The State of Knowledge about Grizzly Bears (Kakenokuskwe osow Muskwa (Cree), Ursus arctos) in Northern Manitoba

Abstract

Grizzly bears have been observed with increasing frequency in northern Manitoba, Canada over the last four decades (1980 – 2020), likely originating from the established population in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. We summarize and present an interdisciplinary synthesis of documented observations of grizzly bears in northern Manitoba from historical records from the Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, published literature, direct observations, remote camera observations, government agency reports, the first author’s field notes, volunteered observations, and media and social media reports. A total of 160 observations were recorded, 140 of them since 1980. Spatially, these observations all fall within the Southern Arctic, Hudson Plains, and Taiga Shield ecozones within Manitoba and span from the northern limit of Manitoba at the Nunavut border to the south shore of the Nelson River. Grizzly bears were historically present in northern Manitoba prior to 1980, though in very low numbers, but the frequency of observations has increased significantly since then. Most observations (86%) were less than 1 km from the Hudson Bay coast. Grizzly bears appear to select for open habitats and against forested ones. Reported observations, however, have been largely opportunistic, and the geographical distribution of observer efforts was uneven, so our data likely contain spatial and temporal biases. All confirmed observations were of single bears, suggesting that the present population is likely maintained by dispersal from the population to the north. Understanding grizzly bear ecology, distribution, and demographics north and west of Churchill will be critical for more accurately assessing the status and conservation needs of grizzly bears in the province.

Full text

ARCTIC
VOL. 75, NO. 1 (M ARCH 2022) P. 105 – 120
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic74922
The State of Knowledge about Grizzly Bears
(Kakenokuskwe osow Muskwa (Cree), Ursus arctos) in Northern Manitoba
Douglas Clark,1,2 Andrew F. Barnas,3 Ryan K. Brook,4 Susan N. Ellis-Felege,5 Lee-Ann Fishback,6 Jeff W. Higdon,7
Katie Manning,1 Danielle Rivet,8 James D. Roth,9 Vicki Trim,10 Matthew Webb11 and Robert Rockwell12
(Received 4 February 2021; accepted in revised form 13 August 2021)
ABSTRACT. Grizzly bears have been observed with increasing frequency in northern Manitoba, Canada over the last four
decades (1980 – 2020), likely originating from the established population in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. We
summarize and present an interdisciplinary synthesis of documented observations of grizzly bears in northern Manitoba
from historical records from the Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, published literature, direct observations, remote camera
observations, government agency reports, the rst author’s eld notes, volunteered obser vations, and media and social media
reports. A total of 160 observations were recorded, 140 of them since 1980. Spatially, these observations all fall within the
Southern Arctic, Hudson Plains, and Taiga Shield ecozones within Manitoba and span from the northern limit of Manitoba
at the Nunavut border to the south shore of the Nelson River. Grizzly bears were historically present in northern Manitoba
prior to 1980, though in very low numbers, but the frequency of observations has increased signicantly since then. Most
observations (86%) were less than 1 km from the Hudson Bay coast. Grizzly bears appear to select for open habitats and
against forested ones. Reported observations, however, have been largely opportunistic, and the geographical distribution of
observer efforts was uneven, so our data likely contain spatial and temporal biases. All conr med observations were of single
bears, suggesting that the present population is likely maintained by dispersal from the population to the north. Understanding
grizzly bear ecology, distribution, and demographics north and west of Churchill will be critical for more accurately assessing
the status and conservation needs of grizzly bears in the province.
