PRELIMINARY BEAR HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF RESORT …

PRELIMINARY

BEAR HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF RESORT

MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER (RMOW)

Submitted to Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW), Whistler, British Columbia

August 2004

Wayne McCrory, RPBio.

MCCRORY WILDLIFE SERVICES LTD.

BOX 479, NEW DENVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA V0G 1S0PHONE (250) 358-7796, FAX: (250) 358-7950; E-MAIL: [email protected]

[Cover photo: Bear viewing on gladed ski run on Whistler Mountain. Photo by Sylvia Dolson]

Disclaimer

McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. prepared the research and text for this document. This researchdocument is limited by the short-term duration of the field studies performed mostly under theBear Smart guidelines for a preliminary bear hazard assessment. While this report contains thebest possible information available to provide an accurate and authoritative analysis with regard tothe subject matter, no liability is assumed with respect to the use and application of the informationcontained herein.

“Clearly, if carnivore conservation is impeded by a problem between local communities and carnivorebehaviour, problem resolution must involve not only the carnivore that is the problem, but also thehumans who are having the problem." - (Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson, 2001).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................2

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................7

1.1 THE STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................................................8

2.0 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODS....................................................................................................................9

2.1 OVERALL STUDY APPROACH.......................................................................................................................................92.2 BASIC METHODS........................................................................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Habitat evaluation............................................................................................................................................112.2.2 Bear travel/connectivity evaluation .................................................................................................................122.2.3 Bear-human conflict analysis..........................................................................................................................122.2.4 Profile of potential dangerous bear encounter types......................................................................................122.2.5 Artificial food/garbage audit ...........................................................................................................................122.2.6 Audit of public information system on bears and bear safety.........................................................................122.2.7 Other background information ........................................................................................................................122.2.8 Interviews & workshops...................................................................................................................................12

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................14

3.1 MANAGEMENT MODELS - MUNICIPALITY OF CANMORE, BOW VALLEY WILDLAND PARK AND PETER

LOUGHEED PROVINCIAL PARK, ALBERTA .....................................................................................................................143.2 RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY BEAR HAZARD ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................16

3.2.1 Residential, Village-pedestrian and commercial complex areas ...................................................................163.2.2 School sport fields and school-municipal children's playgrounds.................................................................183.2.3 Green spaces and park areas...........................................................................................................................233.2.4 Campgrounds and trails...................................................................................................................................243.2.5 Blackcomb and Whistler ski hill areas (Intrawest Development Ltd.)...........................................................25

3.3 INFORMATION SUBLAYERS USED FOR THE BEAR HAZARD ASSESSMENT .................................................................293.3.1 Results of bear habitat evaluation ...................................................................................................................293.3.2 Bear travel routes/corridors ............................................................................................................................343.3.3 Assessment of bear-human conflict information .............................................................................................363.3.4 Management of artificial food attractants.......................................................................................................44

3.4 PROFILE OF PAST AND PRESENT BEAR MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN RMOW .....................................................513. 5 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................553.7 ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................................59

4.0 LITERATURE CITED...............................................................................................................................................61

APPENDIX 1. GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEAR HABITAT EVALUATION AND FOOD TABLE FORM.......65

APPENDIX II. RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY BEAR HABITAT SURVEYS IN RMOW, 2003 & PARTIAL2004......................................................................................................................................................................................70

APPENDIX III. RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY BEAR HABITAT SURVEYS FOR CHRP MAPPINGPROJECT IN RMOW FROM JULY 2004....................................................................................................................96

PRELIMINARY BEAR HAZARD ASSESSMENTOF THE RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER

MCCRORY WILDLIFE SERVICES LTD. -- AUGUST 2004

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This bear hazard assessment (BHA) was undertaken as one component of the initiative by the ResortMunicipality of Whistler (RMOW) to achieve official status as a “Bear Smart Community” under criteriaestablished by the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP). The aim of any bear risk-management project is to minimize human-bear conflicts and the associated risk of injury or fatality tohumans. It is important to note, however, that when dealing with bears, risk can be mitigated but nevereliminated.

This study is preliminary and based on short-term field research conducted in 2003. To identify higherrisk areas, the study examined data from:

bear habitat surveys in the RMOW, local bear ecology information, information on bear travel corridors, a review of human-bear conflict/complaint data, bear hazard studies conducted in similar areas, a regional profile of injurious encounters, interviews and workshops with Whistler Bear Working Group (BWG) and two case studies on bear management in areas similar to Whistler.

In order to enhance and improve the hazard information and help with future hazard abatement, more bearresearch suitable for an ecosystem-based approach is needed. The Whistler Black Bear Project’s (WBBP-Michael Allen) studies should be published and the human-bear conflict research program proposed bythe BWG should be implemented.

The focus of this hazard study was on the black bear (Ursus americanus), although the grizzly (Ursusarctos), which occurs in the region in very scant numbers, could become of concern. Ecosystem context isalso important; the RMOW was found to have a high overlap of human use/development with occupiedblack bear habitats and potential grizzly bear habitats. The RMOW adjoins a large provincial park wherebear preservation is a defined objective. Because of the community’s relatively large footprint (16,500ha), it has a larger area of interface and intermix of human development and suitable black bear habitat.Black bear use was evident in all developed areas surveyed and the bear population appears healthy.Ample green spaces and semi-timbered subdivisions, native and non-natural vegetative bear foods andaccessible human food attractants enhance black bear use in developed areas.

As a result of proactive measures by the RMOW and the community since 1996, Whistler now has one ofthe most progressive and successful human-bear conflict prevention plans in the province (outside ofnational parks). “Problem bear” (note: it is people who are usually at the root of the problem, not thebears) mortality has been reduced to 1-6 per year from an average of 20 per year in the past. The key tothis success has been interagency and community co-operation, intensive public education andwidespread bear proofing of garbage receptacles and containment sites. Negative conditioning and othernon-lethal approaches to bear management are being applied experimentally. Leading support groupshave been Sylvia Dolson’s Whistler Bear Society and Michael Allen’s Whistler Black Bear Project.

In spite of the commendable work that has already been done, the author has identified a number ofsignificant public safety issues in the RMOW that need to be addressed proactively:



3

While Whistler has one of the most intensive public education programs on bears in all of westernCanada, not all visitors are aware that they could encounter a black bear in any area of theRMOW. This is a concern from a liability perspective. Ample warning signage can help mitigateattempted lawsuits.

While significant strides have been made in the management of human foodstuffs and garbage,black bears still have considerable access to artificial attractants.

o Bears still manage to obtain garbage from inside and outside the fence at the WhistlerLandfill, in spite of it having been surrounded with two successive electric fenceinstallations for the past 9 years.

o Since there is no centralized garbage-pick-up system in the municipality, residents whodo not have a vehicle have difficulty in taking garbage to one of the twocompactor/recycling depots.

o Bears continue to be successful in obtaining food attractants from residences,construction bins, ski hill waste receptacles, camping areas and other sites and

o Hand-feeding still appears to be a problem.

Two schoolyards and 7 children's play set areas that are adjacent to habitat used by bears are notfenced.

The bike park on Whistler Mountain presents a high risk for bear encounters/collisions as ridershurtle through bear habitat at high speed.

Developments including new RMOW trails occur without an assessment of impacts on bears orconcerns about hazards.

Some bears are attracted to residential and pedestrian Village areas by artificially planted bearfoods.

While the recent low number of killed and relocated bears is encouraging, in 2003 56% of all 206 bearcalls were related to garbage and other attractants while 16.5% of the calls involved a bear entering orattempting to enter a person’s house or vehicle. These are problems that could be lessened byimplementing a policy of zero tolerance of food-garbage infractions. Non-lethal treatment of some bearsin complaint situations is commendable, but lacks consistency and monitoring.

Under the circumstances, it is surprising that there has never been an injurious human-bear encounter inthe RMOW. Even though most encounters are non-threatening and very rarely lead to harm, injury orfatality is possible under the current conditions. Incidents involving black bears injuring people haveoccurred recently in adjacent areas (Squamish and Pemberton). Of the six most serious categories ofpotential human-bear encounters, half would be of very minor concern in the RMOW since they relate togrizzly bears, which are nearly extinct here. With respect to black bears, of the three potentially life-threatening categories, a predaceous attack would be the most likely to be fatal. In the other twocategories - food/garbage-associated attacks and a chance encounter with a defensive mother black bear -injuries tend to be minor.

In general, a low level of bear hazard exists throughout the RMOW because human developments overlapwith generally low-quality black bear habitats. The risk is increased in these areas, however, by theavailability of non-natural food attractants such as garbage, bird-feeders and people deliberately feedingbears. A somewhat higher hazard also exists where more concentrated black bear foods occur seasonally,such as at some of the golf courses in the spring, the Valley Trail, the Whistler Secondary School, theEdgewater Lodge and Outdoor Centre and most of the children’s play set areas.



4

The highest risk sites identified for a rare-but-possible predaceous bear incident are:

i. the green space bear habitats in the Village and other areas used by itinerant workers andtransients for camping,

ii. the playing field and access trail at the Whistler Secondary School and the playground at theback of the Myrtle Philip Community School,

iii. municipal play areas for children, especially those beside bear habitat/travel areas includingMarket Place, Balsam Park, Alpha Lake Park, Emerald Park, Meadow Park, White GoldEstates near Lost Lake entrance and the playground at Cheakamus Way (Bayshores) and

iv. the Riverside Resort and Campground.

There is some evidence that children may be more vulnerable to predaceous black bear attacks thanadults. Cougars and coyotes would also be a concern at some of these sites. Therefore better protection ofchildren’s play areas should be a priority.

The Whistler mountain bike “park” trail system and proposed expansion presents a high-risk situationwhere there is the potential for a defensive mother black bear launching an injurious attack on a biker inthe event of a collision between a mountain biker and a bear cub. Several bear-biker collisions havealready occurred. The bike park also presents a general hazard of injury to bears and other wildlife.

The highest priority recommendations include:

Develop a more consistent approach to public safety by creating/supporting a dedicated officer andtrained bear specialist to coordinate the non-lethal bear management and other programs. This shouldbe the highest priority.

Carry out the following important bear hazard abatement measures:

As a top priority, based on the risk of a possible predaceous attack, bear-proof the higher riskchildren’s play areas, including play sets in 7 municipal parks and playgrounds at 2 schools, byinstalling bear-proof fencing or relocating some play set areas away from close proximity to bearhabitats/dense cover.

Develop means to reduce the potential for collisions between mountain bikers and bears and otherwildlife on the Whistler Bike Park downhill trails.

Eliminate illegal camping and the attendant proliferation of food/garbage attractants in greenspace areas e.g. by developing a proper campground for itinerant workers.

Make further significant improvements in controlling the storage and disposal of human food andgarbage. Adopt a policy of zero tolerance since there is strong evidence that food-conditioned blackbears can cause human injury: Priority recommendations include:

Adopt a strict Zero Tolerance policy towards all food and garbage containment infractions as hasbeen done by the town of Canmore and Alberta Parks (in Bow Valley Park and KananaskisCountry). This means much more ticketing of infractions and prosecution of the more seriousviolations such as deliberate feeding of black bears, coyotes and other wildlife.

If the landfill is not replaced soon with a transfer station, the 9-year problem of bears accessinggarbage through the electric fence needs to be fully rectified. This should include preparation ofan electric fence maintenance schedule and hiring of an independent inspector to do twice weekly



5

surveys with an agreement that any problems will be immediately rectified. The remainder of thelandfill also needs to be bear-proofed including the truck washing station and construction binsdrop-off. Total diligence is important.

Fully bear-proof the new proposed transfer station when constructed. The drop-off bins should bein a cleared area at least 100 m wide from the adjacent trees and cover. The ground cover shouldbe comprised of vegetation that will not attract bears.

Replace the current residential garbage drop-off system with neighbourhood communal wastecontainers (as was done by the town of Canmore, Alta.) or, alternatively, adopt a specializedgarbage pick-up service with a call-in number if this proves successful.

Assign a responsible person to independently inspect all bear-proof containers in RMOW on atleast a monthly basis during the active bear season and ensure that dysfunctional lids and latchesand any other problems are repaired immediately. This should include the waste bins at the skihill stations.

Improve the public communication system in an attempt to ensure that all new visitors and residentsare made aware that bears occur throughout the RMOW, including in the downtown shopping area,residential areas, playgrounds, parks, trail systems and other sites.

Other recommendations of lower priority that should be implemented in the medium-term include:

• Install bear warning signs at playgrounds, trails, ski hill, bike park and elsewhere. Be prepared toimplement temporary closures for certain bear areas/situations including the potential for amother grizzly with young frequenting an area with human use.

• Ensure that future municipal planning incorporates a greater consideration of the cumulativeinfringement on bear habitats by new developments including subdivisions, highwayimprovements, RMOW trails, Whistler/Blackcomb mountain bike trails and other facilities.Design new human-use areas and developments so they don’t have cul-de-sacs that bulge intobear habitats.

• Reduce non-native shrub and trees that produce berries that attract bears to developed areas byremoving existing stock. Pass a by-law prohibiting the planting of landscaping shrub and treespecies that are bear foods. It may, however, be useful to consider areas where artificiallymanipulating vegetative foods might be used to deliberately keep bears away from human useareas such as on the adjacent mountain slopes.

• Support Whistler/Blackcomb’s bear habitat improvement programs on the ski hills provided thisdoes not lead to greater human-bear/wildlife conflicts like the new bike park trail network.Whistler/Blackcomb planning, as it affects bears, should be more closely coordinated with anoverall management strategy for the RMOW.

• Continue with the public education program by the WBS to educate workers at construction sitesnot to dispose of human food waste in the construction/demolition bins.

• Develop the proposed bear-proof community compost system.

• Remove the one non-bear-proof canister from the Whistler Secondary School.

• Improve controls so that bears cannot access bird-feeders or the landfill in the winter.



6

• Increase patrols of green spaces to prevent garbage accumulation and itinerant campers fromfeeding bears.

• Maintain cautious management at the Riverside Resort and Campground, including replacementof food-hanging system with metal storage lockers and non-bear-proof containers on mini-golfcourse.

• Upgrade the Whistler human-bear conflict prevention plan beyond Bear Smart standards to thelevel of similar B.C. Provincial and National Park plans for backcountry and frontcountry. Theresults of the preliminary bear hazard study for the RMOW should be incorporated into therevised plan.

• Continue to support bear research programs including the proposed study of non-lethal bearmanagement approaches, DNA research by the WBBP and graduate students, and ongoingmapping of bear habitats in the entire RMOW. Research programs should be expanded to betterdetermine the importance of low elevation bear habitats, annual diet of bears and other aspects.All research programs funded by the RMOW should be required to produce final reports in atimely fashion that are made available for management, public education and other purposes. Thecumulative 10-year backlog of scientifically unpublished research by Mr. Allen of the WBBPshould be completed in final report form in 2004.

• Identify important highway and railway crossing sites for bears and other wildlife and encourageresearch on means to reduce mortalities including further reducing speed limits.

• Continue to support the bear public education program and, from a liability viewpoint, attempt toensure that each and every visitor is made aware that bears can be encountered anywhere in thearea, including the pedestrian Village. This might be partly accomplished by a sign at theentrance to Whistler to the north and south. A liability expert should be consulted in this regard.



7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In 1995, as a result of mounting concerns about the degree of problem bears and their mortality in BritishColumbia, the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks (B.C. MELP) formed a People-BearConflict Committee representing five branches of the Ministry. Subsequently, the Committeecommissioned a major scientific review (Ciarniello 1997) to obtain information to outline strategiesexpected to be successful in the management of human-bear conflicts in urban, semi-rural and ruralcommunities in B.C. The ski resort town of Whistler was one of the key communities used as a model forreducing the occurrence of ‘problem’ bear behaviour. An outgrowth of the province’s commitment was afollow-up “Bear Smart” Community Program to encourage individuals and communities to takeresponsibility for reducing human-bear conflicts within their community. In 2001, MELP commissioned abackground report to set standards for the bear smart program (Davis et al. 2001). Again, Whistler wasused as an example of a community taking proactive steps to reduce conflicts between people and bears;and to reduce associated “problem bear” disposal by the Conservation Officers (COs) and RCMP.

Much of the RMOW proactive program has been guided by the current Whistler Bear Working Groupand in earlier years by the Black Bear Task Team, which has implemented a non-lethal approach to theblack bear-human interface. In 2002, Tony Hamilton, Forest Wildlife Biologist with the BiodiversityBranch of MWLAP worked with the Whistler Bear Working Group to design a proposed study of theRMOW non-lethal program. However, in order for the non-lethal program to be recognized, RMOW isrequired to be an ‘official’ Bear Smart Community. In order to achieve this, the community is required tocarry out a preliminary bear hazard assessment. The Bear Smart process is described as follows (Davis etal. 2001):

“This document details the steps and procedures by which communities can reduce the frequency andintensity of human-bear conflicts. The process involves a shift from the reactive management of ‘problembears’ to the proactive management of the attractants that draw bears into the communities. TheProvince of British Columbia has chosen to facilitate this change by accrediting communities with “BearSmart” status, which will be granted to those communities that reach a benchmark level of proactivemanagement of human-bear conflicts.

“Bear Smart” status is achieved through a 2-stage process. In Phase I, the sources of potential human-bear conflicts within the community are identified. This typically involves identifying non-natural andnatural attractants. In Phase II, a human-bear management plan is developed and implemented. Thismanagement plan includes components on human-bear conflict monitoring, education, wastemanagement, implementation and enforcement of bylaws, green space management and communityplanning. The “Bear Smart” process is designed to be adaptive, so that new management options orimprovements can be incorporated into each phase. Criteria for each step in the process are provided sothat communities have clearly defined and achievable targets.”

A preliminary bear hazard assessment is also part of the requirements for a community such as RMOW toreceive official Bear Smart status. In August, 2003 McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. was commissioned byRMOW to carry out a preliminary bear hazard assessment under the auspices of the Bear Smartobjectives, as follows:

“The first step of the Problem Analysis is to conduct a Preliminary Hazard Assessment. The basicobjective of the Preliminary Hazard Assessment is to establish a general but community-specific overview



8

of human-bear conflict in and adjacent to the community. It will include the identification of communityspecific natural or non-natural features or practices that increase the potential for conflict. The hazardassessment will provide the initial direction for the community to become “Bear Smart.” The PreliminaryHazard Assessment may also identify areas that will need more Detailed Hazard Assessments (section7.0).”

Field surveys were done by myself, an experienced bear biologist, from August 9 to 23, 2003 and fromNovember 7 to 11, 2003. As well, I included follow-up field information from additional bear habitatsurveys done as part of the mapping project between July 13 to 22, 2004. I used a trained bear researchdog ‘Lucy’. A preliminary draft of the habitat results was prepared in late November 2003 and anextensive review phase was then carried out. Some of the preliminary findings and hazard concerns werefirst presented verbatim at an interview meeting with several RMOW by-law staff as well as to other BearWorking Group members during the interview phase. Interviews were completed in February 2004 andpreliminary results of the draft hazard report were presented to a Whistler Bear Working Group meetingon February 24, 2004. The draft report was then circulated for review. On June 9/04 the BWG providedan official letter of review. I subsequently made the appropriate changes and met again to discuss thesewith the BWG on July 19/04. On the same date I officially presented the final results to municipalcouncil. Field results and further feedback from July were then used to refine the final report. Bear expertDr. S. Herrero also kindly reviewed the section on injurious bear type situations.

As background for the preliminary habitat review for Whistler I used my expertise from various bearhazard studies in western Canada, but more specifically the four bear habitat and hazard studies I haverecently done in southwestern B.C. These include Duffey Lake Provincial Park, south GaribaldiProvincial Park (Diamond Head area), Upper Elaho River and three provincial park areas in the B.C.North Cascades.

The focus of the RMOW review was primarily on the black bear since the grizzly bear is nearly extinct inthe South Coastal Mountains. However, I did make some comment on grizzlies where relevant.

This first cut is not a full-blown bear hazard assessment and many of my comments must be taken aspreliminary.

My research was guided by the "precautionary principle of biodiversity" which states that one shouldapply a cautious and conservative approach when faced with a lack of information on the potential forsignificant effects (Myers 1993). Common and Latin names for plants in this report follow Pojar et al.(1994) and Meidinger (1987). Latin names are provided in the first reference in the text. This reportfollows Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) formatting.

1.1 The study area

The study area is all lands within the boundary of RMOW (165 km2).

Whistler is situated in the Pacific Ranges of British Columbia, about 110 km north of the city ofVancouver, B.C. The study area is in a volcanic landscape that was shaped some 20,000 years ago(Gillespie 1997). It encompasses three biogeoclimatic subzones. The Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH)zone occurs at low to mid elevations and the Mountain Hemlock (MH) zone in higher forested areas,while large areas of the Alpine Tundra (AT) zone occur above treeline. Each zone is distinctive.Therefore, the distribution, abundance and connectivity of these habitat types throughout the RMOW



9

study area influence the availability and productivity of habitats for black bears and other wildlife. Theextensive human disturbance is another major influence of bear habitat values and their use by bears.

No bear habitat maps were available for the study area. Most of my bear habitat surveys wereconcentrated in the CWH zone and to a lesser degree in the subalpine or MH zone. The dominant treespecies in the CWH is western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Some relic old-growth western redcedar(Thuja plicata) occurs along with some yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). Coastal Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) is prevalent on the dried, lower mountain slopes. In the MH zone thepredominant species is mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) along with amabilis (Pacific silver) fir(Abies amabilis) and yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). Due to the moderating influence of thePacific Ocean, the milder weather conditions can create some atypical subalpine forest -- the three mainconiferous species do not always form the tree line (B.C. Parks 1990).

Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) is the main ungulate species with somemountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) apparently occurring at high elevations. Wolverine (Gulo gulo),coyote (Canis latrans) and cougar (Felis concolor) are also known to occur. The grizzly bear is nearextinct, although a recovery program for the region is under consideration by the province (TonyHamilton pers. comm.).

On the east, the RMOW study area abuts the northwest boundary of Garibaldi Provincial Park, which wasestablished in 1927. With a total size of 194,650 hectares, this Class “A” park in 1990 was consideredB.C.’s sixth largest provincial park. This is relevant in that the study area is adjacent to a very large corehabitat for black bears as well as a potential core area for grizzly bears and other wildlife.

2.0 STUDY APPROACH and METHODS

2.1 Overall study approach

Basically my study followed the specific objectives established for MWLAP Bear Smart status by Daviset al. (2001):

“The specific objectives of the Preliminary Hazard Assessment are to: 1) identify sites, areas, trail andpractices with historic, existing and potential human-bear conflict, 2) identify gaps in existing knowledgeof bear use and human-bear conflict in the area and provide recommendations for further investigationand additional hazard assessment phases and 3) produce management recommendations to reduceexisting and potential conflict within the community and to pursue “Bear Smart” Community status……Preliminary hazard assessments will be comprised of several key components and should be approved bya Registered Professional Biologist with expertise in bear ecology and behaviour and human-bearconflicts. The assessment should include the following:

1. A review of patterns of historic human-bear conflicts based on Problem Wildlife OccurrenceReports for bears and/or Conservation Officer experience.

2. Interviews with personnel from the Conservation Officer Service, local wildlife biologists andother biologists who have worked in the area, Bear Stewardship Steering Committee and otheragencies responsible for the community to identify:• sites, areas, and trails that are considered high risk for bear–human conflict and• practices that are considered high risk for bear–human conflict.

3. Identification of non-natural foods and attractants that are available within the community andsurrounding area. This process should assess the following issues:



10

• residential and commercial garbage containment,• garbage transfer and disposal at landfills and transfer stations,• park and highway pullout litter barrels and• orchards, honeybee colonies, ranching and agricultural attractants.

4. Identification of major non-natural features that may influence the travel patterns of bearsincluding major roads, edges of the community and security cover/green space within thecommunity.

5. Identification of general bear habitat suitability within and adjacent to the community, potentialnatural movement patterns of bears in the area (including travel corridors) and visibility andother sensory issues (see below).

6. Identification of human-use areas that have high risk for conflict with bears such as schools,playgrounds, community campgrounds and residential areas located adjacent to bear habitat andwalking/hiking/bike trails that pass through higher quality bear habitats including berry patches,etc.

7. Identification of regional, inter-provincial and/or international issues in areas outside thecommunity that may affect the effectiveness of the “Bear Smart” Community Program. Forexample non-natural foods that are outside the community but are within the home range of abear that uses the community increase the potential for food-conditioned bears within thecommunity. Bears do not adhere or respect political boundaries (see Canmore Case Historysection 12.2).

8. Identification of potential data limitations.

I only digressed from this approach where it appeared that the study would benefit.

2.2 Basic methods

There are today a number of methods to assess the risk of bears to people where human habitation andrecreational developments overlap with occupied bear habitats. In the past, most research on risk frombears relied on expert interpretation of field surveys of bear habitat potential combined with a review ofbear-human conflicts (e.g. Hamer and Herrero 1983, McCrory et al. 1986, 1987). In other areas, moreintensive research involving radio-telemetry has been of benefit. For example, after a detailed study ofgrizzly bear concentrating to feed on aggregations of ladybird beetles and army cutworm moths in ahiking/climbing area on McDonald Peak in the Mission Mountains of Montana, the Confederated Salishand Kootenai Tribal Council closed the area for human safety and to protect a site critical to the MissionMountain grizzly bear subpopulation (Klaver et al. 1985). In a study of grizzly bear-human encounters inGlacier National Park, U.S. Steve Nadeau (1987) concluded that trails with short sight distances that areclose to water and pass through seasonally important feeding areas are the most probable sites of grizzly-human confrontations.

Herrero and Hamer’s approach for systematic bear hazard studies for Banff National Park was adopted asa matter of policy for Canadian national parks, B.C. provincial parks (McCrory and Herrero 1987) and inthe subsequent bear guidelines for B.C. provincial parks (BPCPP 1995).

More recently, GIS mapping innovations by a team of biologists for Parks Canada were used to develop amore systematic approach to bear hazard assessment involving a GIS Bear Encounter Risk Modelapproach (Petersen 1997, Donelon and Paquet 1997). Use of the Model in the Lake O’Hara grizzly-human conflict study area in Yoho National Park was felt by managers to provide a reliable andacceptable approach, especially in cases where facility closures were being proposed and were



11

controversial (Petersen 1997). I have since tested and adapted the GIS Encounter Risk Model successfullyto several other ecosystems, including a four-year hazard study for Kakwa Provincial Park (McCrory2003b). Unlike the South Coastal Mountains, this Rocky Mountain Ecosystem is fully occupied bygrizzly bears (and black bears at low-mid elevations). Additionally, I was recently able to adapt theModel for a black bear hazard study in the Diamond Head area of Garibaldi Provincial Park (McCrory2002b).

For the preliminary RMOW hazard study, I used the more simplistic hazard approach that used habitattransects, a review of background information and expert opinion as applied in Banff National Park(Hamer and Herrero 1983), Duffey Lake Provincial Park (McCrory 1998) and elsewhere.

Following are the more specific methodologies applied.

2.2.1 Habitat evaluation

A priority was to do a field assessment of potential black bear habitats and their use in and proximal (0.5km) to human developments where black bears are known to occur in RMOW, such as hiking trails andresidential subdivisions. As many areas as possible were sampled using the strip transect methodsdeveloped by Hamer and Herrero (1983) and McCrory et al. (1986). For a complete description of themethods, please refer to my Garibaldi bear study (McCrory 2002a).

I divided the RMOW study area into “habitat blocks” based on subdivision zone, islands of intact orsemi-intact habitat such as ‘green spaces’ between areas of development (the main highway, B.C. Hydropower line, railway, subdivisions, town complexes and others), the ski hill and surrounding mountainslopes.

Roadways were driven and spot checks were made. A mountain bike was used to access bear habitatsalong some of the main valley trail systems. As well, different green spaces, trails, campsites, old roads,routes and surrounding habitat areas were walked and each transect unit evaluated for potential bear fooddensities as:

trace (Tr),

low (L),

moderate (M),

high (H) and

very high (VH).

Where possible, I also subjectively documented cover classes using either of the following classification:Very low = 0-5%, Low = 6-25%, Moderate = 51-75% and High or Dense = 76-100%.

As there appears to have been no formal diet study published for black bears of the Whistler area, I used alist of black bear and grizzly bear diet or food to assess habitats and refined this with local knowledge anddirect observations of feeding sign and scats (Table 1, Appendix I.). This information was supplementedwith my own and local observations (Sylvia Dolson, Michael Allen, pers. comm.).

All sign (scats, tracks, mark trees, scratchings) and direct observations were also recorded during my fieldwork.



12

The bear food density ranking system was also used to rate the seasonal habitat values for each area ofhabitat type or study area “block” for spring, summer and fall. Some evaluation was also made of blackbear denning habitat capability.

2.2.2 Bear travel/connectivity evaluation

Since it was beyond the scope of this study to do a detailed connectivity assessment using GIS computermodeling, I used a subjective field assessment of ridgelines, riparian corridors and other natural travelfeatures. Bear/wildlife trails were also noted as travel routes.

2.2.3 Bear-human conflict analysis

All available sources of bear-human conflict information were obtained and analyzed.

2.2.4 Profile of potential dangerous bear encounter types

I used the literature and other studies to assess the potential for the different types of injurious and non-injurious bear encounters that might be expected for the RMOW study area. A subjective estimate wasthen made of what would be the most serious encounters to be expected on a very rare basis in RMOW.

2.2.5 Artificial food/garbage audit

Information included background documents, field surveys, interviews and periodic visits to the landfillsite.

2.2.6 Audit of public information system on bears and bear safety

I opportunistically reviewed available public information (brochures, hand-outs, sign kiosks, etc.) foraccuracy and focus with respect to bear ecology, the bear hazard and bear safety.

2.2.7 Other background information

Other background information was used for the final hazard assessment including:

-published information on bear ecology in the ecosystem,-information on black bear numbers,-historic and potential occurrence of grizzly bears,-local observations-interim information as available from local studies over the past 10 years by bear researcher MichaelAllen.

Most of the latter has not been published nor is it available in report format.

2.2.8 Interviews & workshops



13

Interviews were done during the study as the opportunity arose. Appointments were set up. Interviewswere done on an informal basis and notes were kept. The final notes were typed into a backgrounddocument. As a number of interviewees requested confidentiality, I have kept all interviews in a privatefile and only used the information where it was relevant to the outcome of my report and did not violateconfidentiality.



14

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Management models - Municipality of Canmore, Bow Valley Wildland Park and PeterLougheed Provincial Park, Alberta

For comparative purposes, I researched a management model for urban and backcountry bearmanagement that was similar to Whistler in some aspects. This was advantageous in that it provided somecomparative value for my assessment of different and perhaps more advanced research and managementtechniques. Additionally I have carried out bear habitat and hazard research in Kananaskis Country andthe Canmore area. For a recent update and synopsis, I relied mainly on several telephone interviews and adirect interview with Alberta Government Biologist Steve Donelon, Resource Management Coordinatorfor Parks & Protected Areas. As well, I used the recent Animal Proof Waste Handling System report “TheTown of Canmore Experience” (Comeau 2003). One of the advantages is that the region has both bearspecies and fairly extensive research and intensive management has been done by the various agencies.

Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, Alberta

Peter Lougheed Park (576 km2) is approximately three times the size of RMOW. Today, a moderatenumber of black bears and about 15 – 20 grizzlies have home ranges that include Peter Lougheed Park.Of the grizzlies, there are three known females with young that seasonally frequent the core visitor areasof the park. There is high visitor use during the active bear season with 500 individual camping sites andat least six major campgrounds. As well there are private lodges and a private residential area.

