has increasedK RTHected to P No
CcD2K A continuing decline, observed, Hro`ected, or increase over neTt 24 years due
inferred in numbers of mature individuals ANM at to conservation efforts and
least one of the followingW suitable vacant habitatK

aK PoHulation structure in the form of R5LHRU

CiD No subHoHulation estimated to contain more than 1000 mature individuals_ OU

CiiD All mature individuals are in one subHoHulation

bK RTtreme fluctuations in number of mature


individuals

(DZ Population Sery Small or "estricted,


R5LHRU
2)2$ g &* bears R No SimeV et alK 200&
CdD1K PoHulation estimated to number fewer than
1,000 mature individuals_ OU

a1&(a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

AOO f ) mi2 C10,0(( mi2D and R No SimeV et alK 200&


CdD2K PoHulation with a very restricted area of locations f &K
occuHancy CtyHically less than 20 Vm2 m) mi2nD or
number of locations CtyHically & or fewerD such that it
is Hrone to the effects of human activities or
stochastic events within a short time Heriod in an
uncertain future

(-Z huantitative Analyses


Probability of eTtinction j bero R No Maehr et alK 2001
e1K Showing the Hrobability of eTtinction in the wild
is at least 10c within 100 years
        
       

5nitial Finding CMeets at least one of the criteria OU Moes not Ueason Cwhich criteria are metD
meet any of the criteriaD
Moes not meet any criteria

No
5s sHeciesdtaTon endemic to Floridas CodND
        
5f oes, your initial finding is your final findingK CoHy the initial finding
and reason to the final finding sHace belowK 5f No, comHlete the regional
assessment sheet and coHy the final finding from that sheet to the sHace
belowK

Final Finding CMeets at least one of the criteria OU Moes not Ueason Cwhich criteria are metD
meet any of the criteriaD
Lhe Florida blacV bear does not meet any of the
criteriaK

a1&)a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$(&0 Additional informationW 5n regards to Criterion C2, the team recognibed and
$(&1 discussed the Hotential for habitat loss Hredicted by Wildlife 20'0 to affect the
$(&2 finding for this criterionK Iear HoHulations are centered on large Harcels of
$(&$ conserved Hublic landsK However, the Hredicted loss of nonaconserved habitat will
$(&4 be significant and will negatively imHact currently occuHied bear range and, we
$(&& inferred, bear numbersK Hard boundaries between bear range and urban
$(&' develoHment will be created which will increase humanabear interactions which will
$(&( increase the mortality rate of bears on the fringe of conserved bear habitatK Lhis
$(&) situation would liVely contribute to a reduction in bear numbers from current
$(&* estimatesK Since the 2002 estimate for our largest subHoHulation COcalaD currently
$('0 straddles the 1,000 mature individuals trigger for c2aCiD, a reduction in bear
$('1 numbers in the future could cause this criterion to be metK However, there is no
$('2 current decline in bear numbers occurring, thus a decline cannot continue Csince it
$('$ does not now eTistD C5\CN guidelines HK 2'DK Lhe team thought that if a decline
$('4 occurs due to the events Hredicted by Wildlife 20'0, the full imHact will occur
$('& further out than the sHecified time horibon of $ generationsK Further, the team
$('' thought the Hotential future reduction in bear numbers would be mitigated
$('( somewhat by the occuHancy over time of f 1 million acres of currently unoccuHied
$(') and underaoccuHied but suitable bear habitat CHoctor 200'D in the Iig Iend regionK
$('* Lhe Iig Iend region is ad`acent to currently occuHied bear range CAHalachicolaD and
$((0 not Hredicted to be greatly affected by Hotential 20'0 imHactsK Additionally, the
$((1 Hotential loss should be mitigated by the current and Hlanned conservation efforts
$((2 outlined in Current Management CaboveD and in the blacV bear management Hlan
$(($ which is under develoHmentK After the discussion the team was unanimous that
$((4 bears did not meet this criterionK

a1&*a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$((&
$(('
%   Florida 8lacF 8ear KOrsus 
Iiological Status Ueview 5nformation Uegional Assessment Dpecies2taZon:  a@ericanus floridanusL 
]ntire population  