Key words: grizzly bear; Hudson’s Bay Company; interdisciplinary; Manitoba; resource selection function; Ursus arctos
RÉSUMÉ. Au cours des quatre dernières décennies (1980 – 2020), de plus en plus de grizzlis ont été observés dans le nord
du Manitoba, au Canada, vraisemblablement en provenance de la population établie au Nunavut et dans les Territoires du
Nord-Ouest. Nous résumons et présentons une synthèse interdisciplinaire d’observations documentées de grizzlis dans le
nord du Manitoba à partir de dossiers historiques des archives de la Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson, d’ouvrages publiés,
d’observations directes, d’observations en provenance de caméras à distance, de rapports d’organismes gouvernementaux, de
notes prises sur le terrain par les principaux auteurs, d’observations participatives ainsi que de signalements prélevés dans les
médias et les médias sociaux. Dans l’ensemble, 160 observations ont été consignées, dont 140 depuis 1980. Du point de vue
géographique, ces observations ont toutes été faites dans les écozones du sud de l’Arctique, des plaines hudsoniennes et de
la taïga du Bouclier du Manitoba, allant de la limite nord du Manitoba à la frontière du Nunavut jusqu’à la rive sud du euve
Nelson. Les grizzlis étaient présents dans le nord du Manitoba avant 1980, bien qu’en très petits nombres, mais la fréquence
des observations s’est accrue considérablement depuis cette époque. La plupart des observations (86 %) ont été faites à moins
d’un kilomètre de la côte de la baie d’Hudson. Les grizzlis semblent opter pour les habitats ouverts au détriment des habitats
forestiers. Cependant, les observations signalées sont largement opportunistes et la répartition géographique des efforts des
1 School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5C8,
Canada
2 Corresponding author: d.clark@usask.ca
3 Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor, 2990 Riverside Drive West, Windsor, Ontario N9C 1A2,
Canada
4 College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8,
Canada
5 Department of Biology, University of North Dakota, 10 Cornell Street, Stop 9019, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202, USA
6 Churchill Northern Studies Centre, PO Box 127, Churchill, Manitoba R0B 0E0, Canada
7 Higdon Wildlife Consulting, 912 Ashburn Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3G 3C9, Canada
8 Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E2, Canada
9 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, 212B Bio-Sci Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada
10 Manitoba Conservation and Climate, 59 Elizabeth Drive, Thompson, Manitoba R8N 1X4, Canada
11 Wapusk National Park, PO Box 127, 1 Mantayo Seepee Meskanow, Churchill, Manitoba R0B 0E0, Canada
12 American Museum of Natural History, 200 Central Park West, New York, New York 10024, USA
© The Arctic Institute of North America

106 • D. CLARK et al.
observateurs n’était pas égale, ce qui signie que nos données sont vraisemblablement empreintes d’un biais spatial et d’un
biais temporel. Toutes les observations conrmées se rapportaient à des ours seuls, ce qui suggère que la présente population
découle probablement de la dispersion de la population du Nord. La compréhension de l’écologie, de la répartition et de la
démographie des grizzlis au nord et à l’ouest de Churchill jouera un rôle critique dans l’évaluation plus précise de l’état des
grizzlis et de leurs besoins en conservation au sein de la province.
Mots clés : grizzli; Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson; interdisciplinaire; Manitoba; fonction de sélection des ressources; Ursus
arctos
Traduit pour la revue Arctic par Nicole Giguère.
INTRODUCTION
Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) have a circumpolar
distribution and are commonly found in mountain, tundra,
and boreal forest environments (Schwartz et al., 2003;
McLellan et al., 2017). In the Canadian Arctic their range
appears to have increased in recent decades (Doupe et al.,
2007; COSEWIC, 2012; Fawcett et al., 2018). While this is
popularly described as a recent unidirectional change (e.g.,
Struzik, 2015), which it may be, the historical distribution
of grizzly bears in the Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic is
not well understood and some authors have suggested that
it may have expanded and contracted previously (Baneld,
1959; Harington et al., 1962).
In northern Manitoba, grizzly bears have been observed
with increasing frequency over the past four decades,
particularly within Wapusk National Park (WNP) (Clark,
2000; Dubois and Monson, 2004; Rockwell et al., 2008;
Clark et al., 2018; Barnas et al., 2020). Those bears most
likely originated from established populations to the
northwest in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories since
there is no known source population to the south or directly
west, and eastward is ocean (Clark, 2000). Little is known
about the ecology or population status of this species in
northern Manitoba. Indeed, many range maps do not even
show this area as historical grizzly bear range (Baneld,
1977; Banci, 1991; Ross, 2002; McLellan et al., 2017),
though one exception is the COSEWIC (2012:8) species
status assessment. Earlier scientic literature documents
their presence only in southern Manitoba before the
species’ apparent extirpation from the province in the early
1900s (Sutton, 1967). The only known literature mentioning
grizzly bears from northern Manitoba indicates absence
(Preble, 1902). During his eldwork in 1900, Preble asked
specically about grizzly bears at Fort Churchill but said
the local ofcial in charge of the Fort “knew nothing of
such a species” and concluded that “If this animal extends
its range to the vicinity of Hudson Bay it must be very
rare” (Preble, 1902:64). Dunning (1998:83) includes one
trapper’s observations of tracking grizzly bears northwest
of Churchill and seeing occasional grizzly hides harvested
by Inuit, but does not specify when, or whether those
observations were in Manitoba or in adjacent Nunavut.