Since the early 1980s, park management has been able to maintain a very low incident/conflict ratebetween park visitors and grizzly and black bears. Steve Donelon (pers. comm.) attributes this success tocontinued and very intensive management at the bear-human interface. This has resulted from the AlbertaGovernment continuing to make a strong commitment to bear research combined with public safety andbear conservation in the park and surrounding Alberta lands. The successful program includes:

• implementation and upgrading of bear-human conflict prevention plans,

• implementation of the recommendations of our early 1980s grizzly bear hazard studies,

• continued bear hazard assessments that allow for some trail relocations/temporary closures andperiodic campground closures,

• adequate and trained park staff during the active bear season. Park rangers have been re-classified as conservation officers (COs). This includes 3 - 4 on-site trained COs to deal with bearsituations as well as two extra COs trained as bear specialists who are brought in annually duringthe high-use berry season to manage the aversive conditioning program of grizzly bears along thefrontcountry interface,

• since the early 1980s, total bear-proofing of all park and private facilities, including adequatemonitoring and enforcement. They now have a zero tolerance policy. The campground contractormonitors and manages campers so they generally do not leave food unattended or improperlystored. If there are infractions, they are strictly enforced by the COs. Similarly, private lodges andother facilities are prosecuted when there are infractions,



15

• commitment to a long-term research program including use of GPS collars on some grizzlies,

• commitment to continued hazard abatement including removal of natural food attractants such assoopolallie (Shepherdia Canadensis) shrubs where they attract grizzlies to some campgroundsand other areas. Management is also experimenting with hormones that inhibit berry productionto try to defray some grizzly use of berry-producing shrubs in some frontcountry areas such aspublic campgrounds.

Municipality of Canmore and surrounding Bow Valley Provincial Park, Alberta

Canmore, with a resident population of 10,500 and growing, is developing a manual for home-owners anddevelopers concerning acceptable vegetation to plant that does not attract black and grizzly bears andother wildlife (Steve Donelon pers. comm.). Some residents have replaced lawns (which attract bears andelk) with native non-berry producing shrubs and grasses. Also, chain-link fences 2 m high are now beinginstalled at Canmore school playing fields primarily to prevent the elk problems that have occurred inBanff townsite, but also with an eye to keeping bears away (Steve Donelon pers. comm.). Canmorepreviously had problems and concerns related to itinerant camping and bears. This was contributing tobear feeding problems and other conflicts. The Canmore workers camping area was developed withinwalking distance of the main downtown working core and also has a bear-proof trailer for campers tostore food (Steve Donelon pers. comm.).

In the summer of 2000 a radio-collared mother grizzly was involved in two separate maulings nearCanmore. The first one involved the mauling of a male mountain biker near the Nordic Centre. Severalweeks later the same bear mauled another male mountain biker near Nakiska. In each instance, there wasa pair of bikers that suddenly encountered the family of bears (Steve Donelon pers. comm.). Donelon(2004) studied the relationship of grizzly bears to trails in the Bow Valley using Televilt GPS-SIMPLEXTM0 collars. Locations were accurate to about 28 m. This allowed for fine-scale locations to bedetermined from hourly GPS locations.

In 1997 Canmore implemented both a curbside and neighbourhood communal waste container system butthe curbside collection proved to be problematic with bears during the poor berry year of 1998. In May of1999 the curbside collection system was eliminated and the residents of Canmore had the communalwaste containers only. Throughout the summer the success of the complete animal proof waste handlingsystem became evident. There were several sightings of bears in and around Canmore but there were zerobear/waste incidents in 1999 and 2000. This is a model of what Whistler should consider implementing toreplace the drop-off compactor site system for residences.

However, bears in Canmore still accessed bird-feeders and the by-laws were changed to address thisproblem (Comeau 2003) making it unlawful to place or store birdfeed out of doors between April 1 andOctober 31 in each year (Bylaw 09-2001, Section 9.1.25). The dates in this by-law could be amended toyear round to prevent bears from becoming active during the winter months as was evidenced in 2003/04.



16

3.2 Results of preliminary bear hazard assessment & recommendations

Again, it must be emphasized that the following are preliminary and based on the author’s interpretationfrom limited habitat surveys and other factors. My more detailed field survey write-ups and summariesare provided in Appendix II, while some are also in my hand-written notebooks (In file). As notedelsewhere, black bears and their sign can be found nearly anywhere in the developed (and undeveloped)areas of RMOW. To be clear, the ratings for the bear hazard assessment are based partly on where theyare more likely to frequent or spend more time because of natural bear food attractants, travel lanes andother habitat attributes such as dense cover.

In the following, I not only identify where bear encounters are more likely to occur, but attempt toidentify what categories of encounters might be expected. In the future, once a habitat map is completedfor RMOW, hazard ratings for some areas can be mapped.

3.2.1 Residential, Village-pedestrian and commercial complex areas

There are at least 14 residential complexes or subdivision/developed zones or separate “blocks” builtalong a 20 km core zone on either side of Highway 99. I carried out initial habitat surveys in all of them:Emerald Estates, Alpine Meadows, Edgewater Lodge-Nicklaus North Golf Course-Condo complex,White Gold Estates, Blackcomb Benchlands, Village North-Whistler Village-Brio, Whistler Cay,Blueberry Hill, Alta Vista, Nordic Estates, Whistler Creek, Bayshores, Lake Placid Drive-Nita Lake-AltaLake and Function Junction. In the future, additional habitat surveys, particularly of the adjacent primitiveundeveloped patches, need to be done.

In general, a low level of bear hazard exists throughout RMOW because of the overlap of low qualityblack bear habitat with human developments that is still used by what appears to be a fair number ofhabituated black bears. Many of the residential areas are partially forested with mature or second-growthDouglas fir-hemlock forest of varying age classes. These have a trace-low density of natural foodsattractive to black bears. These include huckleberry/blueberry (Vaccinium) species, chokecherry (Prunusemarginata), Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia), native kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), redelderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) black twinberry (Lonicerainvolucrata), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) and others. More concentrated food sources occur where thedevelopment complexes adjoin golf course lawns which attract some bear feeding during spring green-upor are adjacent to small and large riparian zones with a variety of berry and green plant foods.Additionally, the subdivision areas have been designed to maintain a strong vestige of native flora so thatthere is generally low-moderate tree retention which provides more escape security for black bears than ifthe areas had been cleared. Often I noted a shrub understory of berry-producing native plants, particularlyhuckleberry/blueberry species. Also, some landscaped areas in subdivisions and the village haveartificially planted trees and as these mature they will provide increasingly good escape habitat for blackbears.

An additional attraction is that landscaping is widespread and many sites include artificial varieties ofberry-producing plants that attract bears including mountain-ash (Pyrus sitchensis), kinnikinnick, juniper(Juniperus spp.), wild rose species, red-osier dogwood, twinberry and others. My observations of bearsign at the Montebello Estates during early November confirmed longer-term observations by bearresearch M. Allen that during periods of natural food shortages, black bears will forage on artificial plantfoods. Last year, a black bear was reported by the RCMP to be feeding on mountain-ash berries in anartificially planted tree adjacent to the RCMP office (S. Dolson pers. comm.). There are also opportunistic



17

feeding opportunities available such as at bird-feeders, garbage carelessly stored and people deliberatelyfeeding bears.

A somewhat higher hazard exists where development complexes adjoin sources of more concentratedblack bear seasonal foods such as the riparian valley bottom and or cover/travel corridors. For example,the Edgewater Lodge and complex is built in a productive floodplain with high habitat and travel valuesfor bears. Private residences or multiple dwelling complexes built along the 50+ km of “edge” or interfacebetween the developed zones and adjacent wild areas might be expected to have a somewhat higherfrequency of bear interactions; in particular where these developments border larger riparian areas with ahigh degree of cover.

Subdivision planning and development appears to have not taken into account the degree to which thecommunity design has created a “bear friendly” environment throughout RMOW by leaving native forest,cover and native bear foods in peopled areas.

New subdivision developments need to be more prudent in making the areas LESS bear friendly.

Recommendations:

Improve the food/garbage management to stop bears from having access to some of the closed-ingarbage collection sites, bird-feeders and other sources. This, combined with refining the current non-lethal program, can only further help to minimize the low risk (see food/garbage managementsection).

On a cautionary note, residents might be made more aware that backyard play areas for childrenadjacent to green spaces such as riparian zones might be bear-proofed with fencing because of theslight risk of a predaceous attack by a black bear, coyote or cougar.

A blanket recommendation is to remove artificially planted berry/fruit-producing shrubs and trees thatprovide bear foods in landscaped areas. Additionally, RMOW should pass a by-law that certainspecies of landscape plants that attract bears should not be allowed in the future (with the exception oflawns of course). Canmore is developing a manual for home-owners and developers concerningacceptable vegetation to plant that does not attract bears and other wildlife (Steve Donelon pers.comm.). Some residents have replaced lawns (which attract bears and elk) with native non-berry-producing shrubs and grasses.

Consideration should also be given in subdivisions to the removal of natural berry-producing shrubsand trees such as huckleberry/blueberry species, Saskatoon, wild chokecherry and other species thatprovide bear foods. Additionally old logs that support ant colonies might also be removed. I wouldsuggest clearing to at least 50-100 m from houses and yard/play areas. This might be dovetailed withreduction of wildfire fuel loads through the FireSmart program now being implemented.

New subdivision complexes need to be made less bear friendly and more bear-proof such as forchildren’s backyard and park play areas. Understanding impacts on current bear use of the site pre-development would be important e.g. is the new site on a bear travel route or riparian area? Makingthe subdivision less bear friendly could be accomplished byleaving fewer trees and cover and removalof or not planting berry-producing shrubbery and trees.



18

Planners in RMOW need to avoid creating cul-de-sacs in prime bear habitat such as at the WhistlerSecondary School. In the Canmore and Banff areas, town planners are now avoiding creating cul-de-sacs that jut out into bear habitat. They are creating a more uniformly defined circular edge wheresubdivisions border on bear habitats.

Complete the DNA study, proposed habitat mapping and the planned radio-telemetry study so thatthere is a better understanding of why some black bears become town bears.

3.2.2 School sport fields and school-municipal children's playgrounds

In a previous bear risk study at Liard River Hot Springs Provincial Park, we identified a children’s playset area surrounded by well-used and dense bear habitat as a high hazard and recommended that it have abear-proof fence or be moved to a large, open area (McCrory and Mallam 1994). Subsequently, there wasa predaceous black bear attack at the hot springs facility about 400 m from the play set site. This causedseveral injuries and several fatalities.

In RMOW, all school sport fields and children's playgrounds and municipal parks with children'splaygrounds were examined twice. In this regards, children's “playgrounds” or “play set areas” weredefined as sites with play sets for younger aged children including swing sets, climbing bars, slides andother amenities.

I used several factors to rate the hazard of these sites, which represent a specialized risk concern. I placedmore emphasis on the type of potential attack and the vulnerability of the user group than I did on habitatpotential; although this and associated cover were also factors considered.

One of the assumptions I used was that in the event of a bear or other carnivore with predaceous or otherfood-seeking motivation, a predatory animal might be more likely to approach a child or a small group ofchildren rather than adult-sized people. As noted elsewhere in my report, children appear moresusceptible to predatory attacks by black bears during the day (Herrero 2002). There is also a remote linkbetween developed areas, subadult male black bears and fatal predatory attacks on children and teenagers(Herrero and Higgins 1995). I also subjectively assumed that there would be a higher risk associated withchildren’s play sets than larger ball or soccer fields that are generally used by large-sized people or largergroups of people.

A children’s playground that is proximal to productive bear habitat which also has a high degree of coverand some potential as a bear travel route was given a higher hazard rating than one that was more distantto similar habitat values or had lower habitat, cover and travel values. I made the assumption that thecloser the play set was to adjacent forested or shrub bear habitat, the more vulnerable would be children atplay. As a footnote, Herrero (2002) cites one fatal predatory attack on a child where the black bear mayhave used the cover of the forest some 13 m from a house to launch its successful attack.

Black bears, unlike grizzly bears, have a tendency to prefer the safety of trees and/or cover as escapehabitat (Herrero 2002). In a previous risk study in the Diamond Head area of Garibaldi Park I foundan important difference between black bear use of feeding/travel habitats near park facilities proximal(<30 m) to tree cover and facilities in more open habitats. Of a total of 67 bear activity sites (sightings,



19

scats, tracks and mark posts) where I could estimate the distance to the nearest tree cover (trees >15 cmDBH), 96% (n = 64) were within 30 m of suitable tree cover. The average distance from nearest tree(s) ofall bear activity sites was 15.6 m. Exceptions included a large, habituated black bear that made amovement through the open meadows past the Elfin Shelter on October 19 (>150 m to trees), bearmarking of the park signpost (200 m to trees) and a berry scat in a heather meadow that was 50 m fromthe nearest trees. In another instance, a black bear ran from observers and deliberately crossed a largeopen meadow where it was 100 m from the nearest escape trees. Typically, in three instances when weapproached bears off-trail, the bears climbed trees (McCrory 2002b). I used these preliminary results toestablish a 30 m outer “comfort” distance from trees to help rate the bear hazard of the various RMOWpark children’s play sets by estimating the distance of each to nearest forested area. Any play sets closerthan 30 m were given a higher hazard rating.

As noted in Table 1, the following 10 play areas were rated to have a “specialized” potential high hazardfor the rare predaceous attack by a black bear (and possible other carnivores such as coyotes and cougars).An additional concern would be for a bear interested in non-natural foods to approach children at a playset who might have food with them. Two involve school playing fields and the other 8 involve play setsites (1 school, 7 municipal).

One of the more hazardous play areas I identified is the large school playing field surrounded by bearhabitat at the Whistler Secondary School. The play set at the White Gold subdivision is near cover but thedistance still needs to be measured.

However, these were all estimated to within the 30 m “comfort” distance I established for most (not all)black bears to leave security habitat/cover. These include:

Schools:

Whistler Secondary School ball field, a cul-de-sac in excellent bear habitat

Myrtle Philip Community School playing field

Myrtle Philip Community School children's play set at back

Municipal Parks:

Emerald Park children's play setBalsam Park children's play setMeadow Park children's play setMarketPlace children's play setAlpha Lake Park children's play setBayshores-Millars Pond Park children's play setWhite Gold Subdivision children's play set, near Lost Lake entrance

Ironically, in some instances adjacent tennis courts were much safer for humans due to being surroundedby high chain-link fences with gates. I am recommending that these playgrounds be bear-proofed withfencing or moved to the middle of large open areas that are 50+ metres from the nearest green space bearhabitat. The few other play set sites that were rated lower might also be candidates for bear-proofing to beon the safe side.



20

Table 1. Hazard ratings of site specific children’s and school playgrounds in RMOW where themain hazard is the very remote risk of a predaceous black bear or other carnivore attack onchildren; or a bear becoming aggressive in the seeking of artificial foods.

Site/area Hazardfeatures

Over-allHaz.

Habitatcomments

Comments/concerns

Dist. playfac. tobearhab./cover

Recommendedactions

Public SchoolsWhistlerSecondary

Play field andlawn areas byschool = M.Play field sep.from schoolMajor concern.

H In veryproductivegreenspace/ripariancedar. Beartravel corridor.Old cedars,swamps.

Bearsign/bearsfrequentlynoted.Someevidence ofbearsfeeding ongarbage.Childrenplayingacrosshabitatfromschool.

Bearhabitat allaroundedge.Bridge toplay areacrossesbear travelroute

Interviewschool staff.Completechain-linkfencing to bear-proof. Removeone non bear-proof garbagecontainer.

Myrtle PhilipCommunity

Large playfields againstwoods. Twochildren’s playsites. One outfront O.K. Oneat backvulnerable.

OneofplaysetsH

Adjacent tolow qualitywoodedhabitat, butbear travelroute. Bearsfeeding onlawns inspring.

Mainconcern isone play setbehindschool. Tooclose tothick woods

Play set atfront = 50m. O.K.Play set atback = 5m. NotO.K.

Fence play setor move tomore openvisible area andmonitor closely

Municipalchildren'splaygroundsBalsam Park Below above

area. Adjacentto largeriparian zone.

H Green plantfoods [grasses,sedges (Carexspp.), skunkcabbage(Lysichitonamericanum)and bear foodsin rip., withdense cover.

Mainconcern isfor childrenplaying.Someconcernswhere ballfieldadjoinsdense rip.& cover.

Play setsite is only15 m fromrip., densecover

Fence play setor move tomore openvisible area andmonitorclosely.Considerchain-linkfence alongriparian edge ofball field.



21

Tenniscourt has anice, highchain linkfence.

Emerald Park Play set tooclose to forest

H Green lawn.Bear foodslimited inforest.

Mainconcern isfor childrenplaying.

Play setsite is only5 m fromforest.


Spruce GrovePark

No apparentplay set?

M Green lawn.Bear foodslimited inforest. Travelcorridor alongFitz. Cr.

Someconcernsfor largeplayingfield.

Monitorclosely.

Lost Lake Park Check to see ifplay set?

H - ifplayset

Green lawn,rip. & forestedarea. Near golfcourse.

Concernsfor childrenplaying.

Bears regularlyin area.

White GoldSubdivision, nearLost Lakeentrance

Play set nearcover asreported by S.Dolson

H ? –butneedsevaln.

Needs evaln. Concernsfor childrenplaying

Heavy use bybears.

RebagliatiSkateboard Park

Adjacent togreen spaces.Travelcorridor.

M Near old forestwith bearfoods & travelroute.

Someconcernsdue toyouthactivities inbearhabitat.

Monitorclosely.

Meadow Park Play set nearprod. riparianhabitat.

H6 mfromhab.

Productiveriparianhabitats. Largegreen-up areason playingfields lawns.


Play setsite is only6 m fromriparianzone.


Marketplace Park,Upper Village

Play set neargreen spacehabitat.

H20 mfromhab.

Old forestbedding, traveland feedinghabitat forbears. Someillegalcamping.Garbage/debrisleft.

Mainconcern isfor childrenplaying.Also someillegalcamping.

Play setsite is 20m fromgreenspace.

Adjacent greenspace forestmay beremoved fordevel./or fenceplay set.

Rainbow Park No play set M Lawn, riparianarea, forest.

No play setbut near rip.

Generalbear

Bear scatsobserved.



22

zone. habitat. Cautiousmanagement.

Lakeside Park Small play set M3 mfromhab.

Lawn, forest,lakeshore.


Play set is3 m fromhabitat.

Access roadseparates playset from habitat

Wayside Park No play set L Lawn, forest,lakeshore.

Cautious mgt.

Alpha Lake Park Play set next toforest-rip.zone.

H3 mfromhab.

Near JordonCr., rip. hab. &forest patch.


Play setsite is 3 mfrom greenspace.

Fence play setor move tomore openvisible area andmonitorclosely.

Bayshores-MillarsPond Park

Play set next toforest-rip. zone

H15 mfromhab.

Old forest withblueberries,small marsh.


Play setsite is 15m fromgreenspace.

Fence play setor move tomore openvisible area andmonitorclosely.

Recommendations:

There are a number of options to bear-safe vulnerable children play set and school playground areas. Onewould be to remove vegetative cover back about 50 m from the play areas to create a wide-open zone.The problem with this is that it would involve considerable forest/shrub removal and re-clearing wouldhave to be done periodically. In addition, this might not discourage large, dominant male bears thatventure further away from security habitat. Another option would be to move play set areas to open areasof the park at least 50 m from the nearest forest/cover and near the road or parking lot or adjacent to thefenced tennis courts. In my opinion, the best option would be to surround the play set areas with a 2 mhigh chain-link fence with 3 barbed wire strands along the top, which while not fully bear-proof, wouldserve as a strong barrier. I would also recommend that, in the case of the Whistler Secondary School thatthe whole playing field and school be fenced with a 2 m high fence to act as a bear barrier. The fenceshould encompass the footbridge, which would still allow bears to move under the bridge and thus notblock their movements between forested green spaces. Several release gates should be included so that abear that does get inside the fence can find its way out. [Additionally, the non-bear-proof garbage canisterat this school should be removed.]

I have less concern with the large playing field at the Myrtle Philip school but this should also beconsidered as a candidate for fencing. Chain-link fences 2 m high are now being installed at Canmoreschool playing fields primarily to prevent the problems with aggressive elk that feed on the lawns [as hasoccurred at Banff town site], but also with an eye to keeping bears away (Steve Donelon pers. comm.).



23

3.2.3 Green spaces and park areas

Some of the forested green spaces provide low-moderate quality feeding habitat, bedding sites andsecurity travel routes for black bears to access various developed areas. The old-growth riparian forestaround Whistler Secondary School and Edgewater resort complex is one example. Another is the old-growth cedar forests adjacent to the Village and main parking lots. The 22-km-long riparian valley bottomis another example, although it is highly fragmented in places. Similarly, some of the large and smallmunicipal parks such as Lost Lake offer lawns for spring foraging and forested/shrubland habitats forfeeding and travel. The results of the DNA hair-snagging study will help shed some light on therelationship of Whistler black bears to the various green spaces in RMOW.

I made no effort to categorize green spaces in terms of those that have some designated protective statusand those that will be altered by future development. For example, the green space near the UpperVillage/Marketplace children's play set area is apparently scheduled for development. The greenspace/riparian area I identified off of the south end of the Alta Lake Road has a major developmentapplication by Nita Lake Resort that will have some impact on this area functioning as a security zone forblack bears.

Some of these green spaces were another RMOW situation where bear-induced injuries might be moreexpected because of the random, transient camping that occurs. At these sites I would not only beconcerned about a bear seeking human foods and causing injury to someone, but also a predaceous attackby a black bear. Some examples of areas of concern include the old-growth forests near the UpperVillage, the lower Cheakamus River area near the landfill and sites along the Alta Lake Road. In all ofthese transient camping areas I observed garbage debris and evidence of bears obtaining humanfoodstuffs. At one, there were remains of a tent that appeared to have been ripped apart by a bear.

Recommendations:

Garbage and debris in the green spaces in the Upper Village area should be cleaned up on a moreregular basis. There are no bear warning signs. Perhaps it might be a good idea to post the perimeterwith “Bears in Area, Keep Out” signs.

RMOW should take responsibility for providing a formal camping area for itinerant workers andothers who camp and live semi-permanently in green spaces as a result of the chronic low-incomehousing shortage. This has recently been done by the town of Canmore, which previously had asimilar problem that was contributing to bears obtaining artificial foodstuffs and creating conflicts.The Canmore workers camping area was developed within walking distance of the main downtowncore and also has a trailer for campers to store food (Steve Donelon pers. comm.).

As part of the DNA hair-snagging study and proposed bear habitat map, RMOW green spaces shouldbe studied in terms of their value to making the downtown and residential areas more secure for bearsto frequent. Should some green spaces be eliminated or should some of the bear food understory beremoved? What green spaces are protected and which will be eliminated for developments. At thispoint, I do not have enough information to make suggestions.



24

3.2.4 Campgrounds and trails

RMOW has an extensive network of primary and secondary hiking and biking trails. I did not review allof the trails but this should be done. Trails evaluated included the Rainbow/Madely, lower Cheakamus,sections of the Valley Trail, trails in the Lost Lake area, some sections of the Whistler Bike Park Trailsand an alpine hiking trail south of the 7th Heaven Express Chair on Blackcomb Mountain.

Keeping in context that black bear encounters very rarely lead to an attack, the potential for an encounterexists on all of the trails surveyed because of low-high feeding habitat values, travel routes/bedding areasand security habitat provided by some of the valley bottom green spaces crossed. I was left with theimpression that a black bear could be encountered on any of the trails in the developed areas at lowerelevations, especially when some town bears may be remaining in the valley bottom. The lowerCheakamus Trail and trails in the Lost Lake region are in low quality habitat with trace-low hazard.However, bears that still frequent the Whistler landfill site would use the lower Cheakamus area,increasing the risk of encounters. There is a large network of trails in the Lost Lake area, including anewly built network of mountain bike trails. Because some bears use this large region for security habitatand bedding/travel in association with spring feeding on the lawns of the Chateau golf course, there is anincreased risk of encounters. The new mountain bike trails built through the forests in the Lost Lake areawere the only ones with specific signage that indicated that both bears and hikers should have the right-of-way. These signs, however, are very small and would be difficult to read while passing by on aspeeding mountain bike.

Where sections of the Valley Trail pass through riparian habitat with dense cover, the hazard was ratedlow-moderate. The wideness (2+ m) and fairly good alignment of the paved Valley Trail will help somepeople see a bear if it is up ahead. This is important since black bears are known to feed on berries andother foods along the edge of the trail. However, the Valley Trail has minimal interpretive signs to let thepublic know black bears use the general area.

The Rainbow/Madely Trail has a moderate-high risk of an encounter at all seasons from about 1 km up toRainbow Lake. There is excellent habitat in the mid-elevation cut over lands and prime berry and greenplant foods in the old forest between the cut over lands to Rainbow Lake. At higher elevations, there areprime riparian zones with horsetail and grasses. I rated the huckleberry potential in the subalpine as highfor late summer/fall. However, during my July 22, 2004 transect I did not note any bear activity which Ifound highly unusual.

The alpine hiking trail south of the 7th Heaven Express ski runs on Blackcomb Mountain passes throughlow quality habitat and has a low risk of encounter. One black bear scat was noted at treeline.

The bike park trail on Whistler Mountain is discussed in the next section.

RMOW still appears to be expanding its trail system into bear security/feeding habitats such as the newmountain bike pathways in the Lost Lake area and a new, graveled access trail through the riparian valleybottom to the River of Golden Dreams.

There is only one public campground in RMOW, the Riverside Resort and Campground complex. Istayed at the site in 2003 and 2004 and although it has excellent public education and management, thecampsite is situated along a riparian corridor with relatively dense shrub cover and seasonal bear foods.Black bears regularly visit the area or use it as a travel route, periodically accessing human foodstuffs



25

despite a diligent bear-proof program (see also food/garbage management section). This is one of the sitesI identified as having a higher potential for a rare bear attack such as predation.

While I stayed at the site in July 2003 a large black bear obtained food from a cooler carelessly left out bycampers. About this time, likely the same black bear also smashed the partly open window of a car in theparking lot and obtained human food. At this time, I also reported to Carney’s Waste Systems that one ofthe latches on the bear-proof garbage bin wasn’t working but this was not repaired even a year later. Thefood-hanging cables are not fully bear-proof and small open garbage canisters are left overnight withgarbage in them on the mini-golf course. In July 2004 a cinnamon-phase bear was destroyed by the COSfor breaking into two tents at the campsite. Campsite staff determined that at least one tent had attractantsinside but the other party was adamant that they left nothing inside to attract the bear. Subsequently,Riverside staff began fining people $75 for leaving food unattended. However, during my stay in July2004 I noted that patrols were lax.

Recommendations:

RMOW should place visible bear warning/alert signs on all trails in RMOW so that the public ismore adequately informed that they could encounter a bear at any time. This should also includethe trails/walkways in the Village pedestrian areas.

Over time, the remainder of the hiking/biking trails in RMOW should be evaluated for their bearhazard.

New trail designs need to take into account their infringement on bear habitat and should avoidhigh quality areas as much as possible.

The campground at Riverside should continue to be very carefully managed from a public safetypoint of view. The food-hanging cables should be replaced with metal lockers and the small, opengarbage canisters on the mini-golf course should be replaced with 1-2 bear-proof containers. Interms of other hazard abatement measures, short of relocating the campsite to a site of less valueto Whistler black bears, I would doubt that removing the dense shrub understory would deterenough black bear use to be of value. However, abatement measures need to be carefullyreviewed for this facility.

3.2.5 Blackcomb and Whistler ski hill areas (Intrawest Development Ltd.)

This is a large area that was covered by limited surveys in 2003 and 2004. Some of the habitat valuesidentified for Whistler Mountain in 2003 are included in Appendix II of this report. In July 2004, as partof a separate mapping study, I did further habitat surveys of Whistler Mountain and also covered part ofBlackcomb Mountain. While I have summarized the 2004 hazard concerns in this report, field data arepresented separately in Appendix III (McCrory 2004).

Although black bears den in old forests near some of the ski run areas on Whistler and BlackcombMountains, there appears to have been no conflicts with humans during the winter ski period. Many of the



26

more vegetated gladed runs from low to high elevation have moderate-high densities of green plant foods(clover species, horsetail, grasses and sedges) that attract and concentrate some bear activity during thespring and summer green-up periods depending on the elevation. Additionally, other gladed ski runs suchas Greenacres, Bear Cub and Crystal have enhanced huckleberry value and concentrate some black bearuse during the berry-feeding period. In other areas, birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), a Europeanpasture plant, has been planted in an attempt to discourage bear use since bears do not eat it (A. DeJongpers. comm.). In 2004 I made some effort to map bear habitat values on only some of the glades.

A number of these sites are used by Whistler-Blackcomb interests for commercial bear-viewing andecological interpretation. These include Humvee and ATV commercial tours and Whistler-Blackcombvan tours that are usually guided by experienced bear researcher M. Allen who is trained and experiencedto deal with any bear situation that could potentially be dangerous to the clients. In August 2003, an ATVtour operator was using Greenacres for commercial bear-viewing and in 2004 I noted ATV and Humveetours at the Glacier Creek Lodge area on Blackcomb.

A number of areas are also managed to keep out vehicular access. This includes the Horstman Creek road,which has a gate but allows foot access to Garibaldi Park.

Although some public access is restricted at the bottom gates, I did note a number of hikers on the skiarea roads and trails. Because of the enhanced habitat and apparently high number of black bears, the riskof an encounter would be low-moderate but the hazard is still low. Many of the bears are habituated tohumans and vehicular traffic and as long as the public maintains its distance, the risk of any injury everoccurring is extremely low.

The Whistler Mountain bike “park” trail system and recent expansion to the top of the mountain presentsa different if not unique hazard scenario. In August 2003, I examined the lower bike downhill course,which was started about three years ago. On July 18, 2004 I also did some field work below the GarbanzoChair on the new upper bike trail system. Extending the bike trails to the top of the mountain in 2004increased the vertical feet for bikers from 400 m to about 1,100 m.

I rated the bike park trail to have a high/very high bear hazard for mountain bike enthusiasts and bears.This was not only because the bike trail infringes on low-high quality feeding, bedding and travel habitatfor black bears but because of poor visibility and speed involved. According to bear researcher M. Allen,there have been two confirmed biker-bear collisions (adult female in June 1999 and cub in June 2004) andtwo unconfirmed biker-bear collisions (2 adult females in June 1999). I am not sure if there have beenother incidents with other wildlife such as deer because there appears to be no recording system in place.The bear risk associated with this specialized recreational development involves the potential for seriousinjury to both people and bears. I would postulate that human injury could result not just from directcollisions with larger bears, but from a biker striking a cub with an aggressive mother who might attack indefense of her injured young. As noted elsewhere there have already been two recent incidents in theregion where mother black bears have injured hikers in defense of their young.

The development is perhaps unusual since, unlike other mountain bike-bear situations I have studied, theemphasis is on speed rather than controlling speed to reduce/prevent bear-human conflicts. In my recentstudy of the access trail into the Diamond Head area of Garibaldi Park I recommended that B.C. Parksimpose a speed limit on mountain bikers to prevent collisions with black bears and hikers (McCrory2002b). In the Canadian Rockies, where there have been a number of maulings by grizzly bears onmountain bike trails, I have recommended posted speed limits or even closures where bike trails pass



27

through higher quality grizzly habitats or known travel routes. On the McArthur Trail in Yoho NationalPark where an illegal biker was knocked down in a sudden encounter with a mother grizzly bear, werecommended that the trail be closed to all use (McCrory et al. 1999). On the adjacent Ottertail fire roadtrail, where mountain biking is legal, we recommended that speed limits be imposed through sectionswhere grizzly bears made higher use. In one strip, there were at least eight grizzly bear mark trees alongthe fire road (McCrory and Mallam 1997).

Access to the lower bike park on Whistler Mountain is via the gondola to Mid- or Olympic Station. Thedirt track, about one metre wide, has been constructed mostly in second-growth forest adjoining the lowerski runs and access road. The quite dense forest is entering the closed canopy stage, which limitsvisibility. Within the forest, the bike trail has been cleared for about 2 - 6 m. Poor visibility as a result offairly dense cover and a deliberately convoluted design, combined with rapid speeds, make for a high riskof a bear or other animal encounter/collision. In some places, the bike trail crosses the access road withwarning signs. At the bottom, the trail emerges from the forest and is in the open for about 400 m. Iobserved bike use at various point locations on the afternoon of August 23 and use by youth appeared tobe high with an emphasis on speed.