(   %%2"2%#  
?ate: 
"   _alter McCownU Mel DunbuistU and 
Assessors:  Iill 7iuliano  
*      
   
$      
       
+      
       
'  

)   SuHHorting 5nformation


5nitial finding
&  

%#   N
2aK 5s the sHeciesdtaTon a nonabreeding visitors CodNdM[DK 5f 2a is oRS, go to
line 1)K 5f 2a is NO or MO NOL [NOW, go to line 11K
%%   N
2bK Moes the Florida HoHulation eTHerience any significant immigration of
HroHagules caHable of reHroducing in Floridas CodNdM[DK 5f 2b is oRS, go to
line 12K 5f 2b is NO or MO NOL [NOW, go to line 1(K
%(  
2cK 5s the immigration eTHected to decreases CodNdM[DK 5f 2c is oRS or MO

a1'0a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

NOL [NOW, go to line 1$K 5f 2c is NO go to line 1'K

%"  
2dK 5s the Florida HoHulation a sinVs CodNdM[DK 5f 2d is oRS, go to line 14K 5f
2d is NO or MO NOL [NOW, go to line 1&K
%*  
5f 2d is oRS a \Hgrade from initial finding Cmore imHeriledD
%$  
5f 2d is NO or MO NOL [NOW a No change from initial finding
%+  
5f 2c is NO or MO NOL [NOWa Mowngrade from initial finding Cless
imHeriledD
%'   N
5f 2b is NO or MO NOL [NOW a No change from initial finding
%)  
2eK Are the conditions outside Florida deterioratings CodNdM[DK 5f 2e is oRS
or MO NOL [NOW, go to line 24K 5f 2e is NO go to line 1*K
%&  
2fK Are the conditions within Florida deterioratings CodNdM[DK 5f 2f is oRS or
MO NOL [NOW, go to line 2$K 5f 2f is NO, go to line 20K
(#  
2gK Can the breeding HoHulation rescue the Florida HoHulation should it
declines CodNdM[DK 5f 2g is oRS, go to line 21K 5f 2g is NO or MO NOL
[NOW, go to line 22K
(%  
5f 2g is oRS a Mowngrade from initial finding Cless imHeriledD
((  
5f 2g is NO or MO NOL [NOW a No change from initial finding
("  
5f 2f is oRS or MO NOL [NOW a No change from initial finding
(*  
5f 2e is oRS or MO NOL [NOW a No change from initial finding
($   No change
Final finding

a1'1a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$(((

$(()    
$((* Figure 1K Lhe 2002 range of the Florida blacV bear CFrom SimeV et alK 200&DK

a1'2a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$()0

a1'$a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$()1
$()2
$()$ Figure $K Number of calls received by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission concerning bears and
$()4 human HoHulation levels in Florida 1*() ! 2010K

a1'4a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$()&
$()' Figure 4K IlacV bear distribution in Florida in 1*() and 2002K
$()(
$()) 1*()W Irady, YKUK, and YKCK McManielK 1*()K Status reHort for FloridaK Rastern IlacV Iear WorVshoHK 4W&a*
$()* 2002W SimeV et alK 200&