Similarly, the causes of recent grizzly range expansion
across the Arctic are not known. While there may well be
a causal linkage with a warming regional climate (e.g.,
Struzik, 2015), this link has not been established, nor have
the proximate mechanisms for such effects been identied.
Nonetheless, the establishment of grizzly bear populations
in previously (or at least recently) unoccupied areas can
have consequences for both northern communities that
must coexist and cope with grizzly bears on the land and
for wildlife managers who must navigate new situations
where community concerns may become acute (Clark
and Slocombe, 2011; Fawcett et al., 2018). In 2017, grizzly
bears in western and northern Canada, represented as a
single designated unit, were listed as a species of “special
concern” under the federal Species at Risk Act (Government
of Canada, 2002) and remain listed as extirpated under
Manitoba’s Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act
(Government of Manitoba, 2022) since there is no evidence
to date of an established breeding population in the
province (Clark et al., 2018).
Given this dynamic situation, there are important
pragmatic and scientic reasons for better understanding
the state, drivers, and potential future of grizzly bear
populations where they are establishing themselves across
northern Canada. Our objective here is to contribute to
that goal by synthesizing the current state of knowledge
on grizzly bears in northern Manitoba. Specically, we
1) examine historical fur trade data for information on
relative abundance and distributions, 2) summarize recent
sightings of grizzly bears (since 1980) reported in the
primary literature, gray literature, and personal accounts,
and 3) present a preliminary analysis on the relationship
between geographic habitat features and recent grizzly bear
sightings.
METHODS
Study Area
Our 191,000 km2 study area (referred to here as
“northern Manitoba”) includes the Hudson Plains, Southern
Arctic, and Taiga Shield terrestrial ecozones within the
province of Manitoba (Fig. 1). The area represents a broad
ecological transition zone from boreal forest to low Arctic
tundra (Shilts et al., 1987; Brook, 2001; Jefferies et al.,
2003). Hudson Bay has a dramatic effect on the climate
and vegetation of the study area, which is characterized
by long cold winters and short cool summers. Fire is

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS • 107
common throughout the treed areas (Richardson et al.,
2007). Topography is generally at (0 – 500 m above sea
level), and the area is underlain by extensive continuous
and discontinuous permafrost (Dredge and Nixon, 1992).
The study area includes WNP and the Churchill Wildlife
Management Area (CWMA). Diverse wildlife occupies the
study area including the western Hudson Bay population
of polar bears (U. maritimus) during the ice-free and
winter maternity period, resident eastern migratory
caribou (Rangifer tarandus) of the Cape Churchill and
Penn Island populations, the winter range of the migratory
Qamanirjuaq caribou herd, wolves (Canis lupus), moose
(Alces americanus), and black bears (U. americanus) (Clark
et al., 2018). Human density is very low at 0.19 individuals/
km2 in the study area and is concentrated in Gillam (1265
residents), Shamattawa (1019), Churchill (900), and the Fox
Lake Cree Nation (500) (Statistics Canada, 2017a, b).
Types of Data
We aggregated and synthesized multiple types
of observations from available sources known to all
co-authors to quantitatively and qualitatively describe
spatial and temporal trends in grizzly bear observations in
northern Manitoba.
Historical Occurrence: Fur Trade Records: Fur trade
records from northern Manitoba were used in a preliminary
assessment of the historical status of grizzly bears in this
area. Archival data on the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC)
fur trade are available at the HBC Archives (HBCA) at
FIG. 1. All conr med a nd spatially referenced grizzly bear occur rences in northern Manitoba (1980 – 2020, n = 133). Blue lines indicate provincial Wild life
Management Area boundaries, red line indicates Wapusk National Park boundary.