In the spring and early summer, there is a fair concentration of black bears on the lower slopes, especiallynear Olympic Station. The bears utilize artificially planted clovers and grasses on the ski runs. On August23, 2003 the wooded areas were rated to have a trace-low capability for late summer and fall because of atrace/low density of Vaccinium with very little fruit production. The shrubs were partially dried out as aresult of the hot weather. This is second-growth Douglas fir, western redcedar and western hemlock onsites that were previously clearcut. The ski run crossed by the bike trail below Olympic Station is coveredwith a moderate density of clover, grasses and sedges that are still green. Clover, grasses and birds-foottrefoil also occur on the bottom of the hill and were still partially green down to the Village.

The gladed runs above Olympic Station are mainly covered with clover and grass. In the adjacent matureforests of old-growth hemlock there is a low density of huckleberry with low fruit production. The secondgrowth has a closed canopy with few bear foods.

Even though natural food attractants (berries) were of limited availability it would still be safe to assumethat during the biking season some bears use the forest for bedding, cover and travel.

On July 18, 2004 I surveyed the upper area of the new bike trail between the Garbanzo Chair – Chic Peaand Franz’s Chair. The ski run area and clearings around Chic Pea Lodge are all high quality greenvegetation habitat with a moderate-high density of grasses, clover, sedges and horsetail. These were all atthe succulent stage on July 18 and there were several recent bear scats. A small area of the new bike trailpasses through about 75 m of this type of habitat mixed with white rhododendron and mountainhuckleberry. Most of the upper trail is in the old-growth patches of forest. One of the staff told me thatthere were over 1,000 users of the bike trail on July 17. In 2004, the bike park opened on May 1, earlierthan previous years. This created a greater infringement on the low elevation use by black bears of greenvegetation on some of the gladed runs.

It is unclear how much the risk of wildlife/biker collisions was taken into account in the trail design andmanagement. On the one hand, artificially planted clover and other green vegetation on the adjacentgladed slopes attract more bears into the area. On the other hand, building the trail near or through someof these prime feeding and travel routes creates a significant risk of collisions between bikers and bears.According to Intrawest environmental manager A. DeJong (pers. comm.) they did put the upper bike trail



28

on the west side of the ridge so as to position it away from the larger areas of better habitat such asGreenacres. However, as noted the upper section is proximal to prime bear habitat. I did not survey thetrail below Franz’s Chair.

In an earlier draft of this report, I did present one suggestion that perhaps some type of fencing (electric orotherwise) might be attempted on some of the bike park trail sections to reduce the risk of bear-bikercollisions. However, the Whistler Bear Working Group felt this might be too cumbersome or impractical.One example of a safer design feature might have been to have built the trails more out in the open on thegladed ski runs so that bikers and bears/deer/wildlife could be much more aware of each other. Anotheroption might be to clear or “day-light” a wider area beyond the edge of the bike trail to facilitate bettervisibility; in other words, make the bike trail a wider, cleared corridor. This would include clearing theinner sides of sharp corners so bikers could see better ahead. I also noted no evidence of signs at thetrailhead warning of potential collisions with black bears. An additional hazard concern appears to be theun-preparedness of local management to act quickly in closing any areas on the mountain in the event ofconflict with a bear or a mother grizzly showing up.

As noted in the section on management of artificial food attractants, Intrawest also appears not to beexercising complete diligence in the management of its waste collection system.

Recommendations include:

Continue to ensure that food/garbage management is bear-proof through better patrols andmaintenance.

When designing new facilities, more carefully evaluate bear habitat potential/changes and impacts onbears.

Provide bear information/conflict data in a more consistent and systematic manner to the BearWorking Group and COS. This would include the readiness to report a problem immediately or apotential for one including any observations of a female grizzly in the area or a bear on a large animalkill.

Ensure guides involved in bear tours continue to have adequate safety training.

Continue to ensure that other staff have adequate bear awareness safety training.

Ensure the general public is aware of avoiding bear-human conflicts and encounters inWhistler/Blackcomb areas.

Consider redesigning and more carefully managing the mountain bike “downhill” trails on WhistlerMountain to reduce the potential for collisions with black bears and other wildlife. Putting the biketrails more out in the open and fencing wooded sections of the trail are other options that should beexplored. Clearing of trees and shrubs to create a wider margin would also improve visibility.

Ensure users of the bike park and other trail systems are warned of bears in the area. More warningsmight be posted in higher risk areas.



29

Be fully prepared to deal with a biker having a collision incident with a black bear that might lead tothe bear inflicting injury on the biker or the bear being injured.

3.3 Information sublayers used for the bear hazard assessment

The following information sublayers were used for the preliminary hazard assessment. As well, anevaluation was made of past and present management practices with respect to bears.

3.3.1 Results of bear habitat evaluation

Besides an understanding of situation types for injurious black bear encounters, habitat surrounding afacility or development was the other primary variable used in my bear hazard assessment for RMOW. InCanadian national and B.C. provincial parks, bear habitat potential has been the pivotal scientificfoundation for assessing the hazard of a park facility or other developed area for humans (Herrero et al.1983). Some research has demonstrated a correlation between the number of bears involved in negativehuman-bear encounters and high quality habitat, primarily in areas with seasonally rich foods (Holcroft1986, Mattson and Knight 1991, Ciarniello 1997).

In a study of a high-conflict area between grizzly bears and hikers in the Lake O’Hara area of YohoNational Park, an expert panel of grizzly bear biologists determined there were seven variables involvedin assessing the bear hazard of a park facility. Bear habitat potential/suitability was given the secondhighest ranking value (Eigen vector) in developing a GIS Grizzly Bear Encounter Risk Model (Donelonand Paquet 1997). This bear panel also endorsed the value of mapping grizzly habitats down to the micro-habitat level. This was considered more reliable than the coarse-scale mapping such as Ecological LandClassification (ELC) done by Parks Canada or B.C. Ministry of Environment Terrestrial Ecosystem Maps[TEM] or biogeoclimatic zone mapping. In a study of reducing human-bear conflicts in British Columbia,Ciarniello (1997) noted that the “potential for human-bear conflict is increased if bear habitat values arenot accounted for in management decisions.” She concluded that the maintenance of habitat andaccommodation of natural movement patterns of bears are considered proactive management techniquesand are preferred for mitigating bear-human conflicts. At the risk of being repetitive, some of the bearhabitat values itemized in the previous bear hazard summary are also discussed here.

Background bear ecology information

For the Whistler study area, not only was detailed and/or published black bear ecology informationlacking but no black bear habitat maps were available. Without question, the most definitive research inthe Whistler area is by black bear researcher Michael Allen. However, some 10 years of data were stillbeing written up at the time of my study (M. Allen, pers. comm.) and were largely unavailable for myassessment. Some of this bear ecology information was obtained verbatim or from popular publications inthe area. Denning information was available in a published abstract (Allen 2000). Final publication of thislong-term research will be extremely useful for future management initiatives.

A major source of black bear and potential grizzly bear habitat information for the RMOW study area wasmy four previous bear habitat and hazard surveys in s.w. British Columbia (see bear diet list, Table 1,Appendix I). These include my Duffey Lake Provincial Park study to the northeast of Whistler whichinvolved black bear habitat use plots (McCrory 1998), grizzly and black bear habitat surveys in the Upper



30

Elaho Valley (McTavish and McCrory 1998), black bear habitat and hazard mapping and assessment inthe Diamond Head area of Garibaldi Provincial Park (McCrory 2002b) and an extensive bearhabitat/hazard study in the B.C. North Cascades (McCrory 2003a).

Summary of RMOW bear habitats

The lands assigned to management by RMOW are very large (165 km2) and therefore encompass a largearea of diverse black bear habitats and travel routes, which are also potential habitats for the near-extinctgrizzly bear of the South Coastal Mountains. Obviously, due to the large study area, I was unable to carryout habitat assessment of the whole area, including many of the hiking trails into the backcountry. ForWhistler and Blackcomb Mountains, I did some foot and road transects. Field data were organized intoseparate blocks based on habitat chunks, development scenarios and other parameters. Habitat notes,seasonal habitat values, security cover observations, bear sign and sightings and other details are providedin a preliminary manner only. Field notes and results are found in Appendix II. No habitat map wasprepared but this should be done in the future.

In general, black bear habitat values in the RMOW are not overall as high as I have documented in otherareas of the South Coastal Mountains such as the Diamond Head hiking area in south Garibaldi Park andthe west side of Duffey Lake Provincial Park. In addition, a portion of the black bear population appearsto have habituated to humans and human developments in order to survive in a highly fragmentedecosystem of high human recreational and residential use; i.e. black bears have successfully learned tolive in a highly artificial world in RMOW. The overall seasonal habitats and behavioural adaptations byblack bears are important in terms of this preliminary bear hazard assessment as well as futuremanagement of the RMOW bear-human interface, from both a public safety and bearconservation/survival perspective. However, more intensive studies are needed in terms of detailed habitatecology, diet habitat mapping and seasonal bear use and travel. The upcoming final report on the DNAhair-snagging study by M. Allen and an SFU graduate student will be an important contribution.

Preliminary surveys of bear habitats indicate that RMOW has a mosaic of low to medium quality seasonalbear habitats that vary considerably from valley bottom to mountain top. In the more developed valleybottom there is an extensive, but highly fragmented, riparian zone. These riparian habitats vary from“wetlands,” sedge meadows, redcedar-skunk cabbage “swamps,” floodplain spruce-horsetail (Equisetumarvense) and red-osier dominated thickets. Collectively these habitats provide important seasonal foodsfor bears including skunk cabbage, common horsetail, grass and sedge species, cow-parsnip (Heracleumlanatum), devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), red-osier dogwood, highbush-cranberry (Viburnum edule)and other incidental species. Some seasonal bear foods, such as skunk cabbage, are only available in thevalley bottom. Because many of these bear foods are not found elsewhere in RMOW, the more habituatedblack bears are forced to utilize the riparian zone to access select foods when in season. Also, some of theold-growth redcedar forests in surviving “green spaces” have individual trees large enough (>1 m DBH)to provide winter den cavities for black bears.

Linearly, RMOW boundaries encompass about 22 km of “green space” wetlands, lakes and riparianstream sides. The riparian also fingers up the margins of tributary streams in some of the side valleys,including Fitzsimmons Creek as it flows through Whistler Village. As a result, some of the subdivisions,schools and playgrounds extensively border riparian habitats. The wetter valley bottom habitats are alsocrossed by a railway, main highway and B.C. Hydro powerline. The railway directly fragments theriparian wetlands the most as it is located within the riparian zone. A number of large golf courses and



31

park areas also occur in or border the riparian zone. The paved “Valley Trail” in many areas has beenbuilt almost entirely within the riparian or adjacent hydro-riparian zones.

Lower forested slopes of the adjacent mountains (also known as the hydro-riparian zone) on both sides ofthe valley have large areas of mainly Douglas fir/western hemlock of various age classes (old-growth,mature and seral-logged or “second-growth”), which tend to be “dry” and of lower quality for bears thanthe riparian zone. Some lodgepole pine and redcedar also occur. Overall, these provide a mix of bearfoods, primarily trace-low densities of Vaccinium berries, kinnikinnick and some other species ofincidental occurrence such as chokecherry - all important to black bears. Insects, such as ants, may also beimportant bear foods in this drier habitat. In some areas, the canopy of second-growth has now closed-inproviding fewer bear foods. Artificially planted foods in developed areas include large lawn grass areas(home sites and golf courses) and in landscaped areas a variety of berry-producing shrubs and treesincluding kinnikinnick and mountain-ash. The drier type forest habitats are overall of low or trace habitatvalue, but provide green spaces for municipal bears for travel, bedding and security. In addition, somegolf courses provide green-up foraging areas for black bears. For example, the Chateau Whistler GolfCourse has up to 20 black bears feeding on the lawns in the early spring (M. Allen pers. comm.)

Another very large area of artificially created bear habitat in the valley bottom is the Hydro right-of-waythrough RMOW. This man-made clearing is permanently maintained in a steady state by the periodicmechanical removal of small conifers. This is a productive berry habitat for bears that is overall of highercapability than the adjacent forested habitats, especially on the more vibrant berry-producing sites. InAugust 2003, a mix of fruits of Vaccinium species, kinnikinnick, mountain-ash and even salal was notedand some berry feeding by black bears was evident.

As noted in the hazard discussion, the Whistler-Blackcomb Mountain ski hill complex provides a mix ofartificial and natural habitats, including pockets of high quality seasonal feeding and denning areas.Intrawest has enhanced some black bear habitat values through erosion control and seeding or naturalgrowth of green plant species on some of the gladed runs. Generally the gladed ski runs provide a mix ofgrasses, sedges, clover, common horsetail and, at higher elevations, some patches of mountain sorrel – aknown grizzly bear “ice cream” food. Some of the green-up areas are quite extensive and attractconsiderable black bear use. Additionally, a successful effort has been made to enhance Vacciniumproduction in the Greenacres, Crystal and Bear Cub run areas and this also appears to have concentratedconsiderable black bear use during the berry season.

The ski run meadows concentrate some black bear use during the spring and summer vegetation feedingperiod. Greenacres and other berry-enhanced runs have successfully concentrated some berry feeding.Some of these enhanced ski run habitats have created bear “ecocentres” that are now used for commercialbear-viewing and research sponsored by Intrawest Corporation.

Noteworthy, however, is that my preliminary surveys also showed that many of the ski runs werescarified to ground level and have not only eliminated former berry and black bear denning habitat, buthave left poor re-vegetation in its place. In addition, to stabilize erosion some have been planted with analien plant (birds-foot trefoil) that is not attractive to bears (A. DeJong pers. comm.). The extent of thenegative and positive habitat manipulation was partially mapped by me in July 2004 and completion ofthis should be a priority for the GIS bear habitat map for RMOW as recommended in my report.

Adjacent to the Whistler and Blackcomb Mountain ski runs, the surrounding mature and old-growthforests of hemlock, yellow cedar subalpine fir, amabilis fir and spruce generally have lower food values –



32

primarily Vaccinium. However, denning habitat values appear to be high. M. Allen has now documentedover 200 winter dens, mostly in older trees on Whistler Mountain.

At higher elevations my limited surveys suggest there may be some very high value berry patches neartreeline as I previously documented in the Diamond Head area of Garibaldi Park (McCrory 2002b). Onearea with high Vaccinium densities for late season use is the Flute Creek Basin south of WhistlerMountain. Some grizzly bear potential was also recorded.

Influence of green spaces, wildland/development interface and forest/development intermix

RMOW is creating a Protected Area Network that includes a series of Parks and “Wildlife Reserves” inand around the developed areas (Waldren 1999). Although I did not attempt to quantify these reserves,they undoubtedly have a strong influence in allowing some black bears to habituate and reside within thedevelopment complexes for all or part of their seasonal foraging. I also understand that some green spaceswill be eliminated through development such as the one near the Upper Village/Marketplace children'splayground and an area off the Alta Lake Road under application by Nita Lake Developments.

All blocks of green space I surveyed had evidence of black bear use including the riparian valley bottomareas, Village parking lot green spaces, Myrtle Philip School, Whistler Secondary School, B.C. Hydropowerline and others. Evidence of travel, feeding and bedding was common. The DNA hair-snaggingresearch, which has some sample plots in the green spaces, will assist in understanding their relativeimportance to bears. Some of the green spaces apparently provide seasonal bear foods not availableelsewhere such as skunk cabbage shoots in the spring. I concur with their importance as noted by M.Allen (Whistler Black Bear Task Team 1998):

“Loss of wetland environs may contribute to a higher potential for human-bear conflict. Their loss forcesbears to feed more on garbage and along golf course green-up areas. If Whistler undergoes bear-proofing management during the next five years, bears will require their natural spring foods if garbageis to become unavailable.”

Several other development/subdivision design factors besides green spaces contribute to black bears beingmore comfortable in the Whistler developed areas than the average B.C. city of a similar size such asNelson. For one thing, the footprint of Whistler appears to be spread over a much larger area bordered bywildlands. I estimate the perimeter distance of the wildlands-development interface of Whistler to beapproximately 55 km whereas Nelson is about 15 km. Additionally, the modern development style ofWhistler has also left a greater-than-average natural forest mix within the subdivision areas such asAlpine Meadows (see the hazard section for more details on natural and artificial bear foods in developedareas).

Other habitat/hazard factors – bears staying out over the winter

According to members of the Whistler BWG, the winter of 2003/04 was unusual in that a small numberof bears were active in the Whistler and Squamish area for most of the winter. The BWG did not considerthis unnatural but the number of bears and length of time they apparently didn't hibernate appearsunprecedented. In other areas of temperate North America such as Yosemite National Park, mild winterswere found to forestall denning such that some black bears did not appear to even hibernate (Graber1982).



33

However, this does add a new dimension to the bear hazard and management approach applied toRMOW. For example, in the winter of 2003/04, a small number of black bears accessed bird-feeders andother artificial food attractants as well as the landfill area where the electric fence system was deactivatedfor the winter months.

Concerns & recommendations re-habitat management:

RMOW should initiate an ecosystem-based approach to future bear management as the best way tointegrate the complex situations involving the extensive bear-human interface zone, ski hill aspectsand 2010 Olympics. Such an approach, through detailed mapping of bear habitats and corridors, hasbeen successful in broadening the understanding of bear ecology and bear-human interactions in otherareas such as Yoho National Park (Lake O-Hara), south Garibaldi Provincial Park, core areas of BanffNational Park and elsewhere.

To facilitate this, RMOW should develop a GIS bear habitat/corridor map at 1:5,000 – 1:10,000 scalefor the whole 16,500 ha, using either existing vegetation and TRIM (contour) maps in a digital formator dovetailing with the current Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) being done for themunicipality. The map should show bear habitat units (BHUs) and their seasonal importance. Toachieve this, further ground-truthing will be required. Corridor mapping should use GIS “least-cost-path” modeling techniques combined with field research such as local knowledge of bear crossingand bear trails/travel routes. The final bear habitat map should be overlain with a human use sublayershowing all developments, existing and proposed. Using a 0.5 km zone of influence (ZOI) buffer, themap should segregate “pristine” habitat zones from “developed” habitat zones to provide a betterunderstanding of the relationship between the habituated bears and what appears to be the “wild,”warier segment of the bear population.

The proposed BWG black bear study should employ GPS transmitters along with the proposed VHScollars so that habitat use can be better determined on a more systematic basis, including plotting onthe proposed overall habitat map. Results of the black bear hair-DNA study should also be linked tothe baseline habitat map. At the same time, a food habitat/habitat use study should be done thatincludes synthesis of the 10 years of research by M. Allen.

The proposed bear habitat map and habitat research will help RMOW to identify opportunities tofurther manipulate some vegetation associations in order to encourage bears to frequent remoter areasaway from developed areas. The Whistler-Blackcomb ski hills have already achieved some of this onthe east side of the valley. Currently in other areas, such as the west side, many of the lower elevationforests are either low quality mature/old-growth of limited productivity for bears or in a seral statefrom previous clearcutting. One strategy, already employed on the Whistler ski hill, may be to useforest thinning to improve productivity of some second-growth that would then attract some bearsaway from developed areas. Some of this has already been done on the Demonstration Forest.

Many green spaces, large and small, in RMOW have dense cover and escape trees for black bears.This includes playgrounds and schoolyards where some black bears come into close proximity tochildren. While vegetation removal has been promoted to help reduce this close contact, I doubt thatit would be that effective. This should be further studied.



34

As noted earlier, a blanket recommendation is to remove artificial vegetative bear foods in landscapedareas where it appears to be attracting black bears into specific areas or sites. As well, some nativevegetation used by bears in close proximity to schools and residences might be removed.

3.3.2 Bear travel routes/corridors

In terms of reducing bear-human conflicts, Ciarniello (1997) recommends maintaining or creating travelcorridors to allow bears to filter around centres of human activity. Recently, several bear hazard studieshave demonstrated the importance of evaluating bear travel (Donelon and Paquet 1997, McCrory 2003b).It is noteworthy that in a former study (McCrory and Mallam 1990), a well-established bear travel routealong Isaac Lake in Bowron Park was considered to be a factor in the higher rate of black bear problemsat canoe campsites when compared to other areas of similar habitat value and human use. In fact, asubsequent predaceous attack by a black bear occurred at a campsite along the Isaac Lake section with thewell-used bear trail. Our study had recommended that the campsite be closed and relocated. In a recentfour-year study of bear movements in Kakwa Provincial Park, we found a high correlation between therelative bear hazard and grizzly bear travel, number of scats and number of grizzly mark trees per km oftrail (McCrory 2003b).

In general, only two coarse-scale bear corridor studies were available for the region; one was a broad,regional GIS analysis for grizzly bears for the South Coastal Mountains by Apps and Hamilton (2002)and the other a GIS black bear “permeability” map for my Garibaldi Park-Diamond Head hazard analysisfor B.C. Parks (McCrory 2002). Apps and Hamilton (2002) used 12 variables in a largely subjectiveapproach to grizzly bear habitat effectiveness and connectivity in southwestern B.C. Their modeling wasused “to estimate likelihood of bear movement.” Some of their results may be applicable to a moredetailed RMOW wildlife corridor analysis. As well, in the U.S. and B.C. North Cascades, Singleton et al.(2001) modeled movement corridors at the regional level for carnivores including grizzly bears. Thisinvolved a weighted distance analysis based upon land cover, human population density, road density andslope. Cores for carnivore focal species were selected based on low road density combined with landcover. Least-cost-path GIS analysis was then conducted between areas of core habitat.

For my recent bear hazard study in the Diamond Head area in Garibaldi Provincial Park, I tried a differentapproach. I developed a black bear habitat permeability model based on slopes (DEM model) andpresence of escape trees (McCrory 2002). The results indicate that most of the forested habitats have ahigh connectivity value provided they have slopes below approximately 60 degrees. Black bears would beable to move relatively freely throughout this forested landscape and its productive berry-feeding habitats.In the larger openings, black bear travel would be much more constrained. The model results wereconfirmed by the bear sighting/sign data and were used to assess the hazard of a campsite built in amountain pass and highly productive berry habitat.

As noted, Ciarniello (1997) recommends maintaining or creating travel corridors to allow bears to filteraround centres of human activity. While this should be considered for Whistler, the problem is that humandevelopments occur in good valley bottom habitats which some of the bears appear to depend on andwhere black bears already have a little understood but intricate network of travel routes to access thesehabitats and to also facilitate their search patterns for unnatural foods. The large amount of green spaceleft in the development areas, ranging from relatively large expanses of old forest patches and wetlands tosmall lineal riparian areas and forest/dense cover patches within all of the subdivisions, likely creates the



35

travel lanes for the more habituated black bears. The other problem is that while perhaps wildlifeoverpasses should be examined over Highway 99 and the railroad to the north and south of the developedareas (perhaps to encourage some bears to avoid crossing through the developed areas) many of the bearsare likely going to cross through the developed areas to access natural habitats and artificial vegetation aswell as to search for human foodstuffs and garbage.

In the field, I used a subjective field assessment of ridgelines, riparian corridors and other natural travelfeatures, since it was beyond the scope of this study to do a detailed connectivity assessment. However,this should be done and some of the hazard ratings reviewed. During field research, a number of beartravel routes through RMOW were identified including the use of green spaces in the parking lot areas toaccess the Whistler Village, the railroad passage under Highway 99 at the Nicklaus North Golf Course,and the riparian corridors through the Riverside Resort & Campground as well as through the WhistlerSecondary School areas. In each of these I either directly observed bear movement(s) and/or bear traveltrails/scats as evidence. In one, what appeared to be a long-term and perhaps historic trail was identifiedthrough a mossy forest along with an associated mark trail and mark tree. M. Allen has identified 9 blackbear travel corridors in Whistler. However, none of these have been intensively studied for the degree ofblack bear travel and therefore it is difficult to weigh the corridor factor without a greater level ofresearch.

Some black bears are injured and killed on the highway as well as the railway. Some of the mortalityconcentration sites may be at bear travel lanes/crossings. However, I made no attempt to map bears killedon the highway and railroad in order to correlate this to potential travel corridors. In 2003, 5 bears wereinvolved in motor vehicle accidents and one, a cub, was destroyed humanely (J.J. Whistler Bear Society2003a).

Current understanding of bear travel throughout RMOW is thus limited, although green spaces appear tofacilitate bear travel. Field results and other data were insufficient to draw any conclusions with respect tohow much bear travel lanes contribute to the bear hazard. Additionally, increased traffic volumes areexpected to increase the risk of mortality to bears that cross the highway.

Overall, RMOW has a partial 60 km/hr. speed limit. The majority of motor vehicle accidents involvingbears occur north of Alpine and in the Function Junction area suggesting that drivers need to take extracare in these areas (J.J. Whistler Bear Society 2003). In 2004 the speed limit north of Alpine wasdecreased to 60 km/hr. However, several km north of Function Junction it still increases to 80 km/hr. asone drives southward.

Recommendations

Future management of bears in RMOW and bear hazard mitigation would benefit from a betterunderstanding of bear travel and connectivity. I am therefore recommending for the long term:

Detailed research on bear travel across the valley bottom and travel lanes within or connecting thedeveloped areas.

Identification of important highway and railway crossing sites and research on means to reducemortalities.



36

Decrease speed limit to 60 km/hr. to south of Function Junction. Large "bear crossing" warning signson highway would help.

Development of a GIS connectivity/permeability model for black (and grizzly bears) in RMOW inconjunction with the recommended GIS bear habitat map. This could be partly based on the blackbear ecosystem permeability model which I developed for south Garibaldi Park (McCrory 2002) andthe grizzly bear connectivity model developed for the South Coastal Mountains by Apps andHamilton (2002). Additionally, areas of black bear highway and railway mortality could be mappedand correlated to potential corridor/travel lanes.

Review the potential for major wildlife crossing structures north and south of RMOW to facilitatesome bear and other wildlife passages across the valley. This might also help to divert some animalsaway from the more developed areas and to restore/maintain ecosystem connectivity – especially withthe 2010 Olympics and major upgrading of the Sea-to-Sky Highway.

3.3.3 Assessment of bear-human conflict information

3.3.3.1 Profile of injurious bear encounters

In the next section I developed a preliminary profile of what types of serious bear encounters might beexpected over the long term in RMOW. To do this, I used a literature review, results from other bearhazard studies and a partial review of bear-human conflict data in RMOW and the general region. Theprofile is based on bear species and age/sex classes as well as specific circumstances such as a bearfeeding on a large mammal carcass. This information was then used in the final risk assessment to helpmore specifically interpret the bear hazard of the different facilities in RMOW.

The following is based on interpretive science and my own professional opinion, since no statisticallybased models have been developed that allow us to make more accurate predictions of the different typesof bear attacks. I did have it reviewed by international bear expert Dr. S. Herrero. There are manycomplex and poorly understood variables with respect to serious bear encounters including species ofbear, population size, overlap of feeding habitats and travel corridors with recreation facilities, degree ofhabituation and/or food conditioning, annual berry crop failures, age and injuries in individual bears andother factors. Even the size of the group of people can enter into the equation. For example, there hasnever been a mauling by a grizzly or a black bear involving a group size of six or more individuals(Herrero and Higgins 1999).

It should also be noted that after reviewing a preliminary draft of my report, the Whistler Bear WorkingGroup requested that I synthesize coastal bear attacks into a table using data from coastal areas of Alaska,Washington, Oregon and California. While this would be a very useful exercise, this was beyond thescope of my study.

In RMOW there is a relatively high overlap of human development and occupied black bear range. Someof the habitat is also potential range for the nearly extirpated grizzly bear. What is the possibility ofpeople in RMOW being injured from encounters with bears? The answer is very, very low. To date Icould find no evidence of an injurious encounter. This is because of the tolerance of the black bear(Herrero 2002) leading to the majority of encounters with people being generally non-confrontational onthe part of the bears.



37

The profile for RMOW was similar to my bear hazard study in the historic Diamond Head area ofGaribaldi Park, where despite high visitor use (14,000+ hikers per annum) and very high black bear use inthe fall, no injurious encounters have been reported (McCrory 2002b). A similar situation was found inManning Provincial Park, which has had high frontcountry campground and backcountry visitor use sincethe 1950s and yet has had no reports of injurious type bear encounters (McCrory 2003a). However, it isalso noteworthy that there have been 11 injurious but non-fatal black bear attacks recorded within Region1 (Vancouver Island) and Region 2 (Lower Mainland) between 1996 and 2003 (Mike Badry, WildlifeConflicts Prevention Coordinator, MWLAP, e-mail dated June 24/04). This merely underscores that thepotential for a serious bear encounter in RMOW is always there and should be addressed proactivelyprimarily through various mitigation measures.

Bear encounters that can lead to human injury or death can be broken out into six general categories.Their seriousness depends in some instances on the species of bear, with grizzlies generally being moredangerous. I based these categories on my own personal observations and relevant studies by Herrero(2002), Herrero and Fleck (1990), Herrero and Higgins (1995) and Herrero and Higgins (1999). Thecategories are:

-food/garbage incident, -chance encounter with a defensive mother bear, -chance encounter with a defensive subadult or adult grizzly, -bear feeding on a large mammal carcass, -predaceous attack by either bear species, where a person(s) is treated as prey and -unexplained attack.

.Grizzly bears versus black bears

Of the six types of incidents, grizzly bears are generally more dangerous than black bears in all ofcategories except for predaceous attacks. Even adult and subadult grizzlies on their own have been knownto attack humans in chance encounters without the motivation being explained (Herrero 2002).

As noted by Ciarniello (1997), even though there are about 12 times more black bears than grizzly bearsin B.C., grizzly bears accounted for 3 human deaths and 32 injuries between 1985-1996 and black bearsaccounted for 4 human deaths and 30 injuries during the same period. Additionally, only about 10% ofblack bear inflicted injuries are major (hospitalization for 24 hours or more) whereas about 50% of grizzlyinflicted injuries are major (Herrero 2002). Another point is that black bears are seldom aggressivetowards humans. In an intensive study of 992 interactions between black bears and visitors in thebackcountry of Yosemite National Park (1978-1979) bear aggression was observed in less than 6% of theinteractions and less than 2% of the total bear behaviour recorded (Hastings et al. 1981). I would also addthat even if black bears exhibit “aggressive” behaviour when cornered, defending a food source ordefending young, this is natural threat behaviour within the species that rarely ever leads to injury.

Because grizzly bears are nearly extinct in the RMOW study area, the risk of any type of grizzlyencounter would be extremely rare. This equation could shift however with a natural increase ofpopulation, natural influx or, alternatively, if the provincial government proceeds with the planned grizzlybear recovery program for the South Coastal Mountains. RMOW is not part of the proposed recovery areabut adjacent Garibaldi Park is (Tony Hamilton, pers. comm.). A subadult grizzly bear was apparentlyreported in the area in the late 1980s but was killed to the west in a problem bear situation (McCrory1998). Nonetheless, since a few grizzly bears still occur in surrounding areas such as Squamish, theUpper Elaho (McTavish and McCrory 1998), Duffey Lake Provincial Park and the Stein (McCrory 1998)and other areas such as Pemberton, it is possible that the occasional grizzly bear might drift into the



38

Whistler area. Because of this, due diligence should be exercised. For example, temporary closuresshould be implemented should a mother grizzly bear with young frequent human use areas such as thebike park/ski hill, residential zones and trails.

The following review will focus primarily on the potential for black bear attacks.

i. Artificial food/garbage related incidents

Various studies have shown that black bears associated with artificial foods have been involved in mostinjurious incidents involving this species (Herrero 2002, Ciarniello 1997). Most attacks related toartificial attractants appear to cause minor injury. Herrero (1985) concluded that about 90% of 500injuries in North America between 1969-1980 that were caused by black bears were minor and attributedto bears that were food conditioned and habituated. Of 33 lethal attacks by black bears on human beingsin North America between 1906-1993 only two involved a bear known to have a history of feeding onpeople’s food or garbage (Herrero and Higgins 1995). In B.C., Herrero and Higgins (1999) found that 8of 19 injurious/fatal incidents between 1960-1997 involving black bears appeared to be related to non-natural attractants. As noted further, the subadult male black bear that killed a boy near Green Lake, B.C.in 1994 was considered food conditioned and human habituated. The bear had been feeding on garbage ina driveway (Herrero 2002).

Despite considerable history of people and artificial attractants in RMOW there appears to have been noserious (injurious) food attractant type incidents in spite of numerous annual close contacts such as bearsbreaking into houses and condominiums.