a1'&a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$(*0 BS" APP-/DIQ J. Brief biographies of the $lorida black bear Biological
$(*1 "eview Group members.
$(*2
$(*$ Walter McCown has a IKSK in Iiology from Columbus State \niversityK He has
$(*4 worVed on a variety of wildlife issues with FWC and since 2004 has been a biologist
$(*& in 8WC’s *errestria5 Ma--a5 Vesear.h IC@se.tion( Mr( M.Cown has o=er LN
$(*' years eTHerience in research and conservation of blacV bears in FloridaK
$(*(
$(*) Mel Sunquist has a PhKMK in Wildlife Rcology from the \niversity of MinnesotaK
$(** He is currently a Professor Rmeritus with the \niversity of FloridaK MrK Sun^uist
$)00 has 20 years teaching and research eTHerience in the \F MeHartment of Wildlife
$)01 Rcology and Conservation and has more than $0 years eTHerience worVing on the
$)02 behavior, ecology, and conservation of mammalian carnivores, in Florida and
$)0$ worldwideK
$)04
$)0& Bill Giuliani has a PhM from LeTas Lech \niversity in Wildlife Science, a MS from
$)0' Rastern [entucVy \niversity in Iiology, and a IS from the \niversity of New
$)0( HamHshire in Wildlife Management with a Minor in uoologyK He currently serves
$)0) as the Professor and State RTtension SHecialist in the MeHartment of Wildlife
$)0* Rcology and Conservation at the \niversity of FloridaK He has researched and
$)10 develoHed management Hrograms for a variety of wildlife sHecies for more than 20
$)11 years such as blacV bears, `aguars, fishers, Hine martens, raccoons, coyotes, hogs,
$)12 rabbits, s^uirrels, and various rodents, among othersK
$)1$
$)14 (BS"Z APP-/DIQ BK Summary of letters and emails received during the
$)1& solicitation of information from the public period of September Jb, B0J0
$)1' through /ovember J, B0J0.
$)1(
$)1) Ietsy UK [night, Iig Iend Wildlife Sanctuary, 5ncK lK Protect enough land for
$)1* the survival of the Florida IlacV Iear and you Hrotect enough land to suHHort
$)20 Hrotection of most all Florida SHeciesK Lhere should be a corridor from Iig
$)21 CyHress SwamH to Rglin Air Force Iase for these large mammals to range,
$)22 breed and maintain a healthy HoHulationK When you divide the State in to
$)2$ segments you end uH with bits and Hieces of bear habitat such as the
$)24 ChassahowitbVa HoHulation where inbreeding is occurringK 2K Lhe answer is
$)2& education, education and more education_ 5 have been signed uH as a
$)2' volunteer for about a year, have received my MVM for educational Hrograms,
$)2( but havenht been asVed to go to one single HrogramK We need to utilibe all
$)2) volunteers and saturate the State with education on the Florida IlacV IearK
$)2* Hunting of the Florida IlacV Iear should be HrohibitedK 5n an effort to
$)$0 comHromise, 5 might suggest in healthy HoHulations such as the AHalachicola
$)$1 National Forest, you might suggest allowing dogs to run a bear a day for a
$)$2 ten day Heriod, but the dogs would not be able to continue to run the same

a1''a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$)$$ bear continuously for daysK Lhe Florida IlacV Iear needs to be VeHt on the
$)$4 Lhreatened SHecies list!!!
$)$&
$)$' Chris PaHy commented on the large number of bears in Aucilla WMAK
$)$(
$)$) Mavid MaHore commented on the large number of bears and bear sign in
$)$* numerous wildlife management areas in central FloridaK Muring an outing
$)40 he often sees more bears than any other sHecies of wildlifeK He considers the
$)41 restoration of bears to have been successfulK
$)42
$)4$ Yames Aldridge commented on the large number of bears he sees in Ocala
$)44 National ForestK
$)4&
$)4' [itty Loftin saw 2 bears in WaVulla County, FloridaK
$)4(
$)4) Meagin YacVson commented on the large number of bears in northern
$)4* Osceola National Forest and mentioned several encounters with bears in the
$)&0 area and believes that the area has as many bears as it will holdK
$)&1
$)&2 MicV [emHton has seen bears on several occasions in the Iig CyHress
$)&$ National Preserve, 12a1& miles north of Oasis Visitor CenterK
$)&4  

$)&&

a1'(a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$)&' APP-/DIQ II. $lorida black bear harvest data, JH8J to JHHa.

$)&( Table JG. Bear harvest information for Apalachicola Wildlife Management Area (WMAZ, Osceola
$)&) WMA, and Baker and Columbia counties, $lorida JH8J to JHHa ("eproduced from G$C JHHGZ.

