Cover image captured by wildlife biologist Thomas Sharp at the Wildlife SOS Agra Bear Rescue Facility in India.
July 2026
BSG Publishes Paper on Threats to Bears and Efforts to Conserve Them
Click here for full Open Access article
The Bear Specialist Group contains the best informed and engaged professionals in the conservation of the world's 7 species of terrestrial bears. A survey of BSG members indicated that they perceived habitat loss, degradation, or fragmentation to be the primary threat for each bear species, and especially severe for sloth bears in India. Illegal hunting for trade (poaching) is most severe for sun bears and Asiatic black bears in Southeast Asia. Killing bears related to human–bear conflicts is a particularly high threat for Andean bears in South America. Climate change is likely to be a major future threat at high altitudes in the Andes and Himalayas.
Major threats of poaching (snaring), habitat loss, and human–bear conflicts. Photos: M-H Hwang, D. Garshelis, N. Dharaiya
BSG members strove to alleviate threats by employing the IUCN's conservation cycle: Assess, Plan, Act, Communicate, and Network. Members were most likely to implement a direct conservation action (Act) when a threat was high in their local area. However, funding, human capacity, and governmental support often dictated what they could do and how effective it was. Many BSG members in Asia were also engaged in the conservation of other species, so their conservation actions were not necessarily focused on bears. The IUCN Red List is another important source of information about threats and conservation actions, but our survey of BSG members yielded far more detailed information.
______________________________________________________________________________________
June 2026
Alaska Starts 4th Year of Aerial Shooting of Bears
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has started its 4th year of shooting brown bears, American black bears and wolves from helicopters and fixed wing aircraft on the calving grounds of the Mulchatna Caribou Herd (MCH ) in SW Alaska. The desired result from this program is to increase survivorship of caribou calves and ultimately allow herd growth and thereby increase caribou harvests by hunters.
The MCH experienced rapid growth in the 1990s to about 200,000 animals in 2000 and then declined to <15,000. The reasons for the eruption and subsequent decline in caribou are unknown.
Mulchatna caribou herd size and reported hunter harvests (from Alaska Dept. Fish & Game)
Research has shown that young caribou calves are vulnerable to bear predation. It is unknown, however, whether calves not killed by bears will survive to become adults. Potential other limiting factors include deteriorated habitat (possibly caused by overgrazing at maximum abundance and exacerbated by climate change) and disease (brucellosis and hoof rot).
Brown bears grazing. Photo by Alice Schermer, Katmai National Park and Preserve
The control area for bears has varied in size (1,373 km2 = 530 mi2 in 2025) and is included within a 103,600 km2 (40,000 mi2 ) area where wolf and bear predator control operations are authorized. The bear control area is adjacent to two National Wildlife Refuges and is within the potential range of the well-known brown bear viewing areas in Katmai National Park.
The Mulchatna predator control program is a component of geographically much more widespread efforts to reduce bears and wolves in Alaska by liberalizing hunting regulations for predators. Both programs are designed to increase the harvests of meat from moose, caribou and/or deer by Alaskan resident hunters.
The Bear Specialist Group recently submitted comments to the US Federal Register recommending against the adoption of a rule that would allow this sort of Intensive Management of bears inside National Preserves in Alaska managed by the US Park Service: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NPS-2026-0034-2581
Background and supporting material
ADFG. 2023. Annual report to the Alaska Board of Game on Intensive Management for Moose with Wolf, Black Bear, and Grizzly Bear Predation Control in Game Management Unit 19E. Feb. 2023. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/2023_gmu_19e_intensive_management_annual_report.pdf
ADFG. 2026. Annual report to the Alaska Board of Game on intensive management for Mulchatna Caribou with wolf and bear predation control in Game Management Units 9B, 17, 18, and 19A, B&E> Division of Wildlife Conservation, February 2026. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/web/nocache/research/programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/2026-annual-board-of-game-intensive-management-report-mulchatna-caribou-herd.pdf47AA32674D02AFFC4D2692464C905C61/2026-annual-board-of-game-intensive-management-report-mulchatna-caribou-herd.pdf
Bowyer, R.T., S.D. Miller, and D.K. Person. 2026. Tradeoffs among predator control, moose harvest, and trophy antlers: Principles pertinent to managing Alaska’s wildlife. Animals 16(3): 472, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16030472.