108 • D. CLARK et al.
the Archives of Manitoba in Winnipeg. We compiled
records of bear hides listed as “grey” (Elton, 1954) or
“grizzle” for the Churchill, Nelson River, York Factory,
and Severn posts. Our primary source of information was
the District Fur Returns kept and compiled by the HBC’s
Northern Department headquarters at York Factory. Data
on fur acquisitions are recorded by “outt,” which were
recorded from 1 June of one year to 31 May of the next
(outt 1821 reported records from 1 June 1821 to 31 May
1822). Fur data was obtained in seven different les for the
period from outt 1821 to 1891, with some overlap in the
different records (HBCA, 1842, 1846, 1860, 1869, 1875,
1892a, b). These fur trade records start with outt 1821 (the
year the HBC merged with its biggest rival, the Montreal-
based North West Company) and include furs from all the
various fur trade districts in the Northern Department,
with districts ranging from Alberta to Ontario (Bumsted,
1999). We also compiled data for outts 1901 to 1909 using
fur packing accounts (HBCA, 1909) and fur books (HBCA,
1910) from the Churchill post (with incomplete coverage for
all years and all posts; see Results). We are not aware of any
archival materials that summarize HBC fur trade returns
for outts 1892 to 1900. The time period we consider in
this initial assessment does not cover the entirety of the fur
trade history in northern Manitoba, which extended from
the late 1600s to the mid-1900s.
Incidental Observations of Grizzly Bears in
Manitoba from Primary Sources: More recent grizzly
bear observations by researchers and government
personnel in northern Manitoba were incidental to other
efforts, but nonetheless were often recorded because of
their novelty (Clark, 2000; Rockwell et al., 2008). Grizzly
bear observations were requested from past and present
researchers operating in the area and known to the authors,
Manitoba Conservation, the Canadian Wildlife Service’s
polar bear project, and Parks Canada. Information
requested about each observation included data type (e.g.,
personal observation, camera trap images), date, location
(with latitude and longitude coordinates if they were
known), bear behaviour, observer, and data ownership. We
included all known remote camera photos of grizzly bears
from the rst authors’ own eld research, the Hudson Bay
Project, and Parks Canada. Following Laforge et al. (2017)
and Clark et al. (2018), we considered all photos of a bear
taken by any camera at the same site (many sites have more
than one camera) within an hour of each other as a single
bear observation. We also included observations made
during the Hudson Bay Project’s standardized waterfowl
survey ights since the early 1970s, own by helicopter at
100 m above ground level approximately 250 m inland from
the coastline from Watson Point, east to Cape Churchill,
and south to the Owl River. While primarily focussed
on monitoring Lesser Snow Geese (Anser caerulescens
caerulescens), all bear species encountered were typically
recorded.
Documented Local Observations, Oral Histories, and
Indigenous Knowledge: Although we did not conduct any
systematic efforts to record oral histories or Indigenous
knowledge, some such information has already been
documented (e.g., Clark, 2000; Rockwell et al., 2008).
A study of Cree place names (M’Lot, 2002) recorded
numerous references to a range of wildlife species, but no
references to grizzly bears were identied. However, the
rst author’s eld notes, journals, and email correspondence
contain a number of rst- and secondhand grizzly bear
observations that community members voluntarily shared
between 1997 and 2019, and these are included here.
Data Management and Analysis: All occurrences
were categorized by data type and collated in an Excel
spreadsheet. Observations were categorized as conrmed
or unconrmed based on whether any of the distinguishing
physiognomic features of grizzly bears could be (or were)
identified, including shoulder hump, concave face, or
long forefoot claws. This distinction in observation type
was made for consistent comparison with Clark (2000)
and Rockwell et al. (2008), but oral history and rst-
hand observations that the recording author judged to be
from reliable sources were also classied as conrmed
observations. Similarly, locations of observations were
categorized based on their precision as unknown, low
(described with an imprecise but mappable reference to
a known place, estimated to be within 1 km), or high
(with geographical coordinates provided or a precise
reference to a known place). The temporal trend in grizzly
observations was examined using a linear regression with
all occurrences pooled and the year they occurred. Maps
were produced using ArcGIS Desktop 10.6 and show the
conrmed observations with low and high location classes.
Similarly, we only performed quantitative analyses on
conrmed locations. We did not quantify observer effort,
but its potential effect is discussed below.