Apalachicola WMA (AWMAZ Osceola WMA (OWMAZ Baker and Columbia Co. (BCCZ Statewide
k g k g k g
k AWMA k OWMA k BCC Total Total
Tear $emal $emal $emal $emal $emal $emal
Male Total k Male Total Male Total k Harvest Hunters
e e e e e e
)1d)2 ) ) &0c 1' ' $ $0c 10a & 1 14c (a $$ (20
)2d)$ 2 1 $$c $ ' $ $$c * 14 ' 2&c 24 a $' (*$
)$d)4 & 11 '*c 1' ' $ $$c * & & &0c 10 $& (00
)4d)& 1& 11 42c 2' 0 1 100c 1 1( 2 11c 1* 4' )&)
)&d)' * 14 '1c 2$ & 2 2*c ( 2( 11 2*c $) ') (*)
)'d)(a 12 ) 40c 20 ( ( &0c 14 1( 0 0c 1( &1 ((2
)(d)) 12 ' $$c 1) 1 $ (&c 4 1& ) $&c 2$ 4& 4'*
))d)* 1$ & 2)c 1) 0 0 0c 0 1( ' 2'c 2$ 41 2&'
)*d*0 2( ( 21c $4 2 1 $$c $ 1( ' 2'c 2$ '0 21&
*0d*1 11 4 2(c 1& 1 0 0c 1 1) 4 1)c 22 $) 1)4
*1d*2 24 $ 11c 2( 2 0 0c 2 24 ( 2$c $1 '0 a
*2d*$ a a a * 0 0 0c 0 a a a 1$ 22 a
*$d*4 a a a $0 0 0 0c 0 a a a $2 '2 a
$)&* aK Ma`or regulatory changes in bear hunting season to reduce females and young in the harvest started in 1*)(K
$)'0

a1')a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$)'1 APP-/DIQ III. Status of black bears in states with resident bear populations.

$)'2 Table Ja. Population estimates, trends and hunting status of the aJ states with resident black bear
$)'$ populations (compiled from Spencer et al. B00b, Hristienko et. al. B0J0, Lackey and Beausoleil B0J0,
$)'4 and state agency websites[personnelZ.

PoHulation
State SHecies Status Hunting Season
Rstimate Lrend
Alabama &0!100 Stable State List No
AlasVaa (2,&00 Stable Zame oes
Aribona 2,&00 Stable Zame oes
ArVansas $,&00!4,&00 Stable Zame oes
California $4,000 \H Zame oes
Colorado 12,000 Stable Zame oes
Connecticut $00!&00 \H State List No
Florida 2,&00!$,000 \H State List No
Zeorgia 2,$00!2,&00 \H Zame oes
5daho 20,000 Stable Zame oes
[entucVy q&00 \H Zame oesb
Louisiana &00!(00 \H Federal List No
Maine 2$,000 Stable Zame oes
Maryland '00g \H Zame oes
Massachusetts 2,*00!$,000 \H Zame oes
Michigan 1),000 Stable Zame oes
Minnesota 1&,000 Mown Zame oes
MississiHHi 120 \H Federal Listc No
Missouri $&0 \H Zame No
Montana 1',&00 \nVnown Zame oes
Nevada 200!400 Stable Zame oesb
New HamHshire 4,*00 Stable Zame oes

a1'*a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

PoHulation
State SHecies Status Hunting Season
Rstimate Lrend
New Yersey 1,)00!$,200 \H Zame oes
New MeTico &,&00 Stable Zame oes
New oorV &,000!),000 \H Zame oes
North Carolina *,000!12,000 \H Zame oes
Ohio &0!100 \H State List No
OVlahoma 200 \H Zame oesb
Oregon 2&,000!$0,000 Stable Zame oes
Pennsylvania 1&,000 Stable Zame oes
Uhode 5sland q20 \H Zame No
South Carolina 1,)00 \H Zame oes
Lennessee $,000!',000 \H Zame oes
LeTas )0!100 \H Federal Listc No
\tah 2,2&0 \H Zame oes
Vermont 4,&00!',000 \H Zame oes
Virginia ),000 \H Zame oes
Washington 2&,000 Stable Zame oes
West Virginia 10,000!12,000 \H Zame oes
Wisconsin 2$,000 \H Zame oes
Wyoming \nVnown Stable Zame oes
$)'&
$)'' aK RTcludes interior AlasVaK IK Hunts oHened ondafter 200*a2010 seasonK CK Rither federal or state listed, deHending on locationK
$)'(

a1(0a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$)') APP-/DIQ IS. D-SC"IPTIO/ O$ B-A" SMA"T COMMR/ITI-S P"OG"AM