I did not review all of the regional incident data, but one aggressive food attractant-related incidentoccurred at Cheakamus Lake near Whistler in 2002. An adult black bear chased two campers from abackcountry site into the lake. It then ransacked the site. A park ranger and one of the campersencountered the bear on the trail the next day and it charged them repeatedly despite being pepper sprayedby the ranger. The ranger then shot the bear,which ran off. The trail was then closed and several snareswere set. A few weeks later the carcass of the bear was found near where it had first been shot suggestingit had been mortally wounded (Chris Doyle pers. comm.).

As noted in the following discussion on mother black bears and human injuries, this particular group maybe more prone to injure humans in artificial food-related incidents than other age and sex groupings. Onerecent case example for B.C. occurred in the summer of 2003. At a municipal campsite in Midway, amother black bear attacked a woman who was alone in her tent with a young dog. The incident occurredat night after the bear appeared to have accessed garbage in non-bear-proof containers in the campsite.The woman sustained minor injuries and the attack appeared to possibly have been a case of the motherbear defending her young when the person in the tent reacted to one of the cubs battering at the tent(Vancouver Sun. Nov. 18/03).

Despite significant strides made in RMOW to reduce access by black bears to human foodstuffs andgarbage, there are still a moderate number of food attractant incidents each year to suggest the element ofdanger to the public from food conditioned black bears is real. This risk can be appreciably reduced,however, if the Zero Tolerance initiatives recommended elsewhere in my report are implemented.

Although the following incident in Yellowstone Park in 1972 involved a habituated and food conditionedgrizzly bear, I consider it relevant to black bears and itinerant camping and associated food/garbage



39

problems that are common in RMOW. Two young men set up an illegal campsite and late one night wereattacked by an approximately 20-year-old female grizzly as they walked into their camp in the dark. Thebear killed one of the men while the other escaped. The bear was underweight, had worn canine teeth anda history of feeding on garbage. It did not eat the person it killed, however. The men had kept a “filthy”camp with garbage and unstored foodstuffs and it is believed one of the men was killed because the bearwas trying to defend the human food as it might defend an animal carcass (Herrero 2002).

ii. Chance encounter with a defensive mother bear

To my own surprise there is some recent evidence from incidents in the region and elsewhere to suggestthat RMOW should be concerned about the potential for a mother black bear attack even though injurieswould likely be minor. Although it is well known that, unlike mother grizzly bears, mother black bearsgenerally do not attack humans in defense of their young, a review by Herrero (2002) of bear attacks inNorth America to 1980 indicates four incidents of human injuries resulting from sudden encounters withmother black bears. He notes, however, that such attacks are not usually as severe as those involvingmother grizzly bears. However, Herrero (2002) cautions that in developed areas where black bears havebecome habituated to people and accustomed to feeding on human food or garbage, there is evidence ofincreased danger from females with cubs. In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, researchers Singerand Bratton (1980) found that productive female black bears were involved in 17% of cases resulting inpersonal injury (n = 107), but only 6% involving nuisance problems. Herrero (2002) interprets this tomean that female black bears with young are less likely to be involved in nuisance problems, but it theyare and find themselves in close proximity to people, injury is more likely to result than with otherage/sex classes of bears.

There have been several recent incidents in the region involving mother black bears injuring humans. Thefollowing was provided by CO Chris Doyle in two separate e-mails (one to myself and an earlier one to S.Dolson). In June 2002 about 6:00 p.m. a Squamish man was walking his dog on the Deeks Lake Trail(between Squamish and Lions Bay) when they encountered a female black bear and cub. The medium-sized dog was out front and the mother bear jumped on it and pinned it to the ground. It then attacked theman (30 year old) but he fought the bear off. The bear retreated and then charged again and the manfought it off with closed fists. The bear then retreated and bluff charged one last time. The hiker receiveda cut to his mouth requiring 10 stitches as well as puncture wounds and scratches to his arms, chest andshoulder area. The dog received some minor puncture wounds. The trail was temporarily closed butbecause the attack involved a mother bear defending her young, no attempt was made to catch the bear.Although the Deeks Lake Trail was heavily used by hikers no further problems were reported.

In June 2003, a lone female jogger near Pemberton sustained minor injuries from a mother black bearwith cubs. The jogger was about 45 minutes up the Tour De Soo Trail and encountered the bear family atclose range. The mother bear charged and attacked the person after she fell on the ground while trying toretreat. The jogger required medical treatment for two puncture wounds to the leg. No further problemswere reported in the area (CO Chris Doyle, pers. comm. by e-mail).

I did not obtain the details but Chris Doyle (pers. comm.) also reported to me an incident from severalyears ago where a mother black bear with young seriously injured a female jogger in the Maple Ridgearea. The mother bear had previously charged others in the area.

As noted previously, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a mother grizzly with young could showup in the Whistler area such as the productive ski hill habitats. If so, close monitoring and temporary



40

closures should be enacted immediately.

iii. Chance encounter with a defensive subadult or adult grizzly

As noted previously, the likelihood under present circumstances is about nil.

iv. Bear feeding on a large mammal carcass

A risk category that includes both bear species involves people encountering a defensive bear feeding onthe carcass of a large animal. In some areas of North America, especially where ungulates are abundant,both black and grizzly bears enhance their vegetarian diet through predatory and/or scavenging behaviour.Often this involves hunting and killing young and/or weakened ungulates or locating carcasses. InRMOW Columbian black-tailed deer is the most common ungulate with mountain goats in the moreremote mountain areas. I found no evidence of people being charged or injured by a black bear defendinga large mammal carcass in the RMOW area. I would be less worried about the potential for this type ofattack in RMOW than several of the other categories already discussed.

As a rule of thumb, grizzly bears become far more dangerous than normal when defending a large animalcarcass. There is fair evidence that black bears are less dangerous than grizzlies in similar circumstances(Herrero 2002). In their review of human injuries inflicted by bears in B.C. from 1960-1997, Herrero andHiggins (1999) found that 19% of grizzly attacks involved ungulate carcasses whereas none wereinvolved in black bear attacks. However, I believe more research is warranted on this topic. In 2003, ahiker and his dog in the B.C. Okanagan were attacked by a mother black bear, which appeared to bedefending a deer carcass. The hiker was injured and the dog was killed. In the Chilcotin in June 2003, myresearch dog and I were charged twice by a large black bear defending a freshly killed moose calf. Ibelieve if we had not run from the site the bear may have attacked as it was very aggressive. However, wedid not wait around for this to be tested.

v. Predaceous bear attack

I would red flag this rare lethal encounter type for RMOW even though there appears to have been nodocumented incidents in Whistler or the lower mainland region. However, I did not review the Whistleroccurrence reports for evidence of behaviour related to predaceous “interest” or failed predation. COChris Doyle (pers. comm.) assisted with an investigation in Powell River in 2001 in what would appear tobe a predaceous attempt on a little boy by a garbage conditioned subadult black bear. The boy wascrouched down by the water at a lakeside campground when the bear came out of the undergrowth andscratched the back of the boy. The bear pursued the boy when he ran but the bear was then frightened offby others and later shot by the COs.

Unlike attacks from black bears related to artificial food conditioning or mother bears defending theiryoung, predaceous attacks are more likely to be fatal. For fatal black bear attacks in B.C. from 1960-1997Herrero and Higgins (1999) found that 83% involved possible predation where motivation could beinferred. This is consistent with records for North America. Of 20 records of fatal attacks by black bearson the continent between 1900 and 1980, 80% involved the bear acting as a predator (Herrero 2002).

Causative factors that trigger predation on humans are poorly understood. As noted by Herrero (2002), inproductive berry years the risk of a predaceous attack might be a minor concern, but a poor berry yearcould trigger such an event. The same authority also considers injury or infirmity of an individual bear as



41

another possible but less likely factor that could trigger a predaceous black bear attack. Herrero (2002)suggests that young people may be more prone to fatal black bear attacks. Of 20 people killed by blackbears in North America from 1900 to 1980, half involved victims who were 18 or under. Five wereyounger than 10 years old. Three of the attacks on children occurred while they were playing outsideduring the day. However, the data for B.C. are not consistent with these findings. Herrero and Higgins(1999) indicated that 12 (67%) of the 18 victims of potentially predatory black bear attacks were adults, 5(28%) were youths (age 10-19) and 1 (6%) was a child (<10 years old). There is also a remote linkbetween developed areas, subadult male black bears and fatal predatory attacks on children and teenagers(Herrero and Higgins 1995).

I might also add that predatory attacks can also pose considerable risk for officials attempting to stabilizethe situation. A predaceous bear on a kill or attempting a kill could turn its aggression on COs or others.

Geographically, B.C. (along with Alberta) is one of the three North American epicentres for fatal blackbear attacks on humans, the other two areas being Alaska and Ontario - Michigan (Herrero and Higgins1995). However, there is some suggestion that since predaceous attacks by coastal-type black bears inB.C. has apparently been non-existent, the likelihood of such an event would appear to much rarer thansome interior black bear sub-populations (Tony Hamilton pers. comm.). More research is needed on thisaspect.

It is important to note that case studies, such as the predaceous Arizona incident cited below, show thatsuch attacks do occur on an unpredictable “first time” basis. It is my opinion that this risk is still real forRMOW and cannot be ignored just because it hasn’t happened before. The high black bear-people overlapin the RMOW area is all too strikingly similar to two of our other bear study areas (Bowron Lake andLiard Hot Springs Provincial Parks) where our hazard reports identified the potential for predaceousincidents (McCrory and Mallam 1990, 1994). In each park, a predaceous attack by a black bear did occurwithin five years of our predictions. In Bowron Lake Park, a night attack by a black bear occurred at acampsite that we had recommended for relocation. The recent fatalities of two park visitors at Liard HotSprings Park involved a day attack on four people by a single black bear. Our Liard study also reviewed a1980 predaceous and fatal attack by a grizzly or black bear on a biologist who had been sleeping in a tent.

As has already been noted in the previous hazard discussion, the two following examples give me someconcern that potential for predation in RMOW may be greatest at most children’s play set areas, theschool playing fields and some camping situations in RMOW. In September 1994, a food conditioned andhuman habituated subadult male black bear attacked and killed a four-year-old boy near Green Lake, B.C.(Herrero 2002). The following example, although out of the country, is also of interest since it was thefirst known predaceous attack by a black bear in Arizona. In July 1996, a 154 kg, 5-year-old male blackbear critically mauled a sleeping teenage girl at a campground 48 km north of Tucson, Arizona. Five daysprior to the attack, the same bear had been captured, ear-tagged and released within 14.5 km of the attacklocation. A lawsuit ensued and 3 years later the Risk Management Section for the state settled for $2.5million U.S. The incident was also interesting in that it occurred in a well-used mountain area where theArizona Fish and Game had recently re-introduced black bears (Perry and Rusing 2000).

vi. Unexplained attack

This is not a clear category but involves an attack where the motivation is more difficult to infer. Againthis would be very rare in RMOW.



42

3.3.3.2 Other carnivore species concerns

Although not officially part of my study, it is worth mentioning the risks of attacks from coyotes andcougars, both of which occur in RMOW. It goes without saying that cougars periodically (but rarely)attack and even kill people and pets in B.C. The usual motivation is predation. Vancouver Island appearsto be one of the hot spots for cougar attacks on people. Of interest for RMOW is that in May 2004, acougar pursued a mountain biker down a trail in Whistler for about 100 m. When the biker crashed to theground the cougar slid in to him. He put his bike over his head and yelled at the cougar until it finallymoved far enough away that the biker could ride down the hill. The CO described this incident as a “nearattack” (CO Chris Doyle, e-mail dated June 2, 2004). The previous winter, a cougar killed a resident ofBanff when she was cross-country skiing alone in the Lake Minnewanka area (Comeau 2003). Cougarattacks on dogs in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor do occur (Chris Doyle pers. comm.). In Canmore, Alberta acougar killed a dog in the winter of 2000 while attempting to eat dog food on a back deck.

Although I did not review the B.C. incident data for either cougars or coyotes, the latter species has alsobeen known to rarely attack humans.

The following coyote attack is worth mentioning. This incident happened about ten or more years ago inStagleap Provincial Park in the West Kootenays. The park contractor maintaining the site was leavingfood for an adult coyote. The animal understandably became habituated and increasingly aggressive. Oneday a child at the picnic site was eating lunch and the coyote approached. The coyote bit the child, but itwas not clear whether the child offered the coyote a bite of a sandwich, or whether the coyote took it uponitself to just take it. The end result was that the coyote bit the child in the process of acquiring a meal(Gary Price, Area Supervisor, B.C. Parks, MWLAP. pers. comm.).

3.3.3.3 Assessment of bear complaint/occurrence information

My partial analysis used a number of data sources including:

-B.C. government studies,-B.C. Wildlife Branch CO problem wildlife occurrence reports,-Annual analysis of bear complaint/occurrence records by J.J. Whistler Bear Society and-Other sources.

The problem bear/complaint data are extensive, sometimes numbering 200 occurrence reports annually. Idid not attempt to review it in detail such as for specific incidents of bear aggression or predaceous-typebehaviour. I did, however, make file copies of the 2003 Whistler problem wildlife occurrence data. I alsoattempted to obtain more specific bear attack data for the B.C. lower mainland but was told I would haveto obtain the individual files through Freedom of Information (Mike Badry, Wildlife Conflicts PreventionCoordinator, MWLAP, e-mail dated June 24/04).

Bear complaints/destructions/relocations 1992-2003

Fortunately, the two most recent bear-human conflict studies commissioned by the province provide fairlydetailed analysis of Whistler “problem” bear data as a case study example. Ciarniello (1997) analyzeddata on black bear complaints, destructions and translocations from 1992-1996 and Davis et al. (2001)analyzed black bears destroyed between 1992-2000. The J.J. Whistler Bear Society (2003) did asystematic analysis of bear complaint/occurrence data for 2002/2003 as well as a partial review of bear-



43

human conflicts from 1999-2003. The “complaints” include problems reported to the CO service, RCMPand J.J. Whistler Bear Society. Below is a partial review. Some of these data are treated elsewhere in myreport.

Destructions/relocations

According to Davis et al. (2001), the number of bears destroyed escalated from 2 in 1992 to 23 in 1994. Itis difficult to understand the dramatic difference between these two years since the availability of foodattractants apparently remained the same. After the electric fence was installed in 1995, 18 black bearswere destroyed in 1995 and 17 in 1996. The annual kill rate remained at between 15 and 20 until the year2000 when it decreased to near 1992 levels. In this year there was 1 bear destroyed and 3 relocated. Thisdecrease was attributed to near completion of bear-proofing of the waste management system in1999/2000 (Davis et al. (2001). Since then the number of bears destroyed/relocated has remainedrelatively low with 5 destroyed/2 relocated in 2001, 6 destroyed/4relocated in 2002 and 1 destroyed/1relocated in 2003 (J.J. Whistler Bear Society 2003). In 2004, there was some increase in complaints andbears killed over the past year with numbers still incomplete when my report was finalized.

Occurrences/complaints

Bear complaints escalated from 23 complaints in 1992 to 200 in 1994. After the electric fence wasinstalled in 1995, complaints dropped to 118 that year and 131 in 1996 (Ciarniello (1997). I did not obtainand review complaint data from 1997 to 1998. Using the analysis from the J.J. Whistler Bear Society(2003) complaints for the 5-year period 1999 – 2003 averaged 189 with a low of 96 in 2001 and 251 in1999.

Destructions versus complaints ratio

As noted, I could find no explanation for the very low problem kill rate/complaints in 1992 prior to bear-proofing. I agree that this has been a significant factor in reducing the number of bears destroyed.However, the complaint data show that in some recent years when kill/relocation were low, complaintswere as high as some of the earlier years when kill rates were very high. This is best reflected in the factthat in 1996 there were about the same number of bear complaints as 2003 (approx. 200) but 17 bearswere killed in 1996 compared to only 1 in 2003. Some of the reduced kill rate therefore likely reflects ashift of policy to a greater tolerance of problem bears in RMOW, with some influence from the negativeconditioning and comprehensive public education program implemented in 1999. The J.J. Whistler BearSociety (2003) concluded the reduction of bear kills is the result of using non-lethal bear kits and theconcerted effort by the municipality, police and by-law services.

2003 J.J. Whistler Bear Society annual complaint report

The following is an example of the 2003 annual reporting by the J.J. Whistler Bear Society (2003). Asnoted earlier, 1 bear was destroyed and another bear relocated.

While the low number of bears killed and relocated is encouraging, 56% of all 2003 bear calls wererelated to garbage and other attractants, an increase of 27% from 2002. There were fewer calls to reportsightings (down to 38% compared to 49% in 2002) and there were also fewer incidences involving bearsin or near a residence or vehicle - 16.5% in 2003 compared to 23% in 2002. Reported incidents in theAlpine, Whistler Cay and Brio subdivisions were reduced by half compared to 2002 but the number of



44

incidents were up for White Gold. In 2002, most of the reports occurred in the spring or summer, whilemost of the 2003 reports were from the fall.

Some 72% of all bear calls were attended and the bears were gone on arrival about 30% of the time.About 13% of incidents (23 calls) resulted in property damage. Negative conditioning (bear bangers,rubber bullets, etc.) were used in 26% of calls. Five bears were involved in motor vehicle accidents andone, a cub, was destroyed humanely. The majority of motor vehicle accidents involving bears occur northof Alpine and in the Function Junction area suggesting that drivers need to take extra care in these areas.The RCMP handled most of the calls, responding to 116 out of 128 bear reports. Conservation Officersattended 12 out of 47 bear reports and the J.J. Whistler Bear Society attended 21 out of 31 calls. Some102 bear calls were related to garbage or other household yard attractants. There were 30 reports of bearsin or near homes or vehicles.

Whistler Black Bear Project

The Whistler Black Bear Project compiles hundreds of bear sightings annually. The figure 150 for 2003represents public reports of bear sightings of which over 80% were from residential communities inWhistler. Public reports to the Whistler Black Bear Project are used to aid in identification and re-sighteffort for bear family group monitoring (1994-2003). I did not review this data.

3.3.4 Management of artificial food attractants

Many of the initiatives and methods to bear-proof the waste management system in RMOW are welldescribed in the 1998 Black Bear Management Plan for Whistler (Whistler Black Bear Task Team 1998).This information is supplemented by the two most recent bear-human conflict studies commissioned bythe province, both of which have fairly detailed analysis of the recent Whistler waste managementprogram as a case study example, including the relationship between bear-proofing and problem bearincidents (Ciarniello 1997, Davis et al. 2001). Other information used in my assessment includedinterviews, random site inspections of the Whistler landfill site and municipal and ski hill garbagecontainers, consultations with Margo Supplies Ltd. and on-site examinations of sites where black bearsobtained human foodstuffs. I would like to stress that my findings are preliminary.

In a nutshell, Whistler is now one of the most bear-proofed communities in the province outside ofNational Parks. However, there are sites/situations where resident black bears still access humanfoodstuffs and/or garbage and where significant improvements are still needed. It is my impression thatenough gaps still exist to nullify some of the expensive bear-proofing efforts already undertaken. This isevident in the bear complaint data. According to the J.J. Whistler Bear Society’s analysis for 2003, whilethe low number of killed and relocated bears is encouraging, 56% of all 206 bear calls were related togarbage and other attractants, an increase of 27% from 2002. Also, 16.5% of the calls involved a bearentering or attempting to enter a person’s house or vehicle.

Important situations/sites where improvements, some significant, are still required include:

Whistler Landfill System of compactor waste disposal/recycling drop-offs for single-family residences Waste bins at hotels, restuarants and multi-family residences Residential waste bins in wooden drop-off buildings Construction waste bins



45

Residential bird-feeders, compost bins, etc. Random camping situations Riverside Campsite Inspection and maintenance system of waste bins and other garbage receptacles

Once Whistler is able to achieve a fully functioning bear-proof containment system, the reduced numberof bear-human problems can be more effectively dealt with by on-site non-lethal tactics by the trainedbear specialist I have recommended or other trained personnel.

3.3.4.1 Assessment of solid waste-handling and food attractant program

Solid waste management is handled under contract to RMOW with Carney’s Waste System.In 2004 they implemented a community compost system.

i. Residential Single Family Dwellings

Since the 1998 Bear Plan was written, Whistler’s permanent residential population has grown from 7,000to approximately 10,000. In about 1996, RMOW decided not to implement a residential garbagecollection service because of concerns about wildlife, snow removal and population fluctuations. Instead,two garbage/recycling depots were established, one at Nesters and the other at Function Junction.People bring their garbage to either depot where it is compacted. In 1998, the compactor sites accountedfor about 10% of RMOW’s total waste (Whistler Black Bear Task Team 1998).

Problems with this system identified by the Bear Task Team in 1998 persist today and are considered oneof the prime loopholes by which town bears still access artificial foodstuffs. These include:

-residents who do not own a car have difficulty taking their garbage to the depots since some live a fairdistance away and really can’t take their garbage by bus. Some are forced to store their garbage on theirbalconies for short and long periods, attracting bears. This contributes to a fair number of the bearcomplaints/problems in Whistler annually (S. Dolson pers. comm.).

-compactor depots have been over-used and containers overloaded. This was solved by placing staff at thesite. However, neither depot has bear-proof fencing and occasionally black bears do access them (S.Dolson pers. comm.).

-some residential areas have wooden sheds for temporary garbage storage but bears constantly break intothese (S. Dolson pers. comm.).

-some residential bins for recycling cardboard end up with food wastes that attract bears such as pizzaboxes.

-In addition, problems continue with bears accessing bird-feeders, compost bins, and other artificial foodsources. As in Yosemite National Park, some Whistler black bears have intelligently learned to “breakand enter” even supposed bear-proof sites including breaking into barred garbage enclosures atcondominium complexes, opening door knobs to access garbage stored inside and opening sliding glassdoors. In 2002, a black bear was able to “break and enter” a minimum of 28 residences by opening slidingglass doors or windows (S. Dolson pers. comm.). There is still evidence that some people continue tohand-feed bears. Last summer, one resident was prosecuted for deliberately feeding black bears. Some



46

believe the increase in black bear problems in 2004 may be some of these food-conditioning problemsemerging.

Following are several case examples of black bears obtaining foodstuffs:

-Nov. 4, 2003. “Two nights in a row, we’ve had a bear break into a garbage shed and actually pull out thelarge 3 yard bin, drag it into the street and knock it over. We had to get a truck in to put it back. It’s notphysically possible for people to move these things without equipment. I’m talking about the large fullsize garbage containers. This bear is a brute and will go to any length to get food. These are some of theproblems you run in to when food is tougher to get at – is being 100% bear smart really a smart thing?Bears are too smart for us.” (Occurrence report, Nov. 4 2003).

-August 20, 2003. I visited a garage break-in site involving a black bear at 8131 Alpine Way (GeoffCarr). On the morning of August 14, a large adult black bear broke into his garage at about 4:00 am. Thebear had scented his two garbage bags stored just inside a door with a brass knob. The bear was able toget its teeth on the knob, turn it and open the door, which then closed once it was inside. Muddy paw-prints? showed the bear tried to get out through an upper window. The owner claimed the bear alsodefecated huckleberry scats all over his vintage Harley-Davidson motorbikes. The garbage had fresh meatand fish scraps but it was only a day old. He had loaned someone his pick-up so was not able to take itaway that day. The bear was able to bite the inside door knob and let itself out, as well as drag the twobags of garbage out along with a small bag of bird seed. It did not touch the bag of dog food that was inthe basement. The owner then heard a commotion and came out and yelled at the bear and actedaggressively and the bear took off. At about 10 pm on August 16, the same bear returned and took out thebag of birdseed. The owner heard the bear, came out, yelled at it and it took off.

I saw a bowl of birdseed in the pigeon cage next to the door and suggested he clean this up and keep thebowl out of the cage at night or the seed and possibly the two pigeons would be next target for the bear.There was a bowl of dog food that the owner claimed he left out only during the day. I recommended heput a dead-bolt on the door. Passing by one week later, I noted this had not been done.

ii. Multi-Family Dwellings, Ski Hill Stations, Hotels and Commercial Sites

In 1998, waste from these municipal sources accounted for about 30% of the total. In 1998, about 360large garbage containers were distributed for this purpose in the municipality. Some of these are enclosedin small sheds, underground parking sites or specially designed garbage rooms. The Bear Task Teamworked closely with Owen Carney to improve the large metal bins so that they were more bear-proof.

Again, there are still loopholes in this system that must be corrected. These include:

-bears break through the steel grills at condominium complexes. I saw this in August 2003 in anunderground parking area.

-bins are left overflowing or the latches and/or doors malfunction. For example, one of the large bins atthe Riverside Resort Complex had a latch that no longer worked and several times I noted the bin wasoverflowing. Although I reported this to Owen Carney in August 2003, it had still had not been fixed inNovember 2003 or July 2004. In July 2004 one of the waste bins at the 7th Heaven lower chair station onBlackcomb Mountain was full of garbage with one bent lid and one latch not working. A black bear hadbeen hanging around the site.



47

-some bears cause lateral damage at some of these sites. In November 2003 I investigated MontebelloEstates where a black bear had recently caused damage to about 17 of 72 outdoor hot tub lids. The bearwould bite or crush with a paw the vinyl covers and damage the Styrofoam inside with the damageestimated at about $20,000. Four scats indicated that the bear had been feeding on rose hip berries thatgrow within the landscaped areas. Although seasonal bear foods were limited all around (I did striptransects in the adjacent green spaces) they were more common from artificially planted species.Recommendations were made to remove these over time.

iii. Construction and Demolition Sites

Construction Giant Haul Containers are used. They are open at the top to allow construction waste to bedeposited. In 1998, these sites accounted for 60% of the total waste of RMOW. Despite a by-law beingpassed, odiferous and edible human garbage (mainly from workers' lunches) still gets mixed in the bins atconstruction sites and then becomes a free lunch for some RMOW black bears. The only black beardestroyed in RMOW in 2003 was indirectly a result of it becoming a nuisance by feeding in constructionbins. The company was not fined but made a voluntary donation to the J.J. Whistler Bear Society to carryout a workers education program at construction sites in 2004. Further education will be carried out by asummer student contracted by SLRD as the Zero Waste Coordinator. With funding from RMOW, thisstudent will also be instructed by the J.J. Whistler Bear Society to deliver on-site education verbally andwith information flyers. The student will also place signage on construction bins.

At the landfill, bears also get into the permanent construction waste bins and obtain garbage waste. Thiswas still occurring in July 2004.

iv. Public Pedestrian Areas, Municipal Parks, Golf Courses, School Yards, & Roadside Pullouts

Starting in 1998, existing garbage cans were replaced with Hid-A-Bag containers at a cost of $100,000(Whistler Black Bear Task Team 1998). They are common at most public venues. I noted several siteswhere non-bear-proof garbage containers were still being used. One was a barrel-type structure at theWhistler Secondary School and the other involved the small open canisters used at the mini-golf course atthe Riverside Lodge Complex. Another site was at the Longhorn Saloon but it was later removed.The others should be replaced with bear-proof containers.

So far, this appears to be one of the better bear-proof systems in terms of effectiveness.

v. Campsites

Random camping in the green spaces is common and all sites inspected had evidence of black bearsobtaining human foodstuffs. Debris was often scattered on the forest floor. This is likely a significantproblem and breakdown of maintaining bear-proof systems in adjacent residential and pedestrian areas.

There is only one public campground in RMOW, the Riverside Resort and Campground complex. Istayed at the site in 2003 and 2004. Black bears appear to regularly visit or use it as a travel route,periodically accessing human foodstuffs despite a fairly diligent bear-proof program.

While I stayed at the site in July 2003, a large black bear obtained food from a cooler carelessly left outby campers. About this time, likely the same black bear also smashed the partly open window of a car in



48

the parking lot and obtained human food. At this time, I also reported to Carney’s Waste Systems that oneof the latches on the bear-proof garbage bin wasn’t working but this was not repaired even a year later.The food-hanging cables are not fully bear-proof and small open garbage canisters are left overnight withgarbage in them on the mini-golf course. In July 2004 a cinnamon-phase bear was destroyed by the COsfor breaking into two tents at the campsite. Campsite staff determined that at least one tent had attractantsinside but the other party was adamant that they left nothing inside to attract the bear. Subsequently,Riverside staff began fining people $75 for leaving food unattended. However, during my stay in July2004 I noted that patrols were lax.

The following bear observations were made while I stayed at the Riverside Campground in August,2003:

Aug. 9/10? Large black bear got in to garbage someone left in a toolbox in the back of a truck in a nearbyresidential area. CO had set out trap near Riverside Campsite but removed it on this date.

Aug. 8. Black bear raided cooler at tent site #10 B. Some men had come in late, set up camp, left theircooler with food unattended and went to a bar. Bear got into cooler around midnight and fed on somedried packages of food.

Aug. 10. 11:00 p.m. Large black bear walked right past my tent. A large shadow from the reflection of thelights along the pathway loomed over my tent and I saw a long pointed snout and pointed ears. Lucy’sgrowl and bark woke me from a doze. By the time I found my clothes and moved outside with the exciteddog, we could not locate the bear. The next morning I found where a large bear had traveled up the creekzone, along the edge of the pond below the lodge.

Aug. 12. 5 a.m. Another dog barked and Lucy growled. When we went outside, Lucy’s scenting indicatedthat the black bear had just ambled through the campsite. We caught up to it walking down the trail belowthe dike and it would merely turn on Lucy and then walk away more quickly. It turned back into thecampsite area and doubled back up the river trail and then into the darkness. I could not get close enoughto hit it with a rock.

Aug. 19. Patrolled campsite at 5:30 a.m. but there was no sign of the bear even though Lucy had somescent interest. At noon I inspected a Volvo station wagon that the bear had broken into last night at theoverflow lot near the lodge. The people had left the windows open about 6 cm and the bear managed tobreak the back window. It then climbed through the window and got a bag of fruit and some food fromthe cooler. I took some hair samples for the Whistler DNA study. This appears to be a problem ofescalating aggression to access human foods as now what appears to be the same campground bear haslearned to break car windows. I told the campsite maintenance supervisor to post warning signs.

vi. Landfill

The landfill site is just outside the south boundary of RMOW and proximal to the Demonstration Forest.The landfill is mostly adjacent to a second-growth coniferous forest that grew back from earlier logging.There are also some mature and old-growth stands of western hemlock, redcedar and Douglas fir in thegeneral area. This surrounding habitat has a trace-low seasonal capability to support black bears. Themain attraction for bears is the partial availability of human garbage despite some 9 years of bear-proofing efforts sponsored by RMOW.



49

A number of site inspections were made: 2 in August 2003, 1 in November 2003 and several in July 2004.My review was supplemented by other site inspections made by members of the Whistler BWG. Inaddition, Sylvia Dolson was hired by RMOW in the summer of 2004 to monitor the landfill site regularly.After extensive review, it was clear that in 2004 the RMOW Landfill was still a major problem in termsof bear management. Given this history of nine years of failed attempts and lax maintenance, I was led toconclude that there was a systemic problem related to the maintenance of the landfill’s attempted bear-proofing program. I concluded that RMOW needed to decide whether it was going to have a bear-prooflandfill station and maintain the full bear-proofing that works or have one that has never been effectiveand is a waste of funds. This conclusion and related evidence were then bought to the attention of theBear Working Group and Owen Carney at the July 2004 meeting as well as in my formal presentation ofthe bear hazard study to the municipal council.

There are now apparently plans to close the landfill in about a year and make the area a transfer station.

Since 1995 there have been two somewhat failed attempts to bear-proof the Whistler Landfill usingelectric fence systems. The Whistler Black Bear Task Team report (1998) noted that in 1996 the“municipality was slow to respond to problems of bears digging under the electric fence.” Not muchappears to have changed. The fences were installed by Margo Supplies Ltd., the latest one beingcompleted by late June/early July 2003 (Jeff Marley, Margo Supplies, pers. comm.). However, with thelatest version, a decision was made not to install a horizontal mesh fence buried 30 – 60 cm below theground as was recommended by the Whistler Bear Working Group. This recommendation was based onthe general failure of the first (1995) electric fence where bears dug under the fence and still obtainedgarbage (Whistler Black Bear Task Team 1998).

The new fence was constructed with treated wooden posts about 1.2 m high, with alternating negative andpositive wires about 16 cm apart, charged by a solar-panel system. The 4 gates are also designed to bebear-proof and have a separate charging system. The main entrance gate is Texas style.