Hughes, Z. 2026. Judge allows state to kill southwest Alaska bears in bid to protect caribou this spring. Anchorage Daily News May 6, 2026. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/wildlife/2026/05/06/judge-allows-state-to-kill-southwest-alaska-bears-in-bid-to-protect-caribou-this-spring/
Miller, S.D., J.W, Schoen, and C.C. Schwartz. 2017. Trends in brown bear reduction efforts in Alaska: 1980-2017. Ursus 28:135-149.
Miller, S.D. 2023. Agency-conducted aerial shooting of bears in Alaska: Is it justified? International Bear News 32:18-20.
Ripple, W.J., S.D. Miller, J.W. Schoen, and S.P. Rabinowitch. 2019. Large carnivores under assault in Alaska. PLOS Biology 17(1). https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000090
______________________________________________________________________________________
May 2026:
Harm to grizzly bears if the US Forest Service Roadless Rule is eliminated
BSG Leadership visits Congressional members and participates in press conference
Chris Servheen, Co-chair of the BSG’s North American Bears Expert Team, participated in a 2-day effort to meet with members of the US Congress to promote the importance of roadless areas on US Forest Service lands. The US Forest Service’s politically appointed leadership has proposed to rescind (eliminate) the Roadless Rule. This Rule was established in 2001 to protect some areas of public lands from further road development. At that time, there was overwhelming public support for this rule.
The elimination of the roadless rule will have significant negative impacts on grizzly bears in the northern US Rocky Mountains where currently more than 34,000 km2 of grizzly bear habitat is protected from further road development. Grizzly bears are currently present in only 5% of their historic range in the conterminous US.
The US Forest Service currently has >426,000 km of roads. The Roadless Rule protects the last remnants of undisturbed wild habitat from road development for multiple wildlife species, including bears. If the roadless rule is eliminated, the remaining roadless lands would be opened to road building, mining and industrial logging.
Humans are the cause of most grizzly bear deaths and most bears killed illegally or mistakenly by humans are shot within 100 meters of a road. A study of 388 radio collared grizzly bears in Montana, Idaho, Washington, British Columbia and Alberta demonstrated that of the 99 radio-collared bears known or suspected to have died, humans killed 77-85%. Roads also cause habitat fragmentation and habitat loss.
This is why it is important to communicate the importance of maintaining the roadless rule to politicians.
Press conference in front of the US Capitol to support the Forest Service Roadless Rule. Representative Stansbury is speaking. NABET co-chair Chris Servheen is left of her in the dark blazer and cap.
Supporting Literature on Negative Effects of Roads on Grizzly Bears
Benn, B. and S. Herrero. 2002. Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks. Ursus 13:213–221.
Garshelis, D.L., M.L. Gibeau, and S. Herrero. 2005. Grizzly bear demographics in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country. Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:277–297.
Mace, R. D., and J. S. Waller, T. L. Manley, L. J. Lyon, and H. Zuuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395–1404.
Mace, R. D., et al. 2012. Grizzly bear population vital rates and trend in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:119-128.
Mattson, D. J., R. R. Knight, and B. M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:259–273.
McLellan, B. N. 1989. Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial resource extraction. III. Natality and rate of increase. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:1865–1868.
McLellan, B. N. 2015. Some mechanisms underlying variation in vital rates of grizzly bear on a multiple use landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:749–765.
McLellan, B. N., et al. 1999. Rates and causes of grizzly bear mortality in the interior mountains of British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Washington, and Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:911–920.
Proctor, M.F., et al. 2020. Effects of roads and motorized human access on grizzly bear populations in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. Ursus 2019 (30e2)
Schwartz, C. C., et al. 2006. Temporal, spatial, and environmental influences on the demographics of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs 161.
Schwartz, C. C., M. A. Haroldson, G. C. White. 2010. Hazards affecting grizzly bear survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:654-667.
Van Manen, F. T., et al. 2016. Density dependence, whitebark pine, and vital rates of grizzly bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 80:300–321.
______________________________________________________________________________________
created by: Zsuzsa Petró & Eliza Bányácskai, SóstóZoo Hungary
________________________________________________________________________________________