$)'* Lhe ob`ective of Strategy 4K1 is to reduce humanabear conflicts by Hroviding the
$)(0 right materials and messages in the form of a Iear Smart Community CISCD
$)(1 ProgramK Lhe ISC Hrogram was de=e5o<ed @y Hritish Co5C-@ia’s Ministry o4
$)(2 Rnvironment, and a reHresentative of the Ministry has granted the FWC
$)($ Hermission to use the name, Hrogram elements and materialsK
$)(4 Lhe overarching mission of the ISC Hrogram is to influence and guide
$)(& communities to acceHt Hersonal and communal resHonsibility for reducing humana
$)(' bear conflictsK A ISC is a sHecific and defined geograHhical area where the
$)(( residents, local government, businesses and schools taVe resHonsibility to resolve
$)() their humanabear conflictsK A ISC can be as small as a grouH of homes in a certain
$)(* area or as large as an entire county and would include homeowner associations,
$))0 municiHalities, and county governmentsK A community or area achieves ISC status
$))1 when it has met the siT defining criteria Csee belowD and will, at a minimum, include
$))2 an educational comHonent, Hrovisions for bear!resistant solid waste handling and
$))$ containers, aHHroHriate governance Cordinances, covenants, bylawsD and assessment
$))4 measures to determine successK
$))& SteHs for creating a ISC includeW
$))' 1K PreHare a bear conflicts assessment of the community and surrounding areaK
$))( 2K PreHare a humanabear conflict management Hlan that is designed to address
$))) the bear and landause conflicts identified in the Hrevious steHK
$))* $K Uevise Hlanning and decisionamaVing documents to be consistent with the
$)*0 bearahuman conflict management HlanK
$)*1 4K 5mHlement a continuing education Hrogram, directed at all sectors of the
$)*2 communityK
$)*$ &K MeveloH and maintain a bearaHroof municiHal solid waste management
$)*4 system CSee HumanaIear Conflicts breaVout sectionDK
$)*& 'K 5mHlement aHHroHriate ordinances or bylaws Hrohibiting feeding bears by
$)*' intent, neglect, or irresHonsible management of attractants CSee HumanaIear
$)*( Conflicts breaVout sectionDK

a1(1a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$)*) Achieving ISC status is rigorous and taVes timeK How much time it taVes
$)** varies by communityK For eTamHle, in Iritish Columbia many communities have
$*00 made eTemHlary strides toward ISC status, with only one or two achieving the goalK
$*01 Lhis is because it taVes much time, leadershiH and dedication to coordinate a
$*02 community team, enact ordinances, achieve voluntary comHliance and change waste
$*0$ management Hractices, and imHlement an education HrogramK While achieving
$*04 ISC status is rigorous, it is a Hositive communityabased aHHroach that has been
$*0& Hroven effective in Iritish ColumbiaK
$*0' 5n total or inaHart, the siT steHs re^uired to create a ISC worV to minimibe
$*0( humanabear conflicts and the number of bears Villed as a result of human
$*0) habituation and foodaconditioningK Florida already has a State law which Hrohibits
$*0* feeding bears CFKAKCK ')Aa4K001C$DDK Lhose who are found guilty of violating this
$*10 law are sub`ect to criminal HrosecutionK However, imHlementing municiHal or
$*11 county ordinances, or community bylaws which Hrohibit feeding bears intentionally,
$*12 unintentionally or through neglect, or irresHonsible management of attractants will
$*1$ taVe time and may be the most difficult to achieveK 5n the meantime, any nona
$*14 regulatory measures taVen to eliminate or bearaHroof food attractants is a Hositive
$*1& steH toward solving this comHleT issueK
$*1' Lhe ISC Program IacVground UeHort CMavis et alK 2002D Hrofiles four case
$*1( histories as eTamHles of communities Hroactively worVing to eliminate food
$*1) attractants or access to them in their communitiesK While each community did not
$*1* imHlement the ISC Hrogram eTactly as designed, each community did attemHt to
$*20 develoH bearaHroofing systems to reduce the number and eTtent of humanabear
$*21 conflictsK Rach community Hrofiled tooV several years to achieve successK
$*22 One community that stands out as eTemHlary model of a ISC is Whistler in
$*2$ Iritish ColumbiaK Whistler began to taVe steHs to become a ISC in 1**( and by
$*24 2000 they had become comHletely bearaHroofK 5n 1*** they initiated an aversive
$*2& conditioning Hrogram and a comHrehensive education Hrogram targeting residents,
$*2' businesses, and visitorsK Lhis Hrocess tooV a minimum of three years to accomHlishK
$*2( [eeHing a community bearaHroof is an ongoing Hrocess with vigilant maintenance