My field inspections in 2003 and observations by others showed that up to 12 black bears were stillgetting under the new fence and accessing human garbage. In November 2003 I observed that attemptswere being made to lay a horizontal ground fence to prevent this. This should have been done in the firstplace. To be fair to the municipality, it was Margo Supplies Ltd. that recommended they not install a wiremesh apron – a recommendation also noted in the Bear Smart background report by Davis et al. (2001).Margo Supplies recommends installing an apron only if digging persists after the installation.

As well, in 2003 bears were still accessing garbage foods outside of the fence including at the truckcleaning station, glass crushing station (eating broken glass which has food attractants on it) and garbagethat is not supposed to be included in the non-food construction/residential waste bins at the public drop-off site or the wood-waste drop-off site at the back of the landfill.

During my field visits in July 2004 some black bears were still getting garbage inside the landfill as wellas at the construction waste bins outside of the fence. Bears were also still accessing food wastes at thetruck cleaning pad. Also, the new community compost bin was outside the main building and attractingbears but was moved inside. Some improvements had been made such as putting the glass crushingstation inside the electric fence and placing a bear-proof bin for removing human garbage at theconstruction wood waste disposal site. Despite complaints made to Carney and RMOW, several fieldinspections by myself and daily inspections by Sylvia Dolson for RMOW showed that Carney staff werenot properly inspecting and maintaining the fence as they had claimed. The fence wires were found to be



50

too loose in places (allowing some bears to squeeze through without getting shocked) and the wires werealso sporadically shorting out from being touched by overgrown grasses, dirt piles, wire mesh, rocks andwindblown garbage debris. Bears were also getting garbage by digging under a gate where no wire apronhad been installed. After several follow-up consultations with Jeff Marley of Margo Supplies, I prepared amaintenance schedule for RMOW for the fence that will hopefully be followed with the absolutediligence that is now required.

The problem of landfill bears still getting garbage at the construction waste bins and truck cleaning stationhas yet to be dealt with.

3.3.4.2 Enforcement of food and garbage management

Human foodstuffs and garbage control related to bears is enforceable under both provincial and municipallegislation. Most of the enforcement is done under the auspices of municipal by-laws by the RMOWofficers. The COs made one successful prosecution in 2003 of someone who deliberately fed a substantialamount to bears. I made no attempt to determine the number of foodstuff/garbage infractions that wereticketed but it appears to be very low. Certainly there appears to be a lax attitude on all fronts.

The provincial fines for tickets are set out under the Offence Act - Violation Ticket regulations (governsticket amounts under all provincial legislation):

33.1(1) Feed Dangerous Wildlife - $345.00

33.1(2) Deposit substance to attract dangerous wildlife - $345.00

88.1(7) Failure to comply with a dangerous wildlife protection order - $575.00

As with all legislation, the officer has the discretion to submit a report to crown counsel recommending acourt appearance. This is used when the offence is more serious and a greater fine is sought.


1. Adopt a strict Zero Tolerance policy towards all food and garbage containment infractions as has beendone by the town of Canmore and Alberta Parks (in Bow Valley Park and Kananaskis Country). Themeans much more ticketing of infractions and prosecution of the more serious violations such asdeliberate feeding of black bears.

2. If the landfill is not replaced soon with a transfer station, the 9-year problem of bears accessing garbagethrough the electric fence needs to be fully rectified. This should include preparation of an electric fencemaintenance schedule and hiring of an independent inspector to do twice weekly surveys with anagreement that any problems will be immediately rectified. The remainder of the landfill also needs to bebear-proofed including the truck washing station and construction bins drop-off. Total diligence isimportant.



51

3. Fully bear-proof the new proposed transfer station when constructed. The drop-off bins should be in acleared area at least 100 m wide from the adjacent trees and cover. The ground cover should be comprisedof vegetation that will not attract bears.

4. Replace the current residential garbage drop-off system with neighbourhood communal wastecontainers (as was done by the town of Canmore, Alta.) or, alternatively, adopt a specialized garbagepick-up service with a call-in number if this proves successful.

5. Assign a responsible person to independently inspect all bear-proof containers in RMOW on at least amonthly basis during the active bear season and ensure that dysfunctional lids and latches and any otherproblems are repaired immediately. This should include the waste bins at the ski hill stations.

6. Continue with the public education program by JJWBS to educate workers at construction sites not todispose of human food waste in the construction/demolition bins.

7. Develop the proposed bear-proof community compost system.

8. Remove the one non-bear-proof canister from Whistler Secondary School.

9. Improve controls so that bears cannot access bird-feeders or the landfill in the winter.

10. Increase patrols of green spaces to prevent itinerant campers from feeding bears or leaving behindfood waste that attracts bears. Developing a formal campsite for itinerant workers with bear-prooffacilities will greatly help.

11. Replace the food-hanging cables at the Riverside Campsite with metal food lockers. Also replace thesmall garbage canisters on the mini-golf course with bear-proof ones.

12. Ensure the new community compost system does not attract and feed bears.

3.4 Profile of past and present bear management approaches in RMOW

Bear management and monitoring of individual bear behaviour around human developments are criticalaspects of identifying and dealing with hazardous situations when they arise. Is the current level ofmanagement approach in RMOW sufficient to address current problems or a serious hazardous situationshould it arise?

Management of the bear-human interface in Whistler has evolved over the past decade from one ofintolerance, a high level of human food/garbage conditioned bears and a high level of annual control kills(at least since 1992) to one of much greater human tolerance, a decreased number of human food/garbageconditioned bears and very little annual mortality. Over time, the community has taken ownership ofblack bears to the extent that many residents and authorities appear to be willing to tolerate some blackbears living within the residential and downtown areas.

The two agencies responsible for officially dealing directly with bear situations, the RCMP and the COS,have adopted some negative conditioning approaches while, at the same time, strong educational



52

initiatives continue by the J.J. Whistler Bear Society to adopt to “non-lethal” treatment of bears that gettoo close to residential homes and yards. Additional local education programs by the Whistler Black BearProject (WBBP) run by local bear researcher Michael Allen, have also contributed to a softer approach toliving with bears.

i. Whistler Black Bear Human-Conflict Prevention Plan

The 1998 Whistler Black Bear Management Plan (Whistler Black Bear Task Team 1998) is proposed forupgrading (Sandra Smith pers. comm.). Many of the original recommendations have been implemented. Irecently reviewed this for RMOW and provided Sandra Smith, By-law Services Supervisor, with mypreliminary comments. I compared the Bear Smart Plan outline (Davis et al. 2001) to the 1998 WhistlerBlack Bear Management Plan and then reviewed key elements found in recent B.C. Parks and ParksCanada bear-human conflict prevention plans.

My overriding concern is that the new Whistler BEAR Plan be all-inclusive as such plans are legaldocuments that could be relevant in a court of law should a liability issue arise over a serious bearincident (Taylor 1984). This is context under which they evolved in U.S. and Canadian National Parks –as a direct result of people being mauled by grizzlies and lawsuits that demonstrated the agencies werenot exercising due diligence in terms of public safety and public communication (Taylor 1984).

I recommend that:

i). The Whistler bear-human conflict prevention plan be upgraded beyond Bear Smart standards to alevel similar to B.C. Provincial and National Park plans for the backcountry and frontcountry.

ii). The results of the preliminary bear hazard study for RMOW be incorporated into the revised plan.

iii). The plan be comprehensive enough to incorporate facility and human visitation/development changesengendered by the 2010 Olympics.

iv). The plan be guided by the Whistler Bear Working Group and be tailor-made for the local situation.I.e. It should offer innovative solutions such as non-lethal alternatives to killing bears that are mis-perceived to threaten public safety.

ii. Bear-human complaint reporting system and site attendance

There is a 24-hour manned call centre (1-888-663-WILD [9453]) for Whistler residents to report a bearsighting/complaint/problem or they phone the Whistler RCMP directly. People can also access the J.J.Whistler Bear Society (604-905-BEAR [2327]) to report a bear sighting or problem. The public can alsocall bear researcher Michael Allen to report a bear sighting to assist with his monitoring of bear numbersand activity sites.

People who call the J.J. Whistler Bear Society are also given the 1-888 number if they have a bearcomplaint or concern. In the past, the RCMP dispatcher took most of the complaints but in 2004 thesewere mostly redirected to the CO's line. Each valid complaint involves filing a COS PROBLEMWILDLIFE OCCURRENCE form, which is signed by the COs or RCMP. The official screens eachcomplaint and either gives the caller advice, responds directly or refers specific incidents to the Whistler



53

By-law Services or other officials. Whatever agency records the occurrence form then faxes or e-mails itto the By-Law office, COS or RCMP and the J.J. Whistler Bear Society. The latter may follow-up with asite visit to provide advice.

When the CO is not available the RCMP make most of the more serious site visits and apply negativeconditioning (usually rubber bullets) where applicable. However, the bear may be treated once (seebelow).

iii. Official kill & relocation policy

Basically this is done under the auspices of the COS and RCMP if the official at the site deems theindividual bear to be a threat to humans. The bear is usually trapped in a culvert trap or killed on site if itis safe to do so when the bear is perceived to pose a threat to human life. More humane standards appearto be applied in Whistler than elsewhere in B.C. where black bear complaints are dealt with by shootingthe bear even though there is often not a demonstrable public safety issue. In RMOW, the COs willattempt to relocate a black bear with a “hard release” if possible but if it returns it is killed. The wholeissue of what constitutes a dangerous bear requires closer scientific scrutiny. Between 1999 and 2003 theCOS carried out 12 relocations or about 3 per year. I do not have the statistics but in some instances whenthe bear returned it was destroyed.

iv. Negative conditioning by COS and RCMP

The current non-lethal program appears to be one of experimentation, unfortunately with little monitoringof the subjects being treated. Most of the non-lethal treatments have involved the use of .12 gauge rubberbullets on site when it is safe. Some 204 bears were treated non-lethally between 1999 and 2003, anaverage of 41 per year. Most involved a one-time treatment by the RCMP, with no follow-up on theindividual bear. Occasionally the CO will do a “hard release” of a black bear from a culvert trap using arubber bullet and sometimes aggressive yelling.

I agree with the research project proposed by the Whistler Bear Working Group to assess the non-lethalprogram. A common concern is that there is no consistent “treatment” or follow-up of an individual bear.There are also differing opinions of the value of the negative conditioning program. For example, bearresearcher M. Allen (pers. comm.) feels that it does not work because the treated bears just flee into a“safe zone,” wait several days and then return. Provincial biologist Tony Hamilton (pers. comm.) also hasconcerns about the inconsistency of the negative conditioning and the effectiveness of the non-lethalapproach and has taken a leadership role in promoting the proposed intensive research program.

v. Community-based non-lethal approach for black bears

The J.J. Whistler Bear Society promotes a public education program that now includes a non-lethalapproach to black bear management in the urban environment. They have prepared a Guidebook to Non-Lethal Black Bear Management (J.J. Whistler Bear Society and Canadian Bear Alliance 2003) and arenow also producing a training manual for non-lethal bear management (J.J. Whistler Bear Society. 2004b)A summary of this approach is as follows:

“Non-lethal alternatives provide an effective management tool and incorporate a more holistic, long-termapproach to bear management. This approach has met with huge success in areas like Mammoth Lakes,



54

CA, Yosemite N.P., and Whistler, BC where the number of human-bear conflicts has droppedsignificantly – requiring less resources to deal with problem situations and less bears being destroyed.

Non-lethal Bear Management uses negative conditioning to modify undesirable bear behaviour withoutdestroying the animal. By utilizing human dominance, and demonstrating a body posture andvocalizations that speak the language of the bear, officers can command the bear's respect and reinstill itsnatural wariness for humans. These methods can be reinforced with the use of bear dogs, rubber bullets,pyrotechnics and pepper spray. Even hitting the bear with stones will work. Bears can be taught to stayaway from people and their property. This approach capitalizes on the bear’s innate tendency to avoidconflict and fit into the natural dominance hierarchy. The bear is not physically hurt – it is a psychologicalexperience that reinstills their respect for and hence avoidance of people.

Bears must be taught to respect humans and human territory. This is a trait that bears have lost over timethrough poor management strategies and a generally submissive reaction by people. We have baited bearswith a food reward into human settlement areas and then punished them with death for accepting an easymeal.

It needs to be stressed that negative conditioning should aid, but not be a substitute for preventivemeasures that eliminate or reduce the potential for human-bear conflicts”. (A Guide to Living with Bears.getBearsmart.com. J.J. Whistler Bear Society and Canadian Bear Alliance. 2003).

In Whistler, several non-lethal workshops have been provided by the J.J. Whistler Bear Society. Theybrought in two experienced advocates of this program in the U.S., Steve Searle and Ben Kilham. BenKilham (2003) claims that if a bear is 'human dominated' in a very specific way then that bear will notreturn to the area he was 'dominated' in. The bear needs to be “walked out” to complete the conditioning.

Research elsewhere and anecdotal experience by some bear researchers including myself suggest that thenon-lethal approach has some merit but needs to be further tested and quantified. Additionally, there is therisk of inexperienced people attempting it on a very aggressive black bear or even a grizzly bear and haveit backfire, such as an aggressive mother with young. I have used aggressive dominance behaviour incertain very select bear situations for about 30 years with some success. However, caution is extremelyimportant. My own bad example involved aggressively chasing a large, male black bear for about 30 maway from a warden cabin I was using as a research station in Jasper National Park. Although I did notrecognize it at the time, the bear had previously exhibited strong predaceous behaviour towards meseveral times and in this instance, turned abruptly and chased me back to the cabin.

A study that included research on social behaviour of black bears attracted to high quality human foods atcampgrounds in Yosemite National Park concluded that bears generally treated people as dominant bears,sometimes testing their superior status. Injuries, however, were rare (Graber 1982). In the same park,other researchers (Hastings et al. 1981) showed that human aggression towards black bears was effectivein getting unwanted bears out of camp. Running toward and throwing objects at an approaching bear werethe most effective, but yelling, clapping hands and banging pots together also worked. However, theresearchers found that the further a bear got into camp and particularly if it was eating people’s food, theharder it was to chase away. Herrero (2002) cautions that, although these means can often repel blackbears, if human aggression is carried too far, even the tolerance of black bears can be exceeded and anattack could be triggered.



55

In B.C., this approach has apparently met with some preliminary success in Whistler (Sylvia Dolson pers.comm.) and there are a few indications of initial success by the North Shore Black Bear Network(NSBBN), although they do not advocate the public attempting it (Fitz-Earle 2004). The NSBBN is acommunity conservation group that covers the districts of North and West Vancouver and the village ofLions Bay, British Columbia. The network consists of numerous local volunteers, park rangers and otherrepresentatives from the Districts of North and West Vancouver, the COS, RCMP, Grouse MountainRefuge for Endangered Wildlife and the Lions Bay Bear and Cougar Society. Formed in 1999, theNSBBN has succeeded in reducing the number of black bears killed in North and West Vancouver from39 in 1999 to zero in 2002 and 1 in 2003. This reduction has been achieved through a comprehensiveprogram of educational initiatives and bear management aimed at minimizing human-bear conflicts andincreasing the safety of both humans and bears.

It is hoped that the proposed Whistler bear study will help address the short- and long-term usefulness ofnegative conditioning and non-lethal approaches.

vi. Whistler Bear Working Group (BWG)

In 2002, the various groups involved in bear programs in RMOW formed a collective body (BWG) tomeet periodically to discuss and refine the bear management program in Whistler. Members include theRCMP, COS, MLWAP, JJWBS, WBBP, RMOW by-law officer staff, and Whistler-Blackcomb.All of these groups noted in my interviews with them that the success of the Whistler bear program islargely the result of all of the groups working together.

3. 5 Public communications

For any successful bear management program, public communication is an important if not vital factor.It can help save lives, reduce the number of bears destroyed because of public safety issues and helppeople and bears live in greater coexistence. As noted in the next section, it is very important from apublic liability-litigation perspective.

In some of my bear hazard studies or preparation of bear-human conflict prevention plans, I do a formalaudit on public education programs based primarily on approaches designed and used in CanadianNational Parks. This has included several projects where a questionnaire was used to obtain publicattitudes and input on the bear hazard assessment program.

An example of a serious public information deficiency is noted in my recent bear hazard study for theDiamond Head area in Garibaldi Provincial Park. I found that, because of a lack of an adequate bearecology/bear warning sign at the main trailhead, some park visitors were not aware that they couldencounter a black bear in the area and were surprised, afraid and unprepared when they did (McCrory2002b). Adequate signage was recommended.

The following discussion is preliminary only and based on some of my field notes, observations and “firstimpressions” as well as a report on 2003 public education on bears in Whistler (J.J. Whistler BearSociety. 2004a). I did not do a formal evaluation but at some point this should be done, particularly forthe proposed upgrading of the 1998 bear-human conflict prevention plan.



56

Whistler began its public education program on bear awareness in 1995 (Davis et al. 2001). Publiceducation was then identified as a priority in the 1998 Whistler Bear Management Plan. Publiccommunication in RMOW is carried out in an informal manner by several stakeholders with some doneby the municipality and provincial government. Of these, JJWBS and WBBP have been responsible forthe majority of the public education on bears (J.J. Whistler Bear Society. 2004a). Following is a partialreview of the main organizations involved in the Whistler public communication program on bears.

J.J. Whistler Bear Society (JJWBS): A registered non-profit society. Operates a 905-BEAR line, publicpresentations, press releases, signage, works with television media, website, public information circulars,local posters, direct visits to problem sites to discuss remedies with residents, main proponent of non-lethal program, workshops and other aspects. JJWBS has education kits for other communities includinga neighbourhood Bear Watch program, bear-friendly business/residence sticker program, warning postersand pamphlets, example text for signs and other information. The work of JJWBS has also been broadcaston popular television.

Whistler Black Bear Project (WBBP). Michael Allen, Bear Researcher. Operates a bear line that asksthe public to report bear sightings. Makes public presentations on bear research, press releases including alocal column, works with television media, website, public information circulars, school talks, localposters and bear tours on Whistler Mountain. Has also done most of the baseline black bear research inthe area, which has been featured in television documentaries such as the BBC.

RMOW: Disperses public information through by-law officers and other outlets, downtown sidewalksigns, bear warning signs on some trails and other aspects.

Intrawest Ltd. - Whistler-Blackcomb: As noted in Davis et al. (2001), has a comprehensive bearecology and bear-awareness program (exclusive of the community) including interpretive displays, bear-awareness educational signs and a wildlife centre for children. Some interpretive displays in visitor centreat top of Whistler Mountain, including a stuffed grizzly bear. Sponsors commercial bear-viewing tours onWhistler Mountain guided by M. Allen and other local experts. Has plans for a major Whistler bearecology and natural science centre.

Carney Waste Systems Inc.: Has helped educate the public about the need for bear-proof wastemanagement, financed bear-proof containers and stickers.

MWLAP (Prov. Govt.): Operates a 1-800 line for reporting human-bear conflicts. Provides brochures onbears and cougars for public distribution. COS discusses bear issues with public when on site.

Although it has not been formally evaluated, my impression is that the bear communication program inRMOW does have a high degree of saturation of consistent and fairly accurate messaging about bear-human safety, bear ecology, food/garbage management/control and local bear conservation andcoexistence. I think it would be safe to say that Whistler has one of the most intensive public educationprograms on bears in all of western Canada. One example would be that most major trail and park areaswithin the core area have at least one interpretive billboard/kiosk with good safety and ecologyinformation on black bears. Public education extends to RMOW having sidewalk billboards in thedowntown main walkways to assist with the public being adequately informed. Throughout the year, beartalks on various topics including outside experts are available to the public at downtown venues. One ofthe new mountain bike trail networks in the Lost Lake area has small signage indicating that bears andhikers have the right-of-way. Visitors who register at the Riverside Resort and Campground are handed



57

out bear information with personal messaging and updates by the staff on hand. The list of publiccommunication efforts and events in 2003 is extensive and is attributed as the main tool that has helped tosignificantly reduce the “problem bear” mortality in Whistler (J.J. Whistler Bear Society. 2004a).

It is exemplary that the Whistler public education program on bears was recently included in a literaturecomparison of six noteworthy intervention programs in North America designed to reduce human-bearconflict (Gore 2004). This Cornell University study noted that the programs were in response to crisissituations and that none of the programs have been evaluated for effectiveness. In terms of references tothe Whistler program, the study was inaccurate in reporting that the focus was in modifying only humanbehaviour. In Whistler there is some emphasis on non-lethal and negative conditioning modification ofbear behaviour in relation to human situations.

One of the challenges identified by the J.J. Whistler Bear Society and others is that because of an annualturn-over of permanent and seasonal residents and visitors, a high number of new people need to beeducated about bears every year (Sylvia Dolson pers. comm.).

Improved messaging of bear and safety issues should be considered in the following areas:

Despite a saturation of bear messaging, RMOW appears not to be making enough effort to informeach and every visitor that they could encounter a black bear anywhere in the municipality. Anevaluation should be done that examines how Parks Canada attempts to achieve this for Banff andother national parks. For example, I noted that the “Whistler Village & Valley Map & ServiceDirectory” by RMOW and the “Whistler Area Topographic Map” by Mussio Ventures Ltd. make nomention that visitors can encounter a black bear anywhere in RMOW, including the downtown.

There is inconsistent messaging. Many of the trailhead areas, such as the Valley Trail, do not haveobvious signage that the public could encounter a bear whereas the new trails in Lost Lake area havesmall signs throughout at relevant sites.

I am not sure if Whistler-Blackcomb is informing users of the mountain bike park of the inherent riskof encountering and/or colliding with a black bear, deer and other wildlife on the bike trail.

There appears to be no RMOW plan in place including appropriate messaging and adequate signageto inform the public in the event of having to temporarily close an area due to a dangerous bearsituation, including a grizzly bear family wandering into the area?

The majority of public education is done free-of-charge and by two non-government organizations(JJWBS and WBBP) with limited resources and minimal funding support from the municipal,regional and provincial governments. Funding needs to be improved.

Recommendations:

Public education is one of the most effective tools to address bear safety and hazards as well as reduceconflict situations that might exacerbate the risk of a bear encounter. To continue with one of westernCanada’s most comprehensive public education programs on bears, the two non-governmentorganizations involved should receive more funding support from the municipal, regional and provincialgovernments.



58

As part of the planned upgrading of the RMOW 1998 Bear-Human Conflict Prevention Plan, Irecommend a formal audit be done of the public communication program on bears for accuracy,consistency and effectiveness.

One priority of the Whistler program should be to ensure that all new visitors and residents are madeaware that bears occur throughout RMOW, including the downtown, residential, parks, trail systems andother sites. Following are some suggestions to help achieve this:

i. Strong consideration should be given to providing a “Bear Alert” sign at every trailhead location inRMOW. Signs should be accurate and consistent.

ii. Ensure adequate warnings are provided at the Whistler-Blackcomb mountain bike park alerting thepublic about the risk of encountering/colliding with a black bear and other wildlife on the bike trail.

iii. Any and all public communication documents on RMOW such as “Whistler Village & Valley Map &Service Directory” and “Whistler Area Topographic Map” should accurately mention bears and bearsafety.

iv. A major recommendation would be to place a very large bear-shaped sign along Highway 99 at eachend of the municipality that alerts visitors that black bears are found everywhere in Whistler or somethingto this effect. This could also have a safety message. I would suspect that, given RMOW and otherorganizations' involvement in the bear-proofing and safety management program, this would improveRMOW’s and others’ position in terms of liability in the event of a serious bear incident. However, aliability expert should be consulted in this regard.

3.6 Liability issues related to Whistler bear programs

It goes without saying that in terms of litigation potential and bear safety, public communication appearsto be a vital factor. Most litigation undertaken by bear mauling victims against Parks Canada and the U.S.National Park Service has been based on the claim that the agency failed to provide sufficient warning ofthe bear hazards through its public information system (Taylor 1984). As a bottom line to not onlyenhance public safety but to cover the issue of “liability in case of injury,” many park agencies in NorthAmerica now ensure dissemination of basic information on bears and bear safety to each and every legalvisitor. In Yellowstone National Park, no less than five warnings in the form of pamphlets are given toeach person (or vehicle) entering the park (McCrory et al. 1987).

For injurious bear-human conflict situations in B.C., Ciarniello (1997) pointed out the potential for courtaction. She cited the 1990 court ruling of negligence against Banff National Park involving Remy Toblerwho was mauled by a grizzly bear. In 1997, another litigation claim was launched against Parks Canadaas a result of a number of multiple maulings by a mother grizzly bear at the Lake Louise Campground (anelectrified perimeter fence has since been built around this public facility). I am not sure of the outcomeof this litigation. In 2003, litigation was reported to have been launched against the village of Midway,B.C. by a woman who was injured at night in the municipal campsite by a garbage-conditioned black bear(Vancouver Sun. Nov. 18/03).



59

In terms of litigation, I share Ciarniello’s concerns, especially as it relates to some of the loopholes I haveidentified in the RMOW bear-human conflict prevention program. As well, given the many facets andnumber of different parties involved in the Whistler program, including the experimental non-lethalaspects, it would be prudent for RMOW to consult a litigation expert.


RMOW tighten all aspects of their bear-human conflict prevention program and in particular, attemptto ensure that each and every visitor is made aware that bears can be encountered anywhere in thearea, including downtown (See also section on public communication).

RMOW should consult a liability expert on the matter.

3.7 Assessment of research

To appropriately manage bear-human conflicts in RMOW and improve public safety, adequate research isrequired such as a better understanding of the interrelationships between town bears and non-town wilderbears, food habitats and habitat use, travel routes and corridors, home ranges and other aspects.

Currently, a number of black bear research programs are planned or underway in RMOW that willaddress this need. Unfortunately, much of the important research was not available for use in my bearhazard study. This included the results of a DNA bear hair-snagging study being done by Simon FraserUniversity student Robyn Appleton and Michael Allen. A progress report was due in the spring of 2004.If and when this research is completed in a technical format it will be very useful in helping to update mybear hazard assessment. As well, M. Allen is preparing a final report on his 10 years of extensive blackbear research in Whistler. Unfortunately, this along with an uncompleted 5-year report has yet to becompleted in a technical format. Likewise the Community Habitat Resources Project (CHRP) funded astudy of black bear denning attributes by M. Allen and the report, due in April 2004, was not completed.

This long-term research would be of tremendous value to the Whistler BWG, the J.J. Whistler Bearsociety and the general scientific and conservation community. Unfortunately none of Mr. Allen’s workhas been published is a scientific forum (with the exception of an abstract on his black bear denningwork), nor has it been peer reviewed. His on-going scientific commentary, which is often published in thelocal media and presented at public talks, must therefore be considered in this context.

As discussed, the Whistler Bear Working Group currently has a proposal to study, through intensivemonitoring, the negative conditioning and non-lethal programs using bears with VHS radio-collars.It is proposing to radio-collar a number of black bears and treat them with negative conditioning and thenmonitor the bears. This would include a control group of bears. The proposal is undergoing difficulty inobtaining adequate funding.

I would highly recommend such a study. However, added consideration should be given to using bothVHS and GPS collars if this proves practical. I think much more adding GPS collars to the study couldgenerate accurate habitat use information. Donelon (2004) studied the relationship of grizzly bears totrails in the Bow Valley using Televilt GPS-SIMPLEX TM0 collars. Locations were accurate to about 28m. This allowed for fine scale locations to be determined from hourly GPS locations. However, one of the



60

problems of using just GPS collars is that you are not able to read-out bear locations until two weeks afterthey have been recorded (Tony Hamilton pers. comm.).

Recommendations:

Some consideration be given to using both VHS and GPS collars in the proposed study so that moreaccurate data on habitat use and bear travel routes can be obtained. A food habitat study should alsobe done as part of this.

As noted elsewhere, a detailed bear habitat map be developed for the entire RMOW area.

All research programs funded by RMOW be required to produce final reports in a timely fashion andthat are made readily available for management, public education and other purposes.



61

4.0 LITERATURE CITED

Allen, M. 2000. Denning ecology of black bears in southwest British Columbia. Abstract. Proc. 7th

Western Black Bear Workshop, Coos Bay, Oregon.

Appleton, R., K. Rothley and M. Allen. 2004. A field study of black bear (Ursus americanus) behaviourin Whistler, British Columbia: patterns, management implications and priorities for future research. Draftabstract.

Apps, C.D. and A.N. Hamilton. 2002. Grizzly bear habitat effectiveness and connectivity in SouthwesternBritish Columbia. Report for Min. of Sust. Res. Mgt., Powell River, B.C. and Min. of Water, Land andAir Protection, Surrey, B.C. 48 pp.

B.C. Parks. 1990. Master plan for Garibaldi Provincial Park. Prepared by South Coast Region, NorthVancouver, B.C.

Ciarniello, L.M. 1997. Reducing human-bear conflicts: Solutions through better management of non-natural foods. Report of B.C. bear-human conflict committee, Victoria, B.C.

Comeau, A. 2003. Animal Proof Waste Handling System - The Town of Canmore Experience. Supervisorof Solid Waste Services. Town of Canmore, 100 Glacier Drive, Canmore AB. T1W 1K8

Davis, H., D. Wellwood and L. Ciarniello. 2001. “Bear Smart” Community Program: Background Report.Prep. for Wildlife Branch, B.C. Min. of Envir., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.

Donelon, S. and P. Paquet. 1997. Development of a GIS based decision-support model for the Lake0’Hara socio-ecological study. Ptarmigan Consultants Ltd. 26 pp.

Donelon, S. 2004. The influence of human use on fine scale, spatial and temporal patterns of grizzly bearsin the Bow Valley of Alberta.

Fitz-Earle, M. 2004. Backgrounder on the North Shore Black Bear Network. Summary of activities in e-mail to W. McCrory, April 28/04.

Gillespie, L. 1997. Physical geography of Mount Garibaldi’s southern aspect. Geography 112 report.Library at Diamond Head Ranger Cabin.

Gore, M.L. 2004. Comparison of intervention programs designed to reduce human-bear conflict: Aliterature review. HDRU Series No 4-04. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Graber, D. 1982. Ecology and management of black bears in Yosemite National Park. Final report toNational Park Service. 202 pp.

Hamer, D. and S. Herrero. 1983. Ecological studies of the grizzly bear in Banff National Park. Universityof Calgary, AB. 303 pp.



62

Hastings, B.C., B.K. Gilbert and D.L. Turner. 1981. Black bear behaviour and human-bear relationshipsin Yosemite National Park. Technical Report No. 2. Final report to the National Park Service, WesternRegion. 42 pp.

Herrero, S., W. McCrory and B. Pelchat. 1983. The application of grizzly bear habitat evaluation to trailand campsite locations in Kananaskis Provincial Park, Alberta. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 6:187-193.

Herrero, S. and S. Fleck. 1990. Injury to people inflicted by black, grizzly or polar bears: Recent trendsand new insights. 9th Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:25-32.

Herrero, S. and A. Higgins. 1995. Fatal injuries inflicted to people by black bear. Pages 75-82 In J. Augerand H.L. Black, editors, Proc. 5th Western Black Bear Workshop, Brigham Young University Press,Provo, Utah.

Herrero, S. and A. Higgins. 1999. Human injuries inflicted by bears in British Columbia: 1960-1997. Int.Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. Ursus 11: 209-218.

Herrero, S. 2002. Bear attacks: their causes and avoidance. Lyons Press. 282 pp. Illustr.

Holcroft, A. 1986. Aspects of black bear ecology and campground planning in southwestern Alberta.MEDes thesis. Faculty of Env. Design, Univ. of Calgary. Alberta. 90 pp plus append.

J.J. Whistler Bear Society. 2003. Annual bear complaint analysis, 2002 – 2003. Comparative analysis1999 – 2003 by S. Dolson.

J.J. Whistler Bear Society and Canadian Bear Alliance. 2003. A Guide to Living with Bears. getBEARsmart.com.

J.J. Whistler Bear Society. 2004a. Review of Whistler public education for 2003. Report to RMOW. S.Dolson.

J.J. Whistler Bear Society. 2004b. A guidebook: Non-lethal black bear management First draft. Seconddraft for review only. Understanding, mitigating and managing human-black bear behaviour in urbanenvironments. S. Dolson and others. In prep.