We conducted a habitat selection analysis for all
confirmed observations (1980 – 2020) using resource
selection ratios (resource use/resource availability) and
comparing used points (locatable grizzly bear observations,
n = 133) and available points (locations randomly
distributed throughout the study area, n = 500) (Manly et
al., 2002) based on the formula:
wi = oi/πi
where oi is the proportion of the ith habitat variable at
used sites, and πi represents the proportion available of the
covariate, as determined by randomly generated locations
throughout the study area. Selection ratios (SR) for each
habitat variable were compared using Bonferroni-corrected
condence intervals for multiple comparisons (Manly et al.,
2002). The threshold for selection is 1. If use of resource
is greater than it is available (i.e., selection) then the SR is
above 1. If the SR is less than 1, the category is used less
than available (i.e., avoided), and if the SR = 1, the resource
is used at the same proportion as it is available (i.e., neither
selected nor avoided). Habitat analysis was based on 13
types dened within the study area in the 2015 land cover

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS • 109
map of Canada (Latifovic, 2019) that were reclassied to
nine classes to remove extremely rare classes and aggregate
others that were similar in nature.
RESU LTS
Historical Occurrence: Fur Trade Records
The available fur trade record for the period 1821 to
1909 includes 13 “grey” or “grizzle” bear hides from the
Churchill and York Factory posts, with almost all (n = 12)
from Churchill. The HBC District Fur Returns (HBCA,
1842, 1846, 1860, 1869, 1875, 1892a, b) include data on
grizzly bear hides secured for the period 1821 to 1891
for fur trade posts and districts from Alberta to northern
Ontario. Data from northern Manitoba are available in
return data for the Nelson River, Churchill, and York
Factory posts, and we also examined data from Fort Severn
in northern Ontario. The Churchill packing account for
outts 1901 – 09 (HBCA, 1909) and fur book for 1903 – 10
(but the record ends in 1909) (HBCA, 1910) provide some
additional data for Severn, Churchill, and York Factory,
with variable coverage for the different posts (Table 1).
Data for the Severn post were available for outfits
1821 – 91, 1900, 1904, and 1908 (n = 74 outts), with no
“grey” or “grizzle” bear hides recorded. Similarly, no
such bears were recorded from Nelson River for the outts
1821 to 1845 (n = 25) (no data recorded in the ledgers for
subsequent outts). Churchill data were available for outts
1821 – 91 and 1902 – 08 (n = 78 outts), and coverage for
York Factory included outts 1821 – 91, 1901, 1904, and
1909 (n = 74 outts) (Table 1). Three grizzly bear hides
were secured by the HBC in Churchill and York Factory in
the mid- to late 1830s: one “large grizzle” at York Factory
in outt 1836, and one each in outts 1838 and 1839 at
Churchill (HBCA, 1842, 1846). The outt 1839 Churchill
record (a “grizzle large”) was also included in the Churchill
general account book for outt 1839 (HBCA, 1840) (no
account book is available for outt 1838). No other details
are available. These three grizzly bear hides were secured
in a four-year period from outt 1836 (1 June 1836 – 31 May
1837) to outt 1839 (1 June 1839 – 31 May 1840). No other
grizzly bear hides were recorded in the District Fur Returns
for these posts, despite a continuous record spanning a
further 50+ years for Churchill and York Factory. There is
a gap in the available fur trade record following the end of
the District Fur Returns series (HBCA, 1842, 1846, 1860,
1869, 1875, 1892a, b) in outt 1891. Some limited data for
the trading posts of interest are reported in Churchill fur
account les from the early 1900s (HBCA, 1909, 1910).
These records show 10 “grey bear” hides procured at
Churchill in outt 1908 (HBCA, 1909). No additional
details were reported, so these hides might have been
procured outside northern Manitoba.
Observations since 1980
A total of 160 observations of grizzly bears were
documented since 1980 and these occurrences increased
signicantly between 1980 and 2020 (R2 = 0.60, df = 40,
p < 0.001). These include 149 conrmed observations and
11 unconrmed (mostly secondhand), with 133 (89.3%) of
the conrmed observations having precise dates (Tables 2
and 3). The low number of observations in 2020 was due to
a reduction in eldwork because of COVID-19. Only one
observation was of a female with cubs; otherwise, there
have been no recently documented observations of grizzly
bears breeding in northern Manitoba. That observation is
considered unconrmed because the presence of breeding
within the province would trigger a review of the species’
status (Clark et al., 2018) so conrming such observations
requires the highest standards of proof. Although the
observer was unquestionably experienced, this observation
lacked important details, and no photos were taken. Two
grizzly bears have been documented as shot, and two have
been relocated by Manitoba Conservation to ameliorate
conicts with people; all four of these bears were adult
males.