a1(2a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$*2) and educationK Peine C2001D describes several comHleT cases in which it tooV some
$*2* communities ten to 2& years to formulate and enact effective Holicies and Hrograms
$*$0 addressing their bear HroblemsK
$*$1 FWC will worV with IIAZs to locate interested communities willing to become
$*$2 a ISCK 5nitial efforts to create ISCs will focus on Hlaces where humanabear conflict
$*$$ is relatively highK Iased on call data and citiben and staff information, FWC will
$*$4 identify and offer those communities information on how to become a ISCK IIAZs
$*$& involvement can eTHedite cooHeration among the Hublic, local businesses,
$*$' nongovernmental organibations, local governments and agencies, and local law
$*$( enforcement entitiesK IIAZs can more easily identify local Hroblems and
$*$) conservation oHHortunities, and therefore facilitate changes in local Holicies and
$*$* ordinances regarding bearsK
$*40 Lhrough statewide education and outreach activities, other communities may
$*41 taVe their own initiative to selfaorganibe and become ISCsK 5deally, communities
$*42 eTHeriencing undesirable bear interactions will strive to become a ISC but
$*4$ realistically that may not always haHHenK 5n those cases, individual and community
$*44 level behavioral changes are essential in reducing conflicts with bearsK Uesidents
$*4& Chomeowners and rentersD and visitors will receive information and be asVed to
$*4' voluntarily taVe actions that imHrove waste management Hractices in order to
$*4( reduce or eliminate attractantsK Homeowner associations and residential
$*4) management grouHs will be encouraged to emHloy recommended actions such as
$*4* communityawide education, attractant Hrevention and waste storage solutionsK
$*&0 LemHlate documents for ISCs will be Hrovided to homeowner associations, and they
$*&1 will be encouraged to include ISC Hractices in their covenantsK Rducational
$*&2 Hresentations, community events and suHHorting materials will be develoHed and
$*&$ introduced to residents in areas of high humanabear conflictK
$*&4 \sing the established ISC Hrogram name and logo, FWC can develoH an
$*&& aHHearance that is uni^ue and brands the Hrogram in FloridaK [ey messages and
$*&' materials will be develoHed for use in ISCs but also will be used to inform
$*&( audiences statewide about ISC HracticesK 5nitial outreach will be within the $&

a1($a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$*&) counties identified as containing Hrimary bear range CAHHendiT 5VDK As resources
$*&* allow, outreach efforts may eTHand beyond Hrimary rangeK Methods for message
$*'0 delivery may include newsHaHer feature articles, Hreashow Hrogramming in movie
$*'1 theatres, a MVM Hrogram, billboards, fliers on community bulletin boards, radio
$*'2 announcements, or short sHots for cable, Hublic television or oouLube and other
$*'$ so.ia5 -edia( 8WC’s @5a.G @ear web site ChttHWddwwwKMyFWCKcomdbearD will
$*'4 include relevant information about ISCs, as well as natural history, distribution
$*'& and range, current and historical management, humanabear conflict and avoidance,
$*'' HoHular and scientific Hublications, and a sHecial section for youth and educatorsK
$*'(

a1(4a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$*') APP-/DIQ S. P"OPOS-D "RL-