Kilham, B. and E. Gray. 2003. Amongst the Bears. Raising Orphan Cubs in the Wild. Henry Holt andCompany. New York.

Kilham, B. 2003. Understanding, Mitigating and Managing Black Bear Behavior. Int. Conf. Bear. Res.and Manage. Ursus (In Press).

Mattson, D. and R.R. Knight. 1991. Effects of access on human caused mortality of Yellowstone grizzlybears. U.S. Dept. of Int., National Parks Service, interagency grizzly bear study team report. 1991B. 13pp.

McCrory, W., S. Herrero and P. Whitfield. 1986. Using grizzly bear habitat information to reduce human-grizzlybear conflicts in Kokanee Glacier and Valhalla Provincial Parks, B.C. In Proc. - grizzly bear habitat symposium:24-30. Contreras, G.P. and K.E. Evans (compilers). U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207.



63

McCrory, W.P., S. Herrero and E. Mallam. 1987. Preservation and Management of the grizzly bear inB.C. provincial parks – the urgent challenge. Report to B.C.Parks, Victoria, B.C. 186 pp.

McCrory, W. and E. Mallam. 1990. Preliminary bear hazard evaluation for Bowron Lake ProvincialPark, B.C. Report to B.C. Parks, Prince George, B.C. 73 pp.

McCrory, W. and E. Mallam. 1994. Assessment of bear habitats and hazards. Liard River Hot SpringsProvincial Park, British Columbia. Report to B.C. Parks, Fort St. John, B.C.

McCrory, W. and E. Mallam. 1995. Preliminary bear hazard assessment of Wells Gray Provincial Park.Report to B.C. Parks, Kamloops, B.C. 20 pp.

McCrory, W. and E. Mallam. 1997. Grizzly bear habitats and trail hazard assessment for Ottertail fireroad and Goodsir Pass Trail-Goodsir Flats. Progress report to Parks Canada - Yoho/LakeLouise/Kootenay.

McCrory, W. 1998. Bear habitat and hazard assessment. Duffey Lake Provincial Park, British Columbia.Report to B.C. Parks, Brackendale, B.C. 29 pp. plus appendices.

McCrory, W., C. McTavish and P. Paquet. 1999. Grizzly bear background research document. 1993-1996 for GIS bear encounter risk model, Yoho National Park, British Columbia. A background report forthe GIS Decision-Support Model for the Lake 0’Hara/McArthur Valley Socio-ecological study. ParksCanada. 96 pp. plus appendices.

McCrory, W. 2002a. Background review for a bear hazard study and bear-people conflict prevention plan.For: E.C. Manning and Skagit Valley Provincial Parks & Cascade Recreation Area. Report to B.C. Parks,Okanagan District, Summerland, B.C. 38 pp.

McCrory, W. 2002b. Black bear habitat and hazard assessment. Diamond Head area – Garibaldi Provincial Park,B.C. Incorporating a Geographic Information System (GIS) Decision-support Model. Report to B.C. Parks, AliceLake Field Office, Brackendale, B.C.

McCrory, W. 2003a. Preliminary bear hazard evaluation. E.C. Manning and Skagit Valley ProvincialParks & Cascade Recreation Area. Report to B.C. Parks, Okanagan District, Penticton, B.C.

McCrory, W.P. 2003b. Management of the Kakwa Lake/Park Wildlife Corridor to minimize human-grizzly bear conflicts – A GIS Bear Encounter Risk Model Approach. Report to B.C. Parks, Min. ofWater, Land and Air Protection, Prince George, B.C.

McCrory, W.P. 2004. Bear habitat ground-truthing surveys of Resort Municipality of Whistler, August 14– 23/04 by McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping classification and seasonalbear habitat rankings. Draft to Whistler Community Habitat Resources Project (CHRP).

McTavish, C. and W. McCrory. 1998. Grizzly/black bear habitat assessment. Stoltmann Wilderness.Elaho River Drainage, British Columbia, Canada. Report to Western Canada Wilderness Committee,Vancouver, B.C.



64

Meidinger, D. 1987. Recommended vernacular names for common plants of British Columbia. ResearchBranch, B.C. Ministry of Forests and Lands, Victoria, B.C.

Nadeau, M.S. 1987. Habitats, trails and campground situations associated with grizzly-humanconfrontations in Glacier National Park, Montana. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula, Mt. 91 pp.

Perry, G.L. and M.J. Rusing. 2000. The changing dynamics of bear management: Arizona’s experience withlitigation from a black bear mauling. Proc. 7th Western Black Bear Workshop, Coos Bay, Oregon.

Petersen, D. 1997. Allocation of land resources between competing species-human and grizzly bears inthe Lake O'Hara area of Yoho National Park. Draft paper. Parks Canada.

Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of coastal British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forests andLonepine Publishing.

Singer, F.J. and S.P. Bratton. 1980. Black bear/human conflicts in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.Fourth Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage.:137-140.

Singleton, P.H., J.F. Lehmkuhl and W. Gaines. 2001. Using weighted distance and least-cost pathcorridor analysis to evaluate regional-scale large carnivore habitat connectivity in Washington. Proc. Int.Conf. On Ecology and Transportation (ICOET), Keystone, CO.

Taylor, J.S. 1984. Bear management plans in Canadian national parks: fifteen essential elements. M.Sc. Thesis,Faculty of Environmental Design. Calgary, AB. 347 pp.

Waldren, D. 1999. The Whistler Environmental Strategy. Moving Towards Environmental Sustainability.Discussion Paper. Paper presented to RMOW.

Whistler Black Bear Task Team. 1998. Black Bear Management Plan, Whistler, British Columbia. 36 pp., plusappendices.



65

APPENDIX 1. GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEAR HABITAT EVALUATION AND FOOD TABLEFORM

Table 1. Grizzly and black bear habitat and food table form used for habitat evaluation. B.C. SouthCoastal Mountains and North Cascades (B.C. Parks bear hazard studies). The list of potential, preferred,incidental and questionable bear foods is preliminary. Most but not all have been identified in thesemountain ranges. Not all of these potential bear foods are expected in the Whistler area. A question (?)mark indicates questionable identity or presence. Common and Latin names follow Pojar and MacKinnon(1994) where possible.

McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.

Box 479, New Denver, B.C. VOG 1SOPh: 250-358-7796, FAX: 358-7950, e-mail: [email protected]

PROJECT: __________________PP: ______________________Observer(s):_____________

Bear habitat transect/plot capability and use surveys

Transect/plot no.: Date: Type: Area: GPS:

Location: Size: Veg. type: Cover type:

Habitat classn.: Notes: Other bear use:

Species % Bear Use Phenology Notes

FORBS

Cow-parsnip (Heracleumlanatum)Lovage? (not observed)Kneeling angelica (Angelicagenuflexa)Mountain sweet-cicely(Osmorhiza chilensis)Blunt-fruited sweet-cicely(Osmorhiza depauperata)?Fendler’s waterleaf(Hydrophyllum fendleri)Ballhead waterleaf?(Hydrophyllum capitatum)



66

Indian hellebore (Veratrumviride)False Solomon’s-seal(Smilacina racemosa)Star-flowered falseSolomon’s-seal (Smilacinastellata)Hooker’s fairybell(Disporum hookeri)Rosy twistedstalk(Streptopus roseus)Western meadowrue(Thalictrum occidentale)Stinging nettle (Urticadioica)Baneberry (Actaea rubra)Edible thistle (Cirsiumedule)Thistle spp.Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina)Other fern spp.Mountain sorrel (Oxyriadigyna)Common horsetail(Equisetum arvense)Other horsetail spp.Skunk cabbage (Lysichitonamericanum)Common dandelion(Taraxacum officinale)Clover spp.Other forbs

GRASSES (Poaceae)

Hairgrass spp.

SEDGES

ROOTS & CORMS

Western spring-beauty(Claytonia lanceolata)Yellow glacier lily(Erythronium grandiflorum)



67

Other lilyDesert-parsley (Lomatiumdissectum)Brandigee’s lomatium(Lomatium brandegei)Mountain sweet-cicely(Osmorhiza chilensis)Sweetvetch (Hedysarumspp.)Arctic lupine (Lupinusarcticus)Cow-parsnip (Heracleumlanatum)Skunk cabbage (Lysichitonamericanum)

BERRIES

Red huckleberry(Vacciniumparvifolium)Blackhuckleberry (Vacciniummembranaceum)Grouseberry (Vacciniumscoparium)Blueberry spp. (Vacciniumalaskaense, V. ovalifolium)Dwarf or Cascade blueberry(Vaccinium caespitosum)Bog blueberry(Vacciniumuliginosum)Soopolallie (Shepherdiacanadensis)Serviceberry (Amelanchieralnifolia)Bitter cherry (Prunusemarginata)Thimbleberry (Rubusparviflorus)Crowberry (Empetrumnigrum)Devil’s club (Oplopanaxhorridus)Red-osier dogwood (Cornusstolonifera)



68

Black currant (Ribeslacustre)Sticky currant(Ribes viscosissimum)Stink currant?(Ribes bracteosum)Dull Oregon grape(Mahonia nervosa)Tall Oregon grape(Mahonia aquifolium)Wild rose (Rosa spp.)Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)Red elderberry (Sambucusracemosa)Salmonberry (Rubusspectabilis)Black twinberry (Lonicerainvolucrata)Highbush-cranberry(Vibernum edule)Red raspberry (Rubusidaeus)Western mountain-ash(Sorbus scopulina)Sitka mountain-ash (Sorbussitchensis)Salal (Gaultheria shallon)

NUTS

Beaked hazelnut (Coryluscornuta)Whitebark pine (Pinusalbicaulis)

SPRING BUDSWillow, cottonwood buds inspring (M. Allen pers.comm.)MAMMALS

Black-tailed deer(Odocoileus hemionus)Moose (Alces alces)Rocky mountain elk(Cervus canadensis)



69

Mountain goat (Oreamnosamericanus)Columbian ground squirrel(Spermophiluscolumbianus)Marmot spp.Beaver (Castor canadensis)Mountain beaver(Aplondontia rufa)Other

FISHTroutSalmonINSECTS

Antse.g. Carpenter ant(Camponotuspennsylvanicus)WaspsArmy cutworm moth(Euxoa auxiliaris) ?– alpine talus habitat



70

APPENDIX II. RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY BEAR HABITAT SURVEYS IN RMOW, 2003 &PARTIAL 2004.

The habitat survey data were segregated into residential/developed areas, campgrounds, ski hill area, andschools/municipal parks/playgrounds.

1. RMOW RESIDENTIAL & VILLAGE AREAS

This was organized from north to south. From the east side of the eastern-most subdivision (Emeraldestates) to the west side of the private residences (Bayshores) is approximately 20 km. In many ways, theprivate homes to some 7,000+ residents are distributed throughout the landscape in a lineal fashion oflower mountain slope – valley bottom habitat, with the widest section on the east between Upper Village(Blackcomb Benchlands) and Alpine Meadows development complex (8 – 9 km wide) to one km widthon the west. The total estimated “edge” or wilderness-urban bear interface forms a perimeter of about 50km, far more extensive than many other communities in B.C. with similar resident numbers and morecompact residence zones. For example, Nelson, B.C. would have an estimated wilderness-urban interfaceperimeter of about 15 km, less than 1/3 of RMOW intensive developed areas.

1a. EMERALD ESTATES (Aug. 18 and Nov. 9/03)

General habitat description, bear sign, comments and management concerns

I drove some of the subdivision roads. Most of this developed area is on a moderately sloped mountain indry-type Douglas fir and hemlock along the west side of Green Lake. Some forest appears to be second-growth from earlier clearcutting but some is also mature and old-growth. Natural bear foods are limited tomainly a trace/low density of huckleberry species. This is typically low quality bear habitat. Its locationwould suggest it would be on a natural movement corridor on the eastern side of the municipality.

See Playground section for notes on playground concerns.

1b. ALPINE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION (Aug. 19/03)


I drove most of the roads, some twice. Most of this large developed area is on a moderately slopedmountain on the west side of the valley, in dry-type Douglas fir and hemlock. Much of this appears to besecond-growth from earlier clearcutting but some is also mature and old-growth. Natural bear foods arelimited to mainly a trace/low density of huckleberry species. This is low quality bear habitat.

The still-green lawns, with the occasional garden space and artificially planted bear foods such asmountain-ash and kinnikinnick enhance the habitat for braver bears willing to habituate to humans andtheir dogs. The homes on the flatter areas below the mountain are in better quality valley bottom bearhabitat, particularly those that border the riparian area and the Valley Trail.

Bear incidents tend to be high here (Sylvia Dolson pers. comm.). On August 20, 2003, I visited a garagebreak-in site involving a black bear at 8131 Alpine Way (Geoff Carr). On the morning of August 14, alarge adult black bear broke into his garage at about 4:00 am. The bear had scented his two garbage bags



71

stored just inside a door with a brass knob. The bear was able to get its teeth on the knob and open thedoor, which then closed once it was inside. Muddy paw-prints showed the bear tried to get out through anupper window. The owner claimed the bear also defecated huckleberry scats all over his vintage Harley-Davidson motorbikes. The garbage had fresh meat and fish scraps but it was only a day old. He hadloaned someone his pick-up truck so was not able to take it away that day. The bear was able to bite theinside door knob and let itself out, as well as drag the two bags of garbage out along with a small bag ofbird seed. It did not touch the bag of dog food that was in the basement. The owner then heard acommotion and came out and yelled at the bear and acted aggressively and the bear took off. At about 10pm on August 16, the same bear returned and took out the bag of birdseed. The owner heard the bear,came out, yelled at it and it took off.

I saw a bowl of birdseed in the pigeon cage next to the door and suggested he clean up the bird seed andkeep the bowl out of the cage at night or the seed and possibly the two pigeons would be next target forthe bear. There was a bowl of dog food that the owner claimed he left out only during the day. Irecommended he put a deadbolt on the door. Passing by one week later, I noted nothing had been done.

1c. NICKLAUS NORTH BOULEVARD AREA (GREEN ESTATES) & VALLEY TRAIL (Aug.18/03)


This is on a floodplain, which has left very little residual vegetation except at the mouth of the River ofGolden Dreams area. The golf course, developed in 1994, is on both sides of the highway. The B.C. Railline crosses through here. I traveled the Valley Trail through the Nicklaus North Golf Course, lodge andresidential complex. Some bears may travel through here using the riparian corridor. Some of thelandscaped areas have a planted matt of kinnikinnick with a high production of half-ripe fruit. It should beagainst RMOW by-laws to plant species that produce berries that are known bear attractants. The lawnareas would serve as spring habitat for bears.

1d. WHISTLER CAY – BLUEBERRY HILL – ALTA VISTA (Aug. 18/03)

Most of this large developed area is on a moderately sloped mountain in dry-type Douglas fir andhemlock. Much of this appears to be second-growth from earlier clearcutting but some is also mature andold-growth. Natural bear foods are limited to mainly a trace/low density of huckleberry species. This islow quality bear habitat except for the large Whistler Golf Course and some of the Valley Trail along itsperiphery (See Valley Trail section). Some of the landscaped areas appear to have kinnikinnick and otherbear foods.

A large area on the west borders the riparian valley bottom along the River of Golden Dreams. AlongBalsam Way and Crabapple Drive, houses are built right in the riparian zone where it widens back fromthe river. There were sporadic patches of common horsetail of high density and at this time of the year(mid-August), over-mature for bears. There was the usual dense shrubbery of red-osier dogwood (H/H),with a mix of red elderberry (L/H), devil’s club (L), skunk cabbage (L), lady fern (L), sedges (L) and atrace of false Solomon’s seal. Only the berries were in season. This wall of bear habitat borders thehouses on the wetlands side.

(See also Myrtle Philip School and Balsam Playground comments.)



72

1e. WHITE GOLD ESTATES (Aug. 18/03)

Most of the back, east side of this developed area is on a moderately sloped mountain in dry-type Douglasfir and hemlock. Much of this appears to be second-growth from earlier clearcutting but some is alsomature and old-growth. Natural bear foods are limited to mainly a trace/low density of huckleberryspecies. This is low quality bear habitat. A berry bear scat was observed on one of the streets.

Along the west side, the subdivision borders a dense riparian zone along Fitzsimmons Creek, whichappears to be a movement corridor for black bears. Some bears would also utilize the forested areas to theeast.

1f. COMMERCIAL CORE: VILLAGE NORTH-WHISTLER VILLAGE-UPPER VILLAGE-BLACKCOMB BENCHLANDS

General habitat description, bear sign and comments

Habitat surveys of green spaces are discussed under that section. It is to be noted that green spaces,especially on the east side in the parking lot areas add significant security cover and feeding areas forblack bears that frequent the village areas. Lawns and artificial berry-producing shrubs provide the mainfood attractants but some bears are still able to access garbage as well. M. Allen (pers. comm.) hasobserved black bears eating mountain-ash fruits along the downtown sidewalks.

Surveys of the Montebello Estates were also carried out on November 9-10, 2003 and demonstrate how intimes of food scarcity, some black bears will forage on artificially planted food resources. I saw 4 recentbear droppings within the Montebello complex that were comprised largely of rose hip seeds. These,combined with track and other evidence, indicated that the bear(s) was being attracted to feed on theorange seed pods of artificially planted native rose (Rosa) in the garden spaces of the residential complex.Field surveys of the surrounding natural green spaces indicated that this species and other late fall berryfood were much less available for bears at this time of year in green spaces proximal to Montebello. Thedroppings indicated some minor feeding on lawn grasses as well. No garbage was found in the droppings.Some kinnikinnick fruit was also available in the planted areas.

At the time I also investigated major damage by a black bear to hot tub covers. Approximately 17 of 72hot tub vinyl-styrofoam covers were damaged during the fall. This was a conservative estimate sincesome appeared to have been repaired in the interim. The hot tubs are located behind the time sharecondominium buildings and are surrounded by green lawn and artificial shrub gardens. Against this is abackdrop of “green space” – either open or shrub/forest. A number of undeveloped large green spacescomprised of old-growth redcedar habitat are located just across Blackcomb Way. Black bears use thesefor feeding, travel and bedding as they do many of the small and large interface habitats within themunicipality.

The damage was comprised of a black bear biting/clawing through the thin, vinyl covers and, in moresevere cases, wrecking corners or portions of the cover and the insides. Interviews with several residentssuggest the damage has been done by a large black bear that had been frequenting the general area sinceSeptember. The bear was not known to be aggressive. It was difficult to interpret the motivation for thebear causing the hot tub cover damage.

Public information



73

I did not carry out an audit, but there appears to be a fair amount of information to inform new visitorsthat they could encounter a black bear in the Village area. RMOW officers and the J.J. Whistler BearSociety recently designed a sandwich board type bear sign to place in downtown pedestrian areas such aswhen a bear is known to be in the area. It may be a good idea to carry out an audit to determine how tocontinue to improve informing new visitors that bears are in the area.

Management concerns and recommendations:

Food and garbage attractants are still accessed by some black bears in the downtown core zone, includingconstruction bins. The bins normally do not have lids and this allows entry by bears when human garbageis mixed with the debris. This still needs to be improved.

I would suggest replacement of the artificial berry-producing shrubs in the garden spaces such asmountain-ash, wild rose, twinberry, red-osier dogwood and kinnikinnick with shrubs that do not providefood for bears. This might be a good first step in attempting to reduce some of the bear use in thedowntown core, including the Montebello Complex.

See also section on playground concerns near MarketPlace.

1g. NORDIC ESTATES

A subdivision complex above Highway 99 towards the Creekside Gondola corridor. Most of this is onmoderate to steep sloped mountain in dry-type mostly second-growth Douglas fir and hemlock. Naturalbear foods are limited to mainly a trace/low density of huckleberry species. This is low quality bearhabitat. However, the openings created by the Gondola corridor create green-up areas for black bears.

1h. WHISTLER CREEK & BAYSHORES

Two subdivision complexes above Highway 99 at the s. end of RMOW developed areas. On the n.e. sideof Whistler Creek private residences, the Creekside Gondola corridor creates spring bear habitat. Most ofthese subdivisions are on a moderate to steep sloped mountain in dry-type mostly second-growth Douglasfir and hemlock. Natural bear foods are limited to mainly a trace/low density of huckleberry species. Thisis low quality bear habitat. However, I did note some productive blueberry habitat near the playground atMillars Pond Crescent (see playground section). I also noted a row of houses that have planted mountain-ash with an abundance of ripening fruit (H).

1i. LAKE PLACID RD. – NITA LAKE

Second-growth Douglas fir-hemlock with some mature forest. Bear foods limited to trace of huckleberry,artificial lawns and grass/sedge in the adjacent riparian zone that is bisected by B.C. Rail. This whole areawould be part of a valley bottom riparian corridor for bears and other wildlife that is now highlyfragmented. This development is separated from the major subdivisions by a large area of riparian andsecond-growth habitat (see transect on Nita development area) off of Alta Lake Road.

See section on Alpha Lake Park.



74

1j. FUNCTION JUNCTION

Largely an industrial complex built in the riparian zone. Some bear habitat values but much of the area ispavement and building complexes. The southern drop-off station is here for garbage and reclyclables.

1k. ALTA LAKE ROAD

This road on the northwest side of the valley has a number of small residential developments as well asseveral new ones starting up. It is generally dry hillside of mature Douglas fir-hemlock or second-growth.I did not survey the riparian zone below which is bordered by B.C. Rail. The habitat potential of the forestis limited to traces of Vaccinium species and kinnikinnick. However, the large Hydro transmission lineright-of-way creates a 300 m wide swath of better berry habitat that is being retained in a steady(successional) state when compared to the adjacent forested zones (See this section).

2. SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS, MUNICIPAL PARKS & PARTS OF VALLEY TRAIL,CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS

This section covers some of the valley trail.

2a. EMERALD PARK

Examined on Nov. 9, 2003, this has a small lawn, tennis court, picnic benches and playground. Thechildren's playground is 5 m from dense, mature woods. One has to wonder why the playground was notenclosed with the tennis court, which has a 4 m high chain-link fence. Although the habitat capability islow, the playground should be moved near the parking lot, well out in the open, or have a fence around it.

Garbage cans are bear-proofed.

2b. WEDGE & DREAM RIVER PARKS: WHISTLER SECONDARY SCHOOL &EDGEWATER RESORT RIPARIAN FOREST PATCH

Surveys were done on August 12 and Nov. 9/03.

General habitat description, bear sign and human use

This is a relic old-growth redcedar-skunk cabbage floodplain at the mouth of 19 Mile Creek. Althoughmore surveys are required, about 500 m of spot checking around the school and along the Edgewaterhorse trails revealed this is excellent black bear “pocket” habitat for habituated bears whose home rangesinclude human habitation. It is bordered by Highway 99 along which also runs the two-lane, paved ValleyTrail. To the south of the Edgewater Lodge access road, the Valley Trail is in the old forest, sometimes30+ m from the highway.

There are some cedars over one metre in diameter that might serve as winter dens. Generally, the habitathas a lush growth of skunk cabbage (H) along with varying mixes of devil’s club (L/H-ripe),grass/sedge(L), red-osier dogwood (L/M), red elderberry (Tr/H-ripe), highbush cranberry (Tr/L) andsalmonberry (L– fruits over). On November 9, the only bear foods available were green grass (lawn on



75

ball field), highbush cranberry (Tr/L) along stream courses in the forest below the school and smallamounts of sedges and horsetail. The skunk cabbage was dried up but there were small green shoots some10 – 15 cm tall. I saw no evidence of bears eating this or digging for roots.

On November 9, the shrubland riparian areas near the Lodge complex were noted to have productivehighbush cranberry sites and some green-up was still available near the horse corral.

On August 12, I saw no obvious bear sign along about 300 m of horse trail on both sides of the EdgewaterLodge access road. There was also no sign in a perimeter hike around the ball field. I saw evidence ofmoderate bear use in the woods behind and within 80 m of the school. In a short 100 m circuit, there werethree green vegetation scats (one month or less) and one black huckleberry scat (1-2 days). The latter,combined with worn pathways that include downed cedar logs as “bear sidewalks” suggested this is ablack bear feeding/travel route. The cover is very thick. One trail appeared to come out to the lawn behindthe school.

On August 12, I also observed tracks and a worn pathway about 20 m below the school suggesting thatbears travel through here. I suspect they also feed on the lawns in the spring. I saw a bear track near the“bridge” over the small creek that suggests black bears are traveling through here and under and aroundthe bridge. I also saw 5-6 spots in the woods where they had accessed minor food items such as potatochip bags. On Nov. 9, I saw no recent sign in the woods and wet areas below the school or around theball field. However, Lucy the “bear research dog” picked up the fresh trail of a bear on our way back, justabove the bridge. We followed it back below the fire hall and then it circled back in to the woods near alarge slough.

Here, there was a “classic” bear mark trail with about 20 pugmarks as well as a 15 cm DBH hemlockmark tree. This confirmed that this area is a travel and security-feeding zone for black bears. The trailmay be part of a historic bear trail prior to development like the one I recorded along Duffey Lake in theprovincial park. Besides the large, old cedar tree riparian type bear habitat, there is a representative“floating” sphagnum bog just below the ball field.

This whole area is a large patch or residual, high quality bear habitat with seasonal bear foods. The largeplaying field and lawns surrounding the school provide spring grasses for bears.

A horse at the lodge horse corral apparently sustained a broken leg this summer. Investigation by COChris Doyle into the possibility that a bear could have been partly responsible suggested the evidence forthis was very peripheral.

Public information and food/garbage management

There are several bear-proofed garbage cans near the school as well as one old barrel type (non bear-proof) near the education building and near the riparian woods. I saw no bear warning signs. On Nov. 92003, the non bear-proof canister was about 1/2 full of garbage. On the trail above the ball field, there wasresidue from a bear having obtained a small bag of garbage.

I did not examine the Edgewater Lodge complex carefully but it appears to be bear-proofed.



76

Management concerns & recommendations:

The school is an area of high management concern due to the large grass/clover playing field separatedfrom the school complex by a small (10 m) bridge that crosses the bear travel route.

Although more study is needed, I saw enough evidence of continual bear use to rate the bear hazard ashigh for the school playing field. Here, I would be particularly concerned about the threat of an attack onschool children by a predaceous and/or food conditioned black bear. The playing field is isolated from thesafety of the school complex and only a portion of the periphery has a chain-link fence.

For this area, I would recommend bear-proofing the playing field and small bridge with a chain-linkperimeter fence to err on the side of caution.

Other actions that should be considered include:

-Remove non bear-proof garbage container immediately,-Install bear warning signs,-Interview school staff re:-bear sightings,-People using the Valley Trail should be aware of bears in the area,-Further communications with Edgewater Lodge complex management to ensure total bear-proofingincluding storage of any kind of horse grain feed and-Consideration of protection of this large green-space as a replica of representative black bear old-growthhabitat including the classic bear mark trail and mark tree.

2c. SPRUCE GROVE PARK

Located just off the road to White Gold Estates, this is near the Fitzsimmons Creek riparian corridor. Theslopes behind are mature and semi-mature Douglas fir-hemlock with a trace of Vaccinium. I saw noplayground but could have missed it. There is a large lawn area with sport field that would attract bears inthe spring. Horsetail, rose hips, grasses and other foods are small attractants along the riparian corridor.Garbage containers are bear-proof.

2d. MYRTLE PHILIP COUMMUNITY SCHOOL & PLAYGROUNDS (Aug. 18/03)


This is on a dry benchland above the River of Golden Dreams riparian area. On the uphill side, it ismostly second-growth Douglas fir and hemlock with a trace/low density of huckleberry species. This isvery low quality bear habitat. There is a large lawn playing field out the back and a trail down to theadjoining Balsam Park Playgrounds which borders the large wetlands.

The playground at the front of the school is well out in the open, about 50 m to the nearest trees and coverso this is not a concern. The play area on the west side and near the back has play sets only 5 m from theforest.

Much of this appears to be second-growth from earlier clearcutting but some is also mature and old-growth. Natural bear foods are limited to mainly a trace/low density of huckleberry species. This is low



77

quality bear habitat. However, the artificial habitat provided by the school playing field combined withthe Balsam Park playing fields provide extensive potential spring feeding areas.

I hiked the woods from the school playground down to the park as well as the trail to the north of thepark-school yard and saw no bear sign.

Management concerns & recommendations

I am not comfortable with the playgrounds at the back. I rated the bear hazard as high. Any site near thecover of predator habitat with no barrier is not good public safety for children. It should be fenced to erron the side of caution.

2e. BALSAM PARK PLAYGROUNDS (Aug. 18/03)


This has a small lawn and then a very large playing field that borders on the uphill side with the dryforested habitat. For about 0.4 km along the west side, it borders the wetlands, with a thick shrub wall.Cover value is very high. There was the usual dense shrubbery of red-osier dogwood (M/H), with a mixof red elderberry (L/H), devil’s club (Tr/H), skunk cabbage (L), lady fern (Tr), sedges (H) and a trace offalse Solomon’s seal and cow-parsnip. Common horsetail (L) was patchy. Only the berries were inseason. The lush, green lawns of the playground fields likely are an artificial attractant for black bears inthe spring.

Near the parking lot and for about 30 m along the east side, is a cedar swamp with moderate densities ofdogwood, skunk cabbage and horsetail.

No bear sign was noted when I walked all around the perimeter.


There is a small playground at the entranceway that borders the dense wetland thickets. It is only about 5m from the play sets to the thickets. Again, I would be very concerned about children’s safety.

2f. MEADOW PARK & VALLEY TRAIL COMPLEX (Aug. 18/03)


I surveyed the Valley Trail and playing field by bike and foot. The Valley Trail generally skirts or goesthrough dense riparian shrub habitat. There was the usual dense shrubbery of red-osier dogwood (M/H),with a mix of red elderberry (L/H), devil’s club (Tr/H), skunk cabbage (L), lady fern (Tr), sedges (H) anda trace of false Solomon’s seal and cow-parsnip. Common horsetail (L) was patchy. Only the berries werein season. The lush, green lawns of the playground fields likely attract black bears in the spring. No bearsign was noted.

Besides the hazard involved with the Valley Trail being built largely in the riparian zone, the playgroundat the back of the complex is of most concern. A swing set and another play set are located within 6 m ofdense-shrub habitat.



78

The large ball field is 3/4 fenced by a combination of a large back-stop chain-link fence and a perimeterchain-link fence about 1.2 m high. However, gaps in the fence could still allow bears to access the field.


This is excellent. Amongst a series of interpretive signage on the ecology, there is one that deals with bearecology and safety and another that includes some information on black bear use of the riparian habitats.Similarly, all garbage containers are bear-proofed.

Bear hazard and management concerns

The children’s play set complex should be examined as a candidate for some safety fencing. Similarly, theball field should have the perimeter fence completed to at least provide some safety barrier betweenchildren and black bears; especially being in a riparian zone away from residences.

I might consider putting “BEAR IN AREA” signs along the Valley Trail to inform the public more fullythat they could encounter a bear at any time.

2g. RAINBOW PARK (Aug. 11 & Nov. 9/03)


I surveyed only the park area and the adjacent woods. This is a large green lawn area proximal to a marshthat is bisected by B.C. Rail. You cross the railroad to get to the main park area, which was an old lodgesite. The park is now owned by RMOW.

Besides the lawn grass, there were some shrub fringes that included black hawthorn (Tr/H), sedge, skunkcabbage, salmonberry and red-osier – all in small densities, relatively speaking.

The sign states that Kokanee spawn in the creek.

Generally, a few bears might feed on the lawn areas and sedge meadows in the spring. On Aug. 11, I sawseveral small huckleberry-like bear scats on the lawn near the log buildings indicating that there is somebear use. On Nov. 9, a survey of the same area showed no bear scats and no bear foods other than thegrass on the lawn.


There are a number of bear-proof garbage containers. However, I saw a number of small garbage bagsand other debris in the adjacent woods indicating that some bears have gotten into artificial food; eitherfrom the park or adjacent private residences.

There is a small sign at the entrance with bear warning and education. The old lodge buildings havehistoric photos including several that show a chained orphan black bear cub.




79

Again, another place where there is some overlap between black bears and human recreational use. Here,cautious monitoring and management should be done.