$*'* Uule ')Aa4K00*


$*(0
$*(1 C1D No Herson shall taVe Cas that term is defined in ')Aa1K004D, Hossess,
$*(2 in`ure, shoot, wound, traH, collect, or sell Florida blacV bears C!r#$#
$*($ &'(r)*&+$# ,-.r)d&+$#D or their Harts or to attemHt to engage in such
$*(4 conduct eTceHt as authoribed by Commission rule or by Hermit from the
$*(& CommissionK
$*('
$*(( C2D Lhe Commission may issue Hermits authoribing intentional taVe of
$*() bears for scientific or conservation HurHoses which will benefit the survival
$*(* Hotential of the sHeciesK For HurHoses of this rule, a scientific or conservation
$*)0 HurHose shall mean activities that further the conservation or survival of the
$*)1 sHecies, includingW
$*)2 1K Collection of scientific data needed for conservation or management of
$*)$ the sHecies_
$*)4 2K Uemoving bears from situations that constitute a human safety risV or
$*)& a risV to the well being of the bear_
$*)'
$*)( C$D Lhe Commission will Hrovide technical assistance to land owners and
$*)) comments to Hermitting agencies in order minimibe and avoid Hotential
$*)* negative human bear interactions or imHacts of land modifications on the
$**0 conservation and management of blacV bearsK Lhe Commission will base its
$**1 comments and recommendations on the goals and ob`ectives of the aHHroved
$**2 bear management HlanK

a1(&a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

$**$ APP-/DIQ SI. LIST O$ $LO"IDA COR/TI-S ID-/TI$I-D BT B-A" MA/AG-M-/T R/IT A/D B-A" "A/G-.

$**4 Table J5. $lorida counties identified by Bear Management Rnit (BMRZ and Primary and[or
$**& Secondary Bear "ange.
County BMR Primary Secondary County BMR Primary Secondary
Alachua Central No oes Zilchrist Iig Iend No No
IaVer North oes oes Zlades SK Central oes oes
Iay RK Panhandle oes oes Zulf RK Panhandle oes No
Iradford Central No oes Hamilton North oes oes
Irevard Central No oes Hardee SK Central No oes
Iroward South No oes Hendry South oes oes
Calhoun RK Panhandle oes oes Hernando Iig Iend oes No
Charlotte SK Central No No Highlands SK Central oes oes
Citrus Iig Iend oes oes Hillsborough SK Central No No
Clay Central oes oes Holmes WK Panhandle No No
Collier South oes oes 5ndian Uiver SK Central No No
Columbia North oes oes YacVson RK Panhandle No No
Me Soto SK Central No No Yefferson RK Panhandle oes oes
MiTie Iig Iend No oes LaVe Central oes oes
Muval North No oes Lafayette Iig Iend No No
Rscambia WK Panhandle No No Lee South oes oes
Flagler Central oes oes Levy Iig Iend No oes
FranVlin RK Panhandle oes No Leon RK Panhandle oes oes
Zadsden RK Panhandle oes oes Liberty RK Panhandle oes oes

a1('a
Draft Black Bear Management Plan Appendices

County BMR Primary Secondary County BMR Primary Secondary


Madison RK Panhandle oes No Suwannee North No No
Manatee SK Central No No Laylor RK Panhandle oes oes
Marion Central oes oes WaVulla RK Panhandle oes No
Martin SK Central No No Walton WK Panhandle oes oes
MiamiaMade South No oes Washington RK Panhandle No No
Monroe South oes oes \nion North No oes
Nassau North No No Volusia Central oes oes
OValoosa WK Panhandle oes oes
OVeechobee SK Central No No
Orange Central oes oes
Osceola SK Central No No
Palm Ieach South No No
Pasco Iig Iend oes No
Pinellas SK Central No No
PolV SK Central No oes
Putnam Central oes oes
Santa Uosa WK Panhandle oes oes
Sarasota SK Central No No
Seminole Central oes oes
StK Yohns Central oes oes
StK Lucie SK Central No No
Sumter Central No oes

a1((a

You might also like