2h. LAKESIDE PARK & VALLEY TRAIL COMPLEX (Aug. 18/03)


I did not have time to survey the Valley Trail. This is a small drive-in park on s.e. side of Alta Lake. Themain habitat is lawn, with some small riparian areas.


There is a small play set at the entranceway that is 5 m to dense cover but this area is more developedthan others so it is likely not of great concern from a children’s safety point of view. Also, the access roadseparates the play area from adjacent dense habitat. I rated the hazard moderate. However, furtherinformation is needed of black bear use of the area – such as from Michael Allen’s research.

2i. EMERALD GOLD PLAY SET AREA

There is a play set near the entrance to Lost Lake. It is a site I missed during my field surveys and someinformation was provided by S. Dolson (pers. comm.). Apparently it is very close to cover and is heavilyused by black bears. A site inspection still needs to be done but based on this, I did rate the hazard ashigh.

2j. WAYSIDE PARK & VALLEY TRAIL COMPLEX (Aug. 18/03)


I did not have time to survey the Valley Trail in this area. This is a small drive-in park on s.e. Alta Lakethat is accessed directly off the highway. The main habitat is lawn with some small riparian areas. Therewas no playground. The garbage container is bear-proof.


There were no concerns. I rated the hazard low. Here, cautious monitoring and management should bedone.

2k. ALPHA LAKE PARK & VALLEY TRAIL COMPLEX (Aug. 18/03)


I did not have time to survey the Valley Trail in this zone. The main habitat is lawn, with an importantriparian area that borders Jordan Creek. The trails border this for about 300+ metres. Some of it has asplit-rail cedar fence to protect the stream habitat.

There was the usual dense shrubbery of red-osier dogwood (M/H), with a mix of red elderberry (L/H),devil’s club (Tr/H), skunk cabbage (L), lady fern (Tr), sedges (H) and a trace of false Solomon’s seal and



80

cow-parsnip. Common horsetail (L) was patchy. Only the berries were in season. The lush, green lawns ofthe playground fields likely attract black bears in the spring. No bear sign was noted.


There is a small play set that borders the shrub zone and a patch of old-growth forest (3 m distance).Again, I would be concerned about children in close proximity to relatively dense cover for predators. Irated the hazard of this site as high. Bear-proofing should be considered.

2l. GREEN SPACE FROM GREEN LAKE – LOST LAKE PARK – UPPER VILLAGE (Aug.11/03)


I biked this from the Riverside Resort & Campground Complex to beyond Lost Lake doing a loop trip viathe Old Mill Trail/Valley Trail to Lost Lake and back via the Centennial Trail and then a new bike trailthat connected back to the Old Mill Trail.

Much of this is mountain slope of old-growth Douglas fir with some mature hemlock and lodgepole pineor what I would call “dry habitat” with an understory of primarily Vaccinium species. Overall, the shrubswere of trace to low density with trace/low fruit productivity. This was generally low quality bear habitat.There were some small wetlands before Lost Lake, on the n.w. side, with sedges (M), skunk cabbage (L)and red-osier (L/M). Around the east side of Lost Lake the bear habitat improves with a dense thicket (onthe southeast side) of red-osier (H/H), thimbleberry (L/?) and sedge (L). At the outlet, there is a wetlandswith a low density of Pacific water-parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), in flower.

I saw no bear sign but bears have been sighted here. The lawn at the visitor complex on the east side ofLost Lake is an artificial attractant.

To the north and south, the large Chateau Whistler Golf Course provides artificial grasses. According toMichael Allen (pers. comm.) up to 20 black bears can concentrate on lawn feeding here in the earlyspring.


There is a good bear ecology/warning sign at the south end of Lost Lake. All garbage containers in thepark are bear-proofed. The new graveled mountain bike trails that criss-cross this habitat zone have smallsignage indicating that bears and hikers have the right-of-way. Visibility is not good on some of these,which have 2-3 m right-of-way cut through the forest with crooked alignment.


This is generally low quality habitat but some black bears are known to frequent the area. The ChateauWhistler Golf Course attracts large numbers of black bears in the early spring. Noteworthy is the extent towhich this “green space” of bear habitat is criss-crossed by a network of trails, including a new series ofmountain bike trails that zig-zag back and forth. Likely, the planning for this did not take intoconsideration the increased infringement on bear habitat, however low quality it is. This needs to beaddressed.



81

2m. MARKETPLACE GREEN SPACE & PLAYGROUND (Aug. 16/03)


This is a relatively large patch of old-growth redcedar/hemlock/spruce forest between Blackcomb Wayand Marketplace. Some cedars are over one metre in diameter and there could potentially be a den site inthis green space. Dense shrub understory is patchy as there are relatively large areas of open space andwindfalls under the trees. The best bear food area is the dense understory of tall shrubs on the west sidefacing the playground. Overall, it was rated to have a low density of red-osier dogwood (fruits = high)and red elderberry (fruits = high), with a trace of devil’s club. Grasses merge into the lawns.

Around the perimeter, cover values are high due to the dense and tall shrubbery and ground vegetation.

Bear sign included three scats, all comprised of berry content. Two were from last year and one was 2-3weeks old. A possible fresh paw print was noted near Blackcomb Way. No bear bedding sites were found.It was difficult to distinguish any bear pathway because of the human use throughout most of the forest,including several cross trails. However, the area is part of an inter-linking network of forest patches thatbears use to access the hinterland of the Village. This bear travel trail was more evident in thelongitudinal patch of similar woods across Blackcomb Way, on the north side of Parking Lot 4.

The forest floor has considerable human debris including some smaller garbage bags, which appear tohave been dragged from camping areas and ripped apart by bears. Obviously these woods are a hang-outfor some of the village youth, including night forays. There was also some evidence of a few campsitesand “squatter” activity. The area feels like a forest ghetto. Campers in here would be candidates for afood-conditioned or predaceous attack by a black bear.


Playground

A children’s playground is located about 20 metres from the edge of dense cover. On August 14, 2003, amember of the public reported to the JJWBS phone line that there was a black bear near the play set. Ifollowed this up with a trained dog-on-leash survey the following night between 9:20 – 11:00 p.m. At10:15 p.m., I observed a lone child playing in the lit-up site while his parents stood 8 m away on thesidewalk looking in the store window. I circled the entire complex in the dark including the green woodedsection but the dog made no detection.

At 11:00 a.m. on August 16 there were 10 – 15 children playing at the site. I did another perimeter searchwith the dog at 11:00 p.m. on the same day but detected no bear.

This playground would be a high candidate site for a rare, predaceous attack on a child or someonefrequenting the woods at night. So would illegal camping in the adjacent woodlands.

Some possible safeguards to consider would include fencing the playground along with posting bearwarning signs. The debris in the forest should be cleaned up regularly and bear warning signs posted atprimitive trail entry points.



82

Removal of the shrub understory might be another consideration but would not be likely to deter bear useas the forest would remain as security habitat. I understand that this green space will be removed in a yearor two (Sandra Smith pers. comm.).

2n. REBAGLIATI PARK – SKATEBOARD & PICNIC AREA

Similar habitat as the other nearby areas but narrower strips. Fitzsimmons Creek is likely a ripariancorridor. Cautious management is urged but I do not feel at this point that a bear-proof perimeter fence isneeded.

2o. BAYSHORES PLAYGROUND ON CHEAKAMUS WAY

This is a small park with a tennis court and small playground on Millars Pond Crescent, adjoining matureold-growth hemlock hillside with a moderate density of blueberry. On August 19, I noted a moderate cropof ripe fruits. The playground was about 15 m from the berry patch in the forest. The lawn was lush andthere was a small lily pond-wetland towards the sidehill that has a split-rail fence on the playground side.The garbage canister is bear-proof. Again, the play set area should be made bear-proof.

3. HIKING TRAILS, PARTS OF VALLEY TRAIL, CAMPSITE AND OTHER AREAS

Some trails including other areas of the Valley Trail are discussed under other sections. Many of thehiking trails out of the valley core to peripheral areas were not surveyed because my focus was on theValley Trail and residential/developed areas.

3a. WHISTLER GOLF COURSE AND VALLEY TRAIL CIRCUIT (Aug. 20/03)

I did a circuit by mountain bike. The paved Valley Trail was built in the small fringe of residual riparianand forest zone that was left around the golf course (which used to be a farm). On the west side, the trailgoes through a small creek riparian zone with dense undergrowth. Some of this is fenced off to preventpublic access to protect fish habitat. The “natural zone” is about 20 – 30 m wide so it is a narrow strip.Generally, the habitat has patches of skunk cabbage (L) along with varying mixes of devil’s club (Tr/H-ripe), common horsetail (L), grass/sedge (L), red-osier dogwood (M/M), red elderberry (Tr/H-ripe) andsalmonberry (Tr – fruits over). The trail, on the southwest side, is bordered by a condo complex. Near thesouth end, there was a patch of bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) and some trees had a low production ofripe cherries. I assume that this species is native to the area.

Along the westerly side is patchy mature forest with an almost barren understory, some riparian areasdominated by dogwood loaded with fruits. The above-mentioned bear foods were also noted here andthere. About 300 m from the north end, there was a large area of Saskatoon with a high density of near-ripe fruits.

The adjacent housing developments are on the dry, rocky hillsides with mature Douglas fir/hemlock andsmall amounts of Vaccinium.

Overall, this 3 – 4 km long narrow strip of habitat would attract habituated bears. Sylvia Dolson (pers.comm.), who lives nearby, regularly sees bears in the area. A fresh track of an adult black bear was noted



83

on the s.e. side, about 200 m from the south end, crossing up into the narrow patch of hemlock near thehighway.

Overall, the habitat was marginal, but bears would be expected to feed on the golf course lawns in thespring as well as utilize the various berries along the Valley Trail in the fall.


All of the garbage containers are bear-proofed. I saw no food debris. There are two smaller bearinterpretive signs along the Valley Trail.


I have the usual concern about the Valley Trail being in the core of a narrow strip of moderate-highquality spring to early fall habitat that is used by a number of habituated black bears. However, as long asthe bear signs are obvious as a warning to the uninformed, I think the situation just needs to be carefullymonitored as elsewhere in Whistler. Certainly, mountain bikers and others will have close encounterswith black bears. The paved surface and generally good visibility will help reduce some of this.

3b. CHEAKAMUS RIVERSIDE TRAIL SYSTEM (Aug. 10/03)


This tightly follows the south side of a fast river system for about 2 km to a large footbridge. There is alsoa public access dirt road paralleling each side of the valley but further away from the trail. Overall thetrail is mostly in a previously logged area with second-growth conifers as well as some mature and old-growth hemlock, cedar and Douglas fir stands. The following bear food items were noted:

-black huckleberry (L/L = ripe)-red huckleberry (L/L = ripe)-blueberry species (L/M = ripe)-red elderberry (Tr/H = ripe)-red-osier dogwood (Tr/M)-devil’s club (Tr/M = ripe)-thimbleberry (Tr/L = ripe)-salmonberry (Tr = berries over)-skunk cabbage (Tr)-grasses/sedges (Tr)-ants (L)

No bear sign was noted along the main trail. However, Sylvia Dolson has encountered black bears here onseveral occasions. The trail has only fair visibility due to its crooked course. I would rate this trail to havea trace seasonal bear hazard for spring and low for the summer/early fall berry season. Some black bearuse can be attributed to the trail being proximal to the landfill, which has only recently had a new electricfence installed through which some bears were still gaining access to garbage.



84

The access road on the west side was followed back down to the parking lot. Similar bear foods werenoted in this 30+ year clearcut, which is starting to show canopy closure. Mountain-ash and red-osierdogwood were of low density with moderate fruits. There was a Vaccinium scat about 1 – 2 days old.


Nothing noted except proximity to the landfill, which still attracts bears to the area.


No concerns. This is a low hazard trail. The noise of the river and many corners may foster some close-up encounters with black bears.

3c. RIVERSIDE RESORT/CAMPGROUND COMPLEX (Aug. 11 – 22/03, Nov. 7 – 10/03, July 15 –23/04)


The campground, which was previously relocated, has 34 tent units spread in the riparian zone alonglower Fitzsimmons Creek. There are apparently plans to expand the campsite to the other side of thecreek. The camping sites are situated in a dense riparian cottonwood – red-osier dogwood zone. Red-osier is of moderate density and grows to 3 m tall creating a dense but spotty understory layer. Other bearfoods include low densities of common horsetail and red elderberry and grasses, with traces of twinberry,high-bush cranberry, cow-parsnip and false Solomon’s seal. The creek is somewhat noisy and the nearbyrailroad track is very noisy when trains go past at 4:00 am. Overall, this has moderate potential as springand summer/early fall feeding habitat. There is a brushy trail that parallels the creek that a large blackbear used as a travel route in August when it decided not to walk the campsite pathways.

Overall, the cover rating is moderate but not high, due to opening up of trails and camp pads.

There is a mini-golf course on the other side of the dike as well as a large area for RV camping andcabins. These areas are much more open with the lawn, grasses and horsetail (Tr) as potential bear foods.

The following bear observations were made while we were in residence in 2003:

Aug. 8. Black bear raided cooler at tent site #10 B (across from mine). Some men had come in late, setup camp, left their cooler with food unattended and went to the bar. Bear got into cooler around mid-night and fed on some dried packages of food.

Aug. 9/10? Large black bear got into garbage which someone left in toolbox in back of truck in nearbyresidential area. CO had set out trap near Riverside Campsite but removed it on this date.

Aug. 10. 11:00 p.m. A large-appearing black bear walked right past my tent. A large shadow from thereflection of the lights along the pathway loomed over my tent and I saw a long pointed snout and pointedears. Lucy’s growl and bark woke me from a doze. By the time I found my clothes and crawled outsidewith the excited dog, we could not locate the bear. The next morning I found where a large bear hadtraveled up the creek zone, along the edge of the pond below the lodge.



85

Aug. 12. 5 a.m. Another dog barked and Lucy growled and when we got outside, Lucy’s scentingindicated that the black bear had just ambled by the tents. We caught up to it walking down the trailbelow the dike and it would merely turn on Lucy and walk more quickly. It turned back into the campsitearea and doubled back up into the dense undergrowth of the river trail. I could not get close enough tothrow a rock at it.

Aug. 19. Patrolled campsite at 5:30 a.m. but no sign of bear even though Lucy had some scent interest.Near noon, I inspected a Volvo station wagon that the bear had broken into last night at the overflow lotnear the lodge. The people had left the windows open about 6 cm and the bear managed to break the backwindow. It then went in through the window and got a bag of fruit and some food from the cooler. Icollected some hair samples for the Whistler DNA study. This appears to be a problem of escalatingaggression to access human foods as now it has learned to break car windows. I told the campsitemaintenance supervisor to post warning signs.

Also on the same day a 1- to 2-day-old bear scat was found on the trail along creek through undergrowthat the campsite. The dropping had about 90% Vaccinium berries and about 10% green plant matter.

Nov. 7 – 10/03: I was the only one at the campsite which was not open to the public. At this time, nobears or their sign were observed.

July 2004. A female black bear was destroyed because she broke into two tents at the campsite. Anotherbear was around during the period I stayed from July 13 – 22 but appeared to be avoiding the peopleareas. The campsite was not being adequately inspected for coolers left out and other food storage eventhough the staff claimed they were now fining campers $75 for such infractions. At this time the campsitehad succulent horsetail (L) as well as ripe red elderberry.


This Lodge has a public information program superior to most provincial parks. Every guest who checksin at the reception desk receives a copy of “Bear Smart Whistler Visitor’s Guide” along with a 3 – 4minute talk about the bears, properly storing their food, etc. They are told if they leave food or theircoolers out they will be fined $75.00. (In 2004, the fine system was actually implemented.) In thecampground, there are frequent signs warning about storing food properly. The maintenance supervisorpatrols regularly and seemed very knowledgeable about bears.

The resort complex is largely bear-proofed but there are still some loopholes. Some fine-tuning of foodand garbage management is recommended (see below).

Bear hazard and management concerns and recommendations

The J.J. Whistler Bear Society provided a letter to the resort manager dated July 26, 2001 outliningcomprehensive recommendations to minimize human-bear conflicts. Some of these were followed.However, improvement is still needed.

I rated the tent campground to have a moderate-high risk of encounters due to the natural foodavailability, noisy creek, travel corridor and frequency of bear sightings and problems. This site would becandidential for a rare predaceous attack as well as an injurious encounter involving food-seeking bears



86

that have become conditioned. However, I doubt that hazard abatement by removal of the denseunderstory would be effective since the trees and riparian corridor would still invite some black bear use.Much caution is needed here and careful consideration should also be given to the proposed expansionacross the creek.

For upgrading of the management of attractants I recommend the following:

-repair right latch on large garbage canister at main parking lot. The Resort also has overflow periods andwould like to have two large receptacles instead of the one.-small waste baskets in mini-golf course sometimes have small odiferous materials. Remove and replacewith 1 – 2 of the smaller bear-proof type.-replace bear cable system with large metal lockers. The cable system is not bear-proof and an ambitiousblack bear could easily climb the tree and break the cable down. The metal lockers are also more userfriendly.-install bear-proof container at parking lot.-place bear warning signs when bears are known to be active in the area. Should also be ready to closecampsite in the event of an aggressive or dangerous bear being identified in the area.

4. GREEN SPACES – RIPARIAN VALLEY BOTTOM – NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS

4a. NICKLAUS NORTH GOLF COURSE TO EMERALD FOREST – B.C. RAIL CORRIDOR(Aug. 17 and Nov. 9/03)

This complex includes the golf course lawns, mature spruce-horsetail habitat between the Nicklaus NorthGolf Course (on the west side of Highway 99) and the railway and large wetlands including sedgemeadows. Basically, I walked the golf course trail along the east side and then the tracks as far as theValley Trail and “River of Gold Dreams.” I then returned illegally along the tracks.

The best habitat is the 30 m wide strip of mature spruce-horsetail along part of the east side of the golfcourse as well as forested strip at the northeast end between the lawns and Highway 99. Commonhorsetail was of high density and at this time of the year, over-mature for bears. There was the usualdense shrubbery of red-osier dogwood (H/H), with a mix of red elderberry (L/H), devil’s club (L), skunkcabbage (L), lady fern (L), sedges (L) and a trace of false Solomon’s seal. Only the berries were inseason. The undergrowth appears to have some trampling from bears as well as from golfers looking formissing balls. There is also a narrow margin of horsetail growing along some of the edges of the railroadtrack.

Further south, the railroad bisects a large wetlands with sedge (H) as the most common early spring bearfood. The main powerline crosses back through here and the large forested area between the marsh andthe highway to the east appears to be drier forest, with mature Douglas fir and hemlock combined withsome seral, mid stage logged forest. Near the “River of Golden Dreams” there is a narrow (20 m) strip ofmature spruce – horsetail between the tracks and a subdivision. Trails from the tracks through the forestlead directly to backyards, lawns and in one place, a garden. Near the Valley Trail and bridge, someonehas built a trail into the riparian zone and has a small garden of potatoes and beans, further adding to theartificial foods available to resident bears.



87

At this end is an interpretive sign about the Emerald Forest. A new sub-trail has been built into theriparian zone for about 80 metres to the creek just above the bridge. This is covered with crushed gravel.Any further incursions into the riparian zone should not be allowed.

The bike/foot bridge over the creek has interpretive signs. If Kokanee spawn here in the fall, do bears feedon them? Has this been studied?

At 7:30 a.m. on August 17, I spotted a large black bear moving east along the edge of the railroad tracks,about 60 m east of the Highway 99 overpass. The bear was noted to turn off and enter the shrubs towardsthe golf course. I parked and walked around and my dog detected the bear traveling in the shrubs. As weapproached it, the bear stood at the base of a large tree chuffing. I sent the dog after it and the bear wentup the tree about 2 metres, then jumped down and ran into the undergrowth. I called the dog off and thebear remained in the bushes. One hour later when we returned, the bear had left.

As I suspected, some bears appear to be using the railroad right-of-way under the Highway 99 overpass asa travel corridor to avoid directly crossing the highway. A good project would be to set up a remotecamera and study this. The paved golf trail also crosses under the cement bridge.

On Nov. 9, a survey along the golf course trail system at the east end, between the golf course and thehighway, revealed no bear sign. Bear foods in the shrub zone included a trace of cranberry (Tr/L) and rose(Tr/M). The rose is of higher density in patches along the edges of the railway.

Further research should be done of bear use of the wet meadows during the spring. Again, I am seeinghuman development fringing on prime bear feeding and travel habitat that is still occupied by somehabituated bears.


The golf course areas I surveyed have bear-proof garbage containers. I saw no garbage bags nor evidenceof bears feeding on garbage, as I did in the Village green spaces.

There are 5 bear interpretive signs along the golf cart trails. These are very graphic, with photos and textexplaining the local black bear ecology and safety. This is excellent work.

4b. VILLAGE NORTH - PARKING LOTS 4 & 5, SOUTH SIDE STRIP

This site has similar old-growth habitat as the green space near the playground. Each strip along LorimerRoad is about 30 metres wide and 300 metres long. There is also a similar amount of human debris,including some evidence of bears feeding on minor amounts of garbage. A walk-through revealedevidence of a bear pathway that connects east and west across the roadways to provide a corridor to theVillage. The strip along Lot 5 has some cow-parsnip and a low density of skunk cabbage.

Bear sign near Lot 4 included one green vegetation scat, about one month old.

Lot 5 allows overnight use. Along the south side where campers and vans overnight, there wasconsiderable debris in the narrow strip of woods. Three large bins full of fresh garbage were stored in thiscorner, with no bear-proof lids. How long were they stored here and available to bears?



88

In the adjacent woods on the east side of Lot 5 is a rustic bike-practice trail that was being used by boys.

4c. GREEN SPACE TRIANGLE BOUNDED BY LORIMER ROAD, BLACKCOMB WAY &FITZSIMMONS CREEK. Aug. 19 and Nov. 9/03


This is a large patch of old-growth which includes redcedar/hemlock/spruce forest at the Lorimer Roadend that gradually merges into wetlands and a slough to the north. Some cedars are over one metre indiameter and there could potentially be den sites in this green space. Dense shrub understory is patchy asthere are relatively large areas of open space and windfalls under the trees. Overall, it was rated to have amoderate density of red-osier dogwood (fruits = high) and red elderberry (fruits = high), with a lowdensity of devil’s club (fruits = moderate), skunk cabbage and common horsetail. Grasses occur aroundthe perimeter. I saw traces of false Solomon’s seal and lady fern.

Around the perimeter, cover values are high due to the dense and tall shrubbery and ground vegetation.

In August, near the Lorimer Road end I saw a recent bear track and 3 scats comprised of green plantmatter (approx. 3 weeks old). In the middle there is a hair-snagging station and there were 2 – 3 berryscats suggestive of recent bear use. About 60 metres down the diagonal primitive trail from BlackcombWay, on the right, was a possible black bear mark tree about 2 m off the trail. A 20 cm diameter conifer, ithad scratchings about 1.7 m up. On my November 9 survey through the same area there was very limitedberry food available and I saw no recent bear sign.

In August, I noted that in the upper northeast quadrant of this green reserve there was a squatter’s tent thathad been ripped apart but it looked like it had been cut rather than torn. A bear appeared to have shreddeda bag that may have had foodstuffs in it. Similarly, there was the residue of a large squatter’s camp offthe trail in the middle and off the diagonal trail. There were piles of broken rigid insulation as well as arecent fire pit. In November, it looked like several more campers had spent considerable time here.

CO Chris Doyle told me of checking on a squatter in one of the green spaces who was feeding bears.While talking to the person, the bear walked up to be hand-fed.


There are no bear warning signs. Perhaps it might be a good idea to post the perimeter with “Bears inArea, Keep Out” signs.


The area serves as a relatively large zone of secure habitat for black bears proximal to Whistler Village.It is bounded by hiking trails, including a primitive one that borders Fitzsimmons Creek and one thatbisects the northern part. Squatter’s camp and associated food and garbage are a concern as people areliving right out with the bears under primitive, unregulated conditions where food and garbage areobviously made readily available. Squatters and hikers would be susceptible to the rare but predictablepredaceous or food-conditioned black bear attack, particularly at night.

4d. B.C. HYDRO POWERLINE GREEN STRIP (Aug. 11/03)



89

This major transmission line creates a large (approx. 300 m wide) right-of-way through RMOW valleybottom areas. Although more spot sampling is needed, it should be designated as a special bear habitatunit where a permanent, early seral state is maintained through the manual brushing of conifers. Thisfosters a good berry area – likely with a low-moderate potential where the soils and site favour growth ofa variety of fruit-producing shrubs (which are not cut by Hydro).


I surveyed the right-of-way on August 11 by driving up a small road to a shed some distance off the AltaLake Road, south of Rainbow Park. Then I walked 300 m through the powerline where manual clearingof conifers had recently occurred. There was a variety of berry foods which add up to this beingmoderately suitable berry habitat for black bears. At ground level, there was a low density of kinnikinnickwith moderate fruit (3/4 ripe). This is a fall as well as a spring food as the berries overwinter on theshrubs. Overall, there was a trace/low density of salal, mountain huckleberry, red huckleberry, mountain-ash, blueberry and Saskatoon – all with moderate productivity and all at least 3/4 ripe except for salalwhich still had only green fruits.

The less dominant bears may forage only along the edges where they have tree-climbing security. Therewas one huckleberry scat, about 2 weeks old, along the edge and about 6 m from the forest. There wasalso a berry area where trampling and some small broken branches suggested a bear had recently fed –about 35 m distance from the forest.

A 300 m walk through the adjacent old-growth Douglas fir-hemlock forest showed very low habitatvalue. There was a trace of huckleberry species, with no fruit. Deer sign was rated low. There was one oldberry scat from last year.

Aug. 17/03. The B.C. Hydro Right-of-Way was walked between the railway and Highway 99, from thesouth end of the Nicklaus North Golf Course. This 400 m transect showed similar berry-producing habitatas above. One Vaccinium scat, about one week old, was noted on the road near the main highway. Therewas also some evidence of a bear travel route (along with deer). A primitive bike trail exists.


Identify as a specialized man-made bear habitat unit of considerable area where berry-producing plantsoccur in enough abundance to attract bears. More habitat transects are needed.

4e. TAMARISK – MILLAR CREEK GREEN SPACE - RIPARIAN AREA. NITA LAKE LODGEAPPN. NO 860 area – SPRING ROAD TURN-OFF (Aug. 11)


I followed a primitive mountain bike trail along an old logging road from a sharp corner on the Alta LakeRoad where the Nita Lake Lodge Corporation has posted application signs for a fairly large development.This would apparently involve 3 apartment buildings with 82 units and other structures. Approximately25 acres of wetlands has been proposed for RAN 1 zoning.



90

Most of the 1.5 km of road/trail is in second-growth logged areas and some old-growth cedar andhemlock. The trail parallels the wetlands and only crosses a small wetland area once. Bear foods along thetrail itself were generally scant due to the limited productivity (Vaccinium spp. = Tr) of the several agesof coniferous forest, but the adjacent wetlands looked very productive. The dense shrub understory of red-osier dogwood, devil’s club and salmonberry is patchy and these species are generally of low densitywhere they occur. Skunk cabbage and sedge were also of moderate density in places and there were spotsof common horsetail.

Some cedars are over one metre in diameter and there could potentially be den sites in this green space.This is one of the more secluded, undeveloped riparian zones I have surveyed and an overview of a mapindicates the wetlands are quite extensive. Combined with the relatively limited human use, this largegreen space has excellent black bear security and feeding values.

There were two green vegetation scats, about one month of age. The primitive trail is likely a bear travelzone.


In its current overgrown state, the trail has a moderate-high risk of an encounter.

My main concern would be NOT to develop another bike trail and to consider impacts on black bearhabitat and security needs in the development application no. 860. The incursions may have slowed downbut they have not stopped and each new one represents incremental encroachment on bear security andriparian habitat.

5. WHISTLER-BLACKCOMB SKI AREAS

This is a large area and would require 10+ days of habitat surveys and mapping to adequately understandthe habitat values, artificial and native. I did one long day (Aug. 23/03) of surveys from the WhistlerMountain access road that included vehicle spot checks and foot transects of habitats including themountain bike park. I did not survey Blackcomb Mountain.

According to Intrawest Corp. Environmental Manager A. DeJong (pers. comm.), the company has spent$400,000 on ski run rehabilitation on Blackcomb Mountain and plans to spend another $1.5 million overthe next five years on rehabilitation with a priority to control erosion on their ski runs. A secondaryobjective has been with “mountain habitat enhancement” involving vegetation replanting and wildlifeconcerns, primarily deer and black bear. Where they want to discourage bear use, they have planted anartificial species, birds-foot trefoil. In several areas they have improved huckleberry areas for black bears,the Greenacres on Whistler and the Crystal area on Blackcomb. They have also planted clover on many ofthe ski runs, which attracts black bears early-mid season. They now sponsor black bear-viewing tours onWhistler Mountain, led by Michael Allen and other resource people. They plan on using the revenue tobuild a bear ecology and natural science centre.

5a. Mountain bike “park” – downhill sport trail

This was started about three years ago. The lower bike trail network was expanded to near the top of themountain and was operational in 2004. Current access to the existing bike run on the lower mountain is



91

by the gondola to Mid- or Olympic Station. I surveyed much of the lower run on Aug. 23/03 and the newupper run on July 18, 2004.

On the lower run, the dirt track, about one metre wide, has been constructed mostly in second-growthforest adjoining the lower ski runs and access road. The quite dense forest is entering the closed canopystage, which limits visibility. Within the forest, it has been cleared for only 2 - 4 m. Poor visibility as aresult of fairly dense cover and a deliberately convoluted design, combined with rapid speeds, make for ahigh risk of a bear or other animal encounter/collision.

In the spring, there is a fair concentration of black bears on the lower slopes, especially near OlympicStation. The bears utilize the artificially planted clovers and grasses on the ski run. Horsetail is alsoavailable. On August 23, 2003 the wooded areas were rated to have a trace-low capability for late summerand fall because of a trace/low density of Vaccinium with very little fruit production. The shrubs werepartially dried out as a result of the hot weather. This is second-growth Douglas fir, cedar and hemlock onsites that were previously clearcut.

The gladed runs above Olympic Station are mainly covered with clover and grass. In the adjacent matureforests of old-growth hemlock, there is a low density of huckleberry with low fruit production. Thesecond-growth has a closed canopy with few bear foods. The ski run crossed by the bike trail belowOlympic Station is covered with a moderate density of clover, grasses and sedges that were still green inAugust. Clover, grasses and birds-foot trefoil also occur on the bottom of the hill and were still partiallygreen down to the Village.

Even though natural food attractants (berries) were of limited availability it would still be safe to assumethat during the biking season some bears use the forest for bedding, cover and travel.

In some places the lower bike trail crosses the access road with warning signs. At the bottom, the trailemerges from the forest and is in the open for about 400 m. I observed bike use at various point locationson the afternoon of August 23 and use by youth appeared to be high with an emphasis on speed.

On July 18, 2004 I surveyed the upper area of the new bike trail between the Garbanzo Chair – Chic Peaand Franz’s Chair. The ski run area and areas around Chic Pea Lodge are all high quality green vegetationhabitat with a moderate-high density of grasses, sedges and horsetail. These are all in season and therewere several recent bear scats. A small area of the new bike trail passes through about 75 m of this type ofhabitat mixed with white rhododendron and mountain huckleberry. Most of the trail is in the old-growthpatches of forest. One of the staff told me that yesterday was the best day with over 1,000 users.

According to bear researcher M. Allen there have been two confirmed biker-bear collisions (adult femalein June 1999 and cub in June 2004) and two unconfirmed biker-bear collisions (2 adult females in June1999). I am not sure if there have been other incidents with other wildlife such as deer because it appearsthat there is no recording system in place.

It is unclear how much the risk of wildlife/biker collisions was taken into account in the trail design. Onthe one hand, artificially planted clover on the adjacent gladed slopes attracts more bears into the area. Onthe other hand, building the trail near such feeding and travel routes creates the risk of collisions betweenbikers and bears. This risk is even more evident now that the bike downhill trail has been built from thetop of the mountain. One example of a safer design feature might have been to have built the trail well outin the open on the gladed ski runs so that bikers and bears/deer/wildlife could be much more aware of



92

each other. According to Intrawest environmental manager A. DeJong (pers. comm.) they did put theupper bike trail on the west side so as to position it away from the better habitat.

5b. Whistler ski hill areas

The following notes were made from my August 23/03 field assessment but excludes habitat observationsnoted in the bike park corridor. I also surveyed Whistler and Blackcomb ski runs in July 2004 but thisdata is summarized in Appendix III.

For the 2003 Whistler surveys, the Km call-out signs on the main access road are used as reference points.At km 3.7 a branch road goes to the south. The gladed ski runs here have a high density of red clover (inflower) and a low density of common horsetail. This is one of the ski run areas where black bearsconcentrate to feed on clover and other green plants. The surrounding forest is old-growthhemlock/spruce with a trace-low density of huckleberry.

The same forest type occurs along the main access road from km 3.7 to km 5.0. The Emerald Express runhere has a moderate density of common horsetail that is still succulent for bears. There is also a lowdensity of clover and grasses/sedges including Juncus - another known bear food. The greened-up ski runareas for bears is quite large in extent.

One 2- to 3-year-old black bear was observed feeding on black huckleberry below the road just before“Greenacres.” It ran into the woods when we approached to within 100 m. Later, an ATV tour group wasnoted to be watching what they said was an adult black bear feeding on huckleberries in Greenacres. Iwalked 200 m up into the core site. The huckleberry shrubfield appeared to be created by leaving theshrub understory when the forest was first cleared away for the ski run and then later manually clearingout the small re-growth of conifers. There is a high density of mostly black huckleberry with a low tomoderate production of ripe fruits. The crop is about 2/3 ripe. There is also a trace of mountain-ash with ahigh productivity of still green fruit. There was a fresh berry scat 60 m to the nearest trees as well as otherevidence of feeding (broken twigs, bushes pushed over). M. Allen has a hair-snagging plot nearby. Later,I walked into upper Greenacres on a 0.5 km transect from the road above and from the west side. Alongthe way, there is a low density of mostly black huckleberry with a moderate production of fruit – about1/4 ripe.

On the road just before the junction to Greenacres, there was a 3- to 5-day-old scat comprised of horsetail.I also drove up the branch road about 2 km to the Harmony Run (Sidewinder) area. The habitat is mostlymature hemlock/spruce with a low density of huckleberry in the understory that appears to have lowproductivity. There was one 1- to 2-day-old scat comprised of green plant matter, no fruit.

The alpine/subalpine meadows in the vicinity of the top – Round House visitor centre (1850 m) are in lowquality grizzly bear habitat that is likely only used by the occasional black bear. The meadows are largelyheather-anemone-subalpine fir with a low density of grasses/sedges. There was a trace of whitebark pine,the cone nuts that are a potential grizzly bear food. There is an extensive trail network, scenic helicopterflights and high visitor use. Apparently some black bears have been attracted to the visitor complex byartificial food attractants.

I walked 300 m down on the main gladed run in Harmony and found green plants still at the succulentstate for bears but there was no evidence whatsoever of feeding by bears, although deer sign was high.Beds and tracks were common. This ski run is mostly sedge species (H) with grasses (L), mountain sorrel



93

(L) and huckleberry (Tr). It is to be noted that in the interior of the province, mountain sorrel is known as“grizzly bear ice cream.” At Papoose Junction (1662 m elevation), the ski run has green grasses andsedges. The adjacent mature subalpine fir/spruce/white rhododendron forest had a low to moderatedensity of huckleberry with a trace/low production of green fruits. A 300 m transect was made throughthe mature forest to the ridge and weather station area. The capability was very low with a trace ofhuckleberry. I saw a spring day bed with a pile of green vegetation scat over 2 months of age.

I then drove around the west side of Whistler Mountain following a branch road above Olympic Stationand eventually ended up back at the top at the Papoose Junction below the Visitor Centre. The first kmwas in a major area of second-growth from former clearcut logging. The new conifer growth is more openand as a result still has a moderate density of huckleberry with a moderate fruit production. Mountain-ashwas of trace density with a high production of green berries. Continuing south along the face of themountain, I spot checked habitat to the Orange Chair and runs and then drove up some very steep roads tothe top. There was major construction going on at “Highway 86.” Large areas of ski runs were poorlyvegetated while others had patches of grasses and horsetail that would attract bears. Some of the old-growth and mature forest on this side also had up to moderate densities of huckleberry. Some of the highbasins appeared to have moist green vegetation that would also attract bears.

Certainly, I only touched on some of the habitats in a very large area. Much more study is needed thatshould be tied into a detailed bear habitat map.

The 2004 habitat transects are summarized in the discussion section of this report from data in AppendixIII.

6. WHISTLER LANDFILL

General habitat description

The habitat description generally is similar to my lower Cheakamus River Trail transect.Overall the landfill is mostly adjacent to a second-growth coniferous forest that grew back from earlierlogging. There are also some mature and old-growth stands of western hemlock, redcedar and Douglas firin the general area. The landfill is just outside the south boundary of RMOW and proximal to theDemonstration Forest.

Habitat on the east side of the landfill was surveyed on August 12, 2003. Bear foods include:

-black huckleberry (L/L = ripe)-red huckleberry (L/L = ripe)-blueberry species (L/M = ripe)-red elderberry (Tr/H = ripe)-red-osier dogwood (Tr/M)-devil’s club (Tr/M = ripe)-thimbleberry (Tr/L = ripe)-salmonberry (Tr = berries over)-skunk cabbage (Tr)-grasses/sedges (Tr)-ants (L)



94

This habitat is of a trace-low seasonal capability to support black bears. The main attraction for bears isthe partial availability of human garbage despite some 8 years of bear-proofing efforts sponsored byRMOW.

Another factor is that some of the forest and shrubs adjacent to the east side of the landfill come down towithin 4 m of the fence and thus provide security habitat for black bears.

Following are my notes from various site inspections in 2003 & 2004. Throughout the spring, summerand fall of 2003 black bears were frequently observed to still be gaining access to garbage by diggingunder the fence or going through gates that were left open (Sylvia Dolson pers. comm.). This continuedinto 2004.

August 12/03

I did an inspection with Owen Carney and Sylvia Dolson. The new electric fence was installed in thespring around the main landfill site by Jeff Marley of Margo Supplies Ltd. It is constructed of treatedwooden posts with alternating negative and positive wires about 16 cm apart, charged by a solar-panelsystem. The gates are also designed to be bear-proof. On the date of my inspection, several sites werenoted where black bears had been attempting to dig under the fence, which only has compacted subsoil.Sylvia Dolson (pers. comm.) has already observed black bears within the electric fence. Apparently,Carney employees placed hard materials such as large rocks and chunks of pavement at the entry spots toblock them.

The glass compacting system and construction waste bin and building for sorting recyclables are notwithin the electric fence barrier. Nor is the truck washing station just behind the large warehouse.According to Sylvia Dolson (pers. comm.) some bears are still eating small amounts of crushed glasswhich has food/beverage residues. The bears are also going into the construction waste bins looking forhuman food wastes and obtaining small amounts of food residue at the waste truck washing station. Lastweek, she noted that one of the known bears obtained a salmon head and other food residues left at thetruck washing station. On this date there were 2-3 scats near the site (comprised of wild plant foods – nogarbage).

On August 12, 2003 I was also told by Owen Carney that they close the bin lids every night to keep bearsout but when I returned later that night, the bin lids were not closed.

August 15/03

The landfill site was visited at 6:15 p.m. No one else was at the site. I did a perimeter survey on the eastside using my bear research dog on a leash. There were 2 recent bear scats near the truck washing station.A subadult was observed in the woods near the southeast corner of the electric fence and the dog wasallowed to chase and tree it. Tracks indicated bears had been attempting to dig under the fence in the moreviable sites for entry.

October/03

Up to 12 black bears were observed inside the fence at one time (Sylvia Dolson pers. comm.).

Nov. 8/03



95

Two surveys were done, one at 2 p.m. and the other at night, at 7 p.m. I basically covered the east sidealong the edge of the woods and electric fence, using a dog-on-leash for bear detections. No bears werenoted.

Since my last visit in mid-August and as confirmed by reports from Sylvia Dolson, some bears havegained entry by digging under the fence. This was still evident at the northeast corner in 3-4 places and inseveral places along the east perimeter. Carney Waste staff have been working on the problem by layingout 2 m wide construction mesh on the ground adjacent to the outside of the electric fence and thencovering it with up to 15 cm of gravel fill. In some locations, the fence is overlapped inside for 20-30 cm.

I saw fresh tracks where bears were still crawling under the unrepaired sections. There were 2 adultcoyotes in the area, outside the fence. One of the gates on the south side had a wire slipped down thatneeds to be remedied. It is obvious that the new fence is being poorly maintained. In October, up to 12black bears were observed within the electric fence (Sylvia Dolson pers. comm.).

Winter/03-04

Apparently, a few of the bears that did not actively hibernate over the winter also fed on garbage,especially after the fence was deactivated for the winter.

April/04

In 2004, the season began with the fence not being effective in keeping out bears. On April 22/04 thefence was turned on but the 4 gates were left open at a time when bears were already active (SylviaDolson pers. comm.)..May-July/04

Bears were also constantly observed obtaining bags of food-waste garbage in the construction waste bins.This is not supposed to be put in this waste depot. In 2004 one of the bins had no lid on it and despitepromises form Carney, no lid was added and bears were still getting garbage in late July.

In both years, bears also frequently enter the open doors of the main recycling building and are chased outby staff.

July/04.

See main text for summary of several fence inspections, sourcing the problems and seeking a solution.Terrible maintenance problems continued from 2003 into 2004.



96

APPENDIX III. RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY BEAR HABITAT SURVEYS FOR CHRPMAPPING PROJECT IN RMOW FROM JULY 2004.

McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.Box 479, New Denver, British Columbia V0G 1S0Phone: 250-358-7796; e-mail: [email protected]

PROGRESS REPORT ON PHASE I, CHRP Whistler bear habitat mapping project

REVISED PROPOSAL - PHASE II – III TO COMPLETE the GIS BEAR HABITAT

MAP FOR the RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER (RMOW)

July 31, 2004

Background

In a recent bear hazard study for the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) I found that while humandevelopments have been extensively mapped and studied, no comprehensive bear habitat map has beendone for the area despite considerable field research and recent progress on minimizing black bear-humanconflicts (McCrory 2004). Bears have generally been found to utilize most of the developed and non-developed areas of RMOW, including green spaces and residential areas, school grounds, main coretourism facility zone, the hydro-line right-of-way, and intact and developed habitats on the Intrawest skihill areas of Blackcomb and Whistler Mountains. Intrawest in some areas has a program of improvingbear habitats on the ski hill. The ongoing hazard study recommends an ecosystem-based approach tofuture bear management as the best way to integrate the complex situations involving the extensive bear-human interface zone of RMOW. Such an approach, through detailed mapping of bear habitats (andcorridors), has been successful in broadening the understanding of bear ecology and bear-humaninteractions in other areas such as Yoho National Park (Lake O-Hara), south Garibaldi Provincial Park,core areas of Banff National Park and elsewhere.

In December 2003, I submitted a mapping project proposal to the Community Habitat Resources Project(CHRP) for phase I ($3,000, preliminary field work), phase II ($5,700, final field work and draft fieldmap) and phase III ($2,000, completion of final product). CHRP subsequently provided a grant of $3,000to the J.J. Whistler Bear Society for me to complete phase I. Field work and initial mapping was done inJuly 2004. Besides a progress update herein, I have attached 3 tables of the field sampling of bear habitatsdone in RMOW in July 2004. I am awaiting the TEM habitat rankings from MWLAP biologist TonyHamilton to start rating the TEM maps for RMOW.

I have also signed a protocol agreement with RMOW for the specific use of the TEM maps for thisproject.

Based on this and other interests in the map project, I am submitting a revised proposal for completion.Major changes to the initial proposal include working very closely to produce a Terrestrial Ecosystem(TEM) bear habitat map with input from MWLAP bear biologist Tony Hamilton along with RobynAppleton, a graduate student from Simon Fraser University (who is also doing the bear DNA study with



97

Michael Allen). The other change in the proposal will be a revised budget to utilize the GIS mappingservices of Tracy Howlett, CHRP Web Development Co-ordinator, to complete the final map product.

I am herein applying for the Phase II funding ($5,700) which will allow me to complete the remainder ofthe fieldwork necessary by October 15, 2004 and pay Tracy to develop a draft bear habitat map from theTEM digital files. Phase III funding ($2,000) is also required for the final production of the map to followafter the phase II draft map and habitat rating legend is done and reviewed.

Revised Proposal for completion (Phase II – III):

Thanks to phase I funding, we are now well on our way to designing the final product (phase II- III) - aGIS bear habitat map at 1:5,000 - 1:10,000 scale for RMOW. The map will show bear habitat units(BHUs) and their seasonal importance in special colour codes that will be easy to decipher. To achievethis, further ground-truthing will be required in September 2004 as only about 1/3 of the area was coveredby the phase I funding.

The initial ground-truthing transects in RMOW in July 2004 using a draft TEM (Terrestrial EcosystemMap) prepared for RMOW showed that adapting this map to a bear habitat map would be feasible andefficient and provide a standardized approach. However, to produce a reliable map product of bearhabitats at both a coarse- and fine-scale still requires the same amount of field work and costs.

Tony Hamilton, bear biologist with the provincial government (MWLAP), and the Whistler BearWorking Group indicated that Robyn, a Simon Fraser graduate student involved in the bear DNA hairstudy, also wished to now include the CHRP-sponsored GIS bear habitat map in her project. I met withTony Hamilton on July 19 and we agreed to work together to produce an initial draft of the bear habitatmap on a TEM base map. I will continue with the ground-truthing and Tony will provide me with bearhabitat conversion ratings from other TEM projects so that we can develop a standardized approach. I willcontinue with the bear habitat transects (ground-truthing) and Tony/Robyn will examine the TEMvegetation plot data to develop a corresponding bear food biomass rating for the different habitatpolygons. We will then combine our rating system for the final map production for CHRP (Phase III) bearhabitat map.

Phase III will also involve extra GIS work in creating new habitat polygons to address micro-habitats(small but important units) or specialized habitats (e.g. black bear denning areas) to the final map. Micro-habitats such as small green spaces downtown, for example, would be important to bear hazardconsiderations in developed areas, but which would be too lumped in the broader-brushed TEM bearhabitat polygons to be of management value at the finer-scale level. A GIS black bear denning mapsubzone would assist with considerations of ski hill developments and old-growth retentionconsiderations elsewhere.

I will continue dialogue with Michael Allen to integrate his denning habitat attributes into our final map.M. Allen’s den study project was funded by CHRP and his report was due in April 2004. Including a bearhabitat map based on M. Allen’s high, medium and low denning habitat potential will be an added bonusfor the project and may allow us to identify potential bear habitat throughout RMOW.

The final bear habitat map will be overlain with a human use sublayer showing all developments, existingand proposed. Using a 0.5 km zone of influence (ZOI) buffer, the map will segregate “pristine” habitat



98

zones from “developed” habitat zones to provide a better understanding of the relationship between thehabituated bears and what appears to be the “wild,” wary segment of the bear population.

The value of the map will be to:

1. Set the standards for an Ecosystem-Based approach to management of bear-human conflicts inRMOW by creating a “bear” map to be overlain by a human use map.

2. Enable use of the existing RMOW Terrestrial Ecosystem Map (TEM) database thereby utilizing astandardized system owned by RMOW.

3. Allow for more meaningful understanding of black bear ecology in RMOW, including how futuredevelopments might influence bear habitat values.

4. Provide a fully coordinated map system important for other bear research projects. This will beachieved through co-operation and integration with the provincial bear biologist (MWLAP) andthe Simon Fraser-Whistler Bear Project DNA hair study for black bears. Hopefully, in workingwith the CHRP results of M. Allen’s black bear denning attributes, also develop a TEM blackbear denning map for all of RMOW.

5. Allow for better, digitized mapping of bear-human incident data in order to better define andanalyze “hot spots” in relation to localized seasonal habitats and travel routes. I will work withTracy to ensure we develop a coded system so bear/conflict GPS locations can be directly plottedon the final bear habitat map.

6. Facilitate environmental impact assessments of proposed new developments.7. Facilitate habitat manipulation techniques to improve or reduce habitat values in relation to bear-

human conflict concerns.8. Allow for results of bear research to be better integrated.9. Facilitate future bear research.

Total Budget: $10,700 with $7,700 still required to complete project.

FINAL MAP PRODUCTS BY MARCH 31, 2005



99

TABLES OF BLACK BEAR HABITAT TRANSECT SURVEYS CONDUCTED JULY 13-23,2004. TRANSECTS CORRESPOND TO FIELD MAPS. CONVERSION TO TEM DATA UNITSWILL OCCUR ONCE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MWLAP. SOME 2003 HABITATTRANSECT DATA INCLUDED.

Table 1. Bear habitat ground-truthing surveys of Resort Municipality of Whistler, July 14 – 23/04 byMcCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) classification and seasonalbear habitat rankings. For habitat transect locations, please also refer to map. Whistler Mtn. ski area. July18, 2004. (See also August 2003).

Date, Areaand mapreference

Transect, dist.,GPS location

TEMclassn.

GeneralHabitatdescriptors

Bear food ratings& comments

Seasonal habitatratings/Bear sign

August/03July 18/04Lower Roadto OlympicStation

W-1 to W-2.Approx. 1.5 km

2nd growthlogged. Lowelevn. Nearclosed canopy,Dfir, hemlock

Glades

Vacc. spp.(Tr),thimbleberry(Tr/M)and red elderberry(Tr/H = ripe)

Grasses(H)-in seedred clover(L)white clover(L)horsetail(L), patchysedges(Tr)thimbleberry(Tr/L)trefoil(L)

Trace - all season.Mountain biketrail

Very large areaHigh early to mid-spring cap. Highbear useBears near village

July 18/04OlympicStation tokm 4.2approx.

W-2 to W-3.Approx. 2 km inglades and 2nd

growth

Same as abovefor both habitattypes

Trace – all seasonfor 2nd growth

Very high earlyspring to mid-summer for glades

Old-growthpatchAugust/03

W-4. just below road1/2 way along roadtransect

100 m in old-growthhemlock. 250+yrs.

Vacc. spp.(Tr) Trace-spring tomid-summerSome bear scats

July 18/04Km 4.2 tobaseEmeraldExpress

W-4 to W-5, about 1km of road in oldforest

Old-growthhemlock, 250+years.Some cedar &subalpine fir.Some thinning?Glades

3 Vacc. spp.(M)

Same as other areas.Vegetation more

Moderatecapability, mid-summer/summer

Highspring/summer



100

succulent “inseason” than belowglades

cap. Female and 2coy grazing ongreen plants,10:30 a.m.

July 18/04 W-5 to W-6, road &switchback area nearGreenacres

Old-growthmtn. hemlock-Amab.fir-whiterhodo.

Areas in triangle ofroad have lightthinning.Vacc.memb. &Vacc. oval. (M-H)Areas below roaddenser forest withlow Vacc. densities

Moderate-High inlate summer/fall

Low in latersummer/fall

July 18/04Road areato Chic PeaStation onridge

W-6 to W-7Elevn. = 1,662 m

Gladed areas

Old-growthSubalpinefir/spruce

Grasses(L-M),horsetail(L)Not well veg. untilnear topVacc. spp.(M)

Summer cap. = L.

Low cap. summer& fall.

August/03Road/skidtrail to neartop ofGreenacres

W-6 to W-11a0.5 km

Vacc.(H/M) Spr. = TrSummer = H,berryFall = M

August/03 W-8 area, traverse inold-growth to top ofGarbanzo Chair

Old-growth250+ age-classhemlock

July 18/04 W-7 Chic Pea areaon both sides downto Franz’s Chair area

Gladed runs

250+ age-classhemlock-subalpine fir-white rhodo.

Grasses(H)sedges(M)horsetail(M)Very succulentmoist sites

Vacc.(M)

Spr = SnowSummer = VHFall = LBit of tramplingevident on w. side,plus several recentgreen vegn. scats

July 18/04 New bike park In both semi-open moistareas and old-growth forestand on gladedruns

As above, upperarea of both trails inrelatively good bearhabitat

Intrawest staffmember said thata cub was hit bybiker about amonth ago nearbottom, but O.K.1,000 bikers yest.



101

August/03July 18/04

W-6 to W-10To RoundhouseLodge. 1,850 m attreeline

Subalpinemoist meadows(SF-lupine) andsubalpine heathmeadows

Grasses(M)sedges(L)hellebore(Tr)sorrel(Tr)Vacc.membr.(L)

Low quality Bb &Gb habitat, peopledominated

August/03 W-11, Greenacres Gladed runwith Vacc. left,small coniferremoval

Vacc.()FILL INFROM O3

July 18/04 W-11, Greenacres toHarmony Chair,road about 2 km

Old-growthmtn. hemlock-Amab.fir-whiterhodo.

HarmonyBasin, somewet areas

Vacc. membr. &Vacc. oval. (L-M)

Grasses(M)sedges(L)horsetail(L)hellebore(Tr)sorrel(Tr)Vacc.membr.(L)

Trace for spring,Low for summer& fall

No bear sign. Onedeer came andlicked at chaircentre.Low summer cap.

July 18/04 Harmony Chair,small road for about1 km towards nextbasin south

Old-growthsubalpinefir/spruce-whiterhodo.

Vacc.membr.(L) Low cap. Somegreen vegn. onroad

July 18/04 Next basin south,hiked ski bdy. roadto basin, 0.5 km

Subalpinefir/spruce-moistmeadows

Grasses(M)sedges(L)horsetail(L)hellebore(Tr)Vacc.membr.(L)

One recent greenvegn. scat

July 18/04 Basin area, skiboundary

Old-growthmtn.hemlock/firpatches withred heather

Vacc.membr.(L)and Vacc. ulg. neartrees. Some vacantareas

Looks likeDiamond headmajor berry area.Late berry = high

July 18/04 Traverse to mainbasin to s., 0.3 km

Old-growthspruce/fir

Vacc.membr.(L)hellebore(Tr)lupine

Low cap

July 18/04 Next basin area, wetmeadows, shortcircuit.Subalpine/alpine

Heathermeadows,wet meadows

Same as last areathat was similar

Low capability butareas below looklike have theprime Vacc.ulg./mtn. hemlock.Once was goodgrizzly country.No bear sign



102

Table 2. Bear habitat ground-truthing surveys of Resort Municipality of Whistler, July 14 – 23/04 byMcCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping classification and seasonal bearhabitat rankings. For habitat transect locations, please also refer to map. Table includes some areas at eastend of RMOW and Blackcomb Mountain ski zone.



TEMclassn.




July 14.LowerWedgeCreekForestServiceRoad

Approx. 1.5 km 2nd growthlogged. Lowelevn. Nearclosed canopy,Dfir, hemlock

Vacc. spp.(Tr), onroad is somethimbleberry(M/M)and red elderberry(Tr/H = ripe)

Trace - all season.Access road toGaribaldi. No barsign

July 14.LowerNorthSecret Trail

Lower 210 m. Justoff lower road

100 m in old-growthhemlock. 250+yrs.

3 Vacc. spp.(Tr) Trace – all season

“ 110 m onpowerline r/w.Disturbed

Kinnick.(M)Vacc.(L), red – Mnear ripe fruits, mtn.sameRasp.(Tr/L = ripe

Low, mid summerto fall. Spr = Tr.Powerline muchbetter permanentberry habitat thannearby old forest

July 14Lower SoosForestService Rd.

Lower areas, CougarMtn. Tours, Privategravel pit

Old-growthhemlock, 250+years inRMOW

Vacc. spp.(Tr) Trace capability

“ Log road on w. side,4.2 km

Logged. Mostly20+ years,lower. Uppercutblock loggedin 1991. Est.1200 m elev.

Low to middle hasVacc.spp.(L). Upperhas Vacc.(H). Veryimp. mid to highelevation berryhabitat.

This has low-mod.cap., mid summerto fall.Upper cutblockhas high, latesummer to fall.Better thanGreenacres.

July 17,BlackcombLot 9 –horse corralarea

B-1, 1 km circuit Gladed areasinclude. newOlympicfacility?

2nd growth,

Grasses(H), white &red clover(L),horsetail(L),trefoil(H)

Vacc. spp.(Tr).

Some areasmowed. Earlyspr.-early summercap. = H. Attractsbears near villageand/or away fromvillage.Trace cap.



103

closed canopy,Dfir, hem.

Some moist pocketsof dclub & horsetail

summer & fall.ATV trail inwoods

July 16,BlackcombMtn.

B-2 to B-3. Lower 2km access road

2nd growthlogged, Dfir,cedar, closedcanopy. Lowelevn.

Vacc.(L) Spr. = TrSummer = L,berryFall = L

B-3 to B-5. 3 –4 Skirun complex in 2.5km rd. area east toExcalibur Stn.

Gladed runs,grassy &mowed.Trefoil(M)-inbloom

Grasses(H)Horsetail(L)Red clover(L).Grasses mowed.Still succulent sites

Spr = HSummer = LFall = TrBit of tramplingevident. ATVtours

B-4. Old-growthsites. Below rd. 2small patches on w.side. One, 300 malong rd. above

250+ age-classhemlock

Vacc.(Tr) – somefruit

6 recent greenvegn. scatsincluding cub infirst two. Cool &shadedbedding/securityareas. ATV tours

ExceleratorStation

B-5.N 50 06.698W 122 55.385

Same gladedvalues asabove. Bench.Elev. = 3719 ‘

Same. Some bearsign

July 17HorstmanCr. rd.

B-5 to B-6. 1.5 kmHorstman Cr. rd. orBlackcomb/Glacierski run

250+ hem.1200 – 1300 m(map).Some sub. fircypressredcedar

Gladed runs

20-30 m widestrips below rd.

Road – 20 mwide

Vacc.(Tr)

Grasses(H)Fireweed(H)

Grasses(Tr)Hellebore(Tr)Fireweed(H)

Grasses(H), redclover(M), bit ofhorsetail

Trace berry cap.Denning = H.Large old-growtharea belowMod. cap.

High-earlysummer

Trace – did notenhance bearhabitat

High-earlysummer.Seclusion as littlevehicle traffic.10+ green vegn.scats, 2 wks.-fresh

July 17Solar

B-5 – B-7 (km 7.3corner

Glades in SolarCoaster area

Same as below.Good patches



104

CoasterArea to km7.3

Forest along rd.

Forest at 7.3km (7)

succulenthorsetail(L-)grasses(L)treefoil(H) – not abear food.

Same as below butmore subalpine fir

Subalpine fir –white rhod., matureVacc.membr.(L)hellebore(Tr)Sweet cic.(Tr)

Trace in berryseason

Low in berryseason. Other siteclosed in with nobear foods

Km 7.3 toExceleratorstn.

B-7 to B-8 Glades Sparsely veg., morealpinegrasses(L)Vacc.(Tr)

Low cap.

Above toGlacierCreekLodge

B-8 to B-9, Walked0.5 km

Glades. ArthurDeJong saidworked veryhard torevegetate thisway

Very lush & moistgrasses(H)sedges(L)horsetail(L-)

Very high summercap.10 fresh bb scats,high trampling &cropping sign.High use area thatis large. Dragged& clawedStyrofoam pads!Fresh

Upper roadtoBlackcombMtn., mainstn.

B-8 to B-10. About2 km.

Include little cub run

Glades

Bear cub run

Subalpinefir/spruce-whiterhodo. forest

Grasses(L)Vegn. sparse

Vacc.membr.(H)due to thinning

Vacc.membr.(L),density not uniform,some mod. patches

Low cap.

High in latersummer/fall.Interpret. SignLow-moderate inlater summer/fall.

BlackcombMtn. station

Alpine/subalpine,hiked area for 0.3km

Grasses &sedges(L), mtn.sorrel(Tr)Vacc.membr.(L)

Low capability,better on glades

BlackcombMtn. jcn. to7th HeavenExpresschair, road

B-10 to B-11, 1.5km. Bus route

Subalpinefir/spruce-whiterhodo. forest

Vacc.membr.(L),density not uniform,some mod. patches

Low-moderate inlater summer/fallOne large greenvegn. scat atstation. 2 garbagedumpsters, one



105

full of stinkygarbage. One toplid bent. One backlid – latch notworking. Bearmud pawprintson sides.

7th Heavenroads. July17/04

B-11 to B-12, hiked1 km up roads

Subalpinefir/spruce-whiterhodo. Forest

Glades

Vacc.membr.(M),density not uniform,some mod. patches

Mostly reveg. to firseedlings. Onlypartly veg.grasses(L)hellebore(Tr)Vacc.membr.(Tr)

Moderate in fallOne large greenvegn. scat nearbottom, 1 week

Trace/low cap.

Hiking trailin basin. W.side ofBlackcombMtn.

B-12 to B-13,About 1 km

Subalpinefir/spruce-heath. Somesmall wetlands

Grasses(L)sedges(L)hellebore(Tr)Vacc.membr.(L)include. some Vacc.ulg.

Low all seasoncap. Gb habitat.One dried veg. &berry? scat at startof trail. Last year.High for Bb



106

Table 3. Bear habitat ground-truthing surveys of Resort Municipality of Whistler, July 14 – 23/04 byMcCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping classification and seasonal bearhabitat rankings. For habitat transect locations, please also refer to map. Rainbow/Madely Trail. July 22,2004.



TEMclassn.




July 22/04.Lower trailfor 0.5 km-near watertank

Rb-1 to 20.5 km

Old-growthhemlock, 250+years.

Vacc. spp.(L) Trace cap. in fall.Values now areriparian/old-growth travelcorridor

July 22/04.Lower trailfor 2.0 km-just belowwater tankto end oflogged

Rb-2 to 32 km

2nd growthlogged. Lowelevn. Nearclosed canopy,Dfir, hemlockbut mixed withalder, verybrushy moisthillside

Vacc. spp.(L),thimbleberry(Tr/M)red elderberry (Tr/H= ripe)dclub(Tr/L-start toripemtn.ash(Tr)grasses(L)lady fern(L)horsetail(Tr)sedges(Tr)fSseal(Tr)red baneberry(Tr-berries ripe)

Moderate springand summer.Some foods maybe more availablealong roadway.Why no bear sign?

July 22/04.Mid trailfrom seralto nearrockslide

Rb-3 to 4Old-growthhemlock/cedarmoist forest1.5 km

Old-growthhemlock/cedar250+ yrs.

Grasses(L)horsetail(L)lady fern(L)sedges(Tr)skunk cabbage(M)

Moderate, latespring to mid-summerNice & cool &small wet areaswith succulentgrass/horsetail. Nobear sign

July 22/04.Mid trailfrom old-growthcedar towetlands& AP

Rb-4 to 5Old-growthsubalpine fir, somehemlock/cedarmoist forest0.5 km

Old-growth –White-rhodo.Vacc. type

Vacc. spp.(L)grasses(Tr)horsetail(Tr)lady fern(L)sedges(Tr)skunk cabbage(Tr)

Moderate, latespring to mid-summer. Berriescould be imp.grass/horsetail. Nobear sign

July 22/04.Upper trailthroughwetlands &

Rb-5 to 62 km, lots ofboardwalksGin & tonic bridge

3-4 Bogs,stunted yellowcedar/mtn.hem. Some red

Vacc. spp.(M),including Vacc. ulg.grasses(M)horsetail(L)

Very highlate spring tosummer for greenvegn. Berry



107

old-growthpatches toRainbowLake

Old-growthsubalpine fir, somehemlock/cedarmoist forest0.5 km

heather

Old-growth –Mtn.hem./subalpinefirWhite-rhodo.Vacc. type

sedges(L)

Vacc. spp.(M)grasses(Tr)horsetail(Tr)

season = moderateNo bear sign.Should be lots ofsignLow = berryseasonTrace for rest

July 22/04.RainbowLake area

Rb-6Subalpine fir/mtn.hem./redheather/Vacc.spp.

Below and insome nearbyareas

Red heathmeadows

Vacc. spp.(H),including Vacc. ulg.grasses(L)horsetail(Tr)sedges(L)

grasses(L)horsetail(Tr)sedges(L)

Prime habitat as atDiamond head inGaribaldi. Low forsummer, very highfor berry season.Prime subalpinelate season habitatLow capability



108

Documents

PRELIMINARY BEAR HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF RESORT …