Grizzly bears have primarily been observed in the
Hudson Plains and Southern Arctic ecozones, while no
observations in the Boreal Shield zone were recorded (Fig.
1). Observations of grizzly bears have increased rapidly
across northern Manitoba since 1980, with signicant
geographic spread south and west from the locations of the
earliest observations. Most observations have been within
TABLE 1. Records of grizzly (“grey” or “grizzle”) bear hides secured by the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) between 1821 and 1909 at
the Nelson River, Churchill, and York Factory posts in northern Manitoba and at Fort Severn in northern Ontario.
Post Outts with data1 Grizzly bear records Details
Severn 1821 – 91, 1900, 1904, 1908 (n = 74 outts) None None available.
Nelson River 1821 – 45 (n = 25 outts) None No longer recorded on ledgers post-1845.
Churchill 1821 – 91, 1902 – 08 (n = 78 outts) 12 hides One hide in outt 1838, another (“grizzle large”) in outt 1839
(HBCA, 1840, 1842, 1846). Ten “grey bear” hides recorded in
1908, no fur ther information available (HBCA, 1909).
York Factory 1821 – 91, 1901, 1904, 1909 (n = 74 outt s) One hide One “large grizzle” hide in outt 1836 (H BCA, 1842, 1846).
1 An outt is the time period around which the HBC str uctured its trade (https://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/hbca/glossaries.html).
Outts ran from 1 June of one calendar year to 31 May of the next (e.g., outt 1821 ran from 1 June 1821 to 31 May 1822) (Archives
of Man itoba).

110 • D. CLARK et al.
1 km of the Hudson Bay coast, with a mean distance from
the coast of 11 km, minimum of 0 km, modal distance of 0
km, and maximum of 352 km. The increase in frequency
of observations in the Hudson Plains ecozone by decade
is revealing, with observations more than doubling every
decade since the 1980s (Table 3). That trend holds even
when subtracting the 49 remote camera observations
from the most recent decade’s total, which make up 50%
of observations. All conrmed observations took place
between 13 April and 16 September. Grizzly bears were
observed each month between April and September, with
the greatest proportion of observations occurring in June
(54/117, 46%), July (31/117, 26%), and August (18/117,
15%) (Table 4). Limitations and potential biases of these
observations may inuence our interpretations, discussed
below.
Documented Oral Histories and Indigenous Knowledge
There is a Swampy Cree name for grizzly bears,
taught to the rst author in York Landing, Manitoba:
“Kakenokuskwe osow Muskwa” (“brown bear with long
claws,” underlining in original notes to denote syllable
emphasis; D. Clark eld notes, 15 September 1998). A York
Landing resident shared that his mother-in-law remembered
her elders talking about grizzly bears, called “humpbacked
bear”, which were found to the north (D. Clark eld notes,
15 September 1998). One lifelong Churchill resident said
her “mother-in-law said they used to see & shoot grizzly
bears in the ‘50s & ‘60s - FN [First Nation] people said,
‘nothing new when we started seeing them, thought it was a
lot of fuss about nothing.’” (D. Clark eld notes, 5 October
2015, underlining in original notes). In other words, recent
observations of grizzly bears by wildlife managers and
scientists are in agreement with what Indigenous people
alr eady k new.
Habitat Use
Habitat selection associated with the mapped grizzly
bear locations (n = 133) in the study area indicated that the
bears primarily selected for unvegetated habitats (primarily
the Hudson Bay intra- and supra-tidal zone; SR = 7.6),
barren lands (relict gravel and sand beach ridges, SR = 2.5),
lichen moss tundra (SR = 1.9), water (SR = 1.7) although
we believe this is an artifact rather than active selection,
and coastal wetlands (SR = 1.3) (Fig. 2). These observations
indicate selection against three habitats, all with trees
of various types and densities, including forest-tundra
(SR = 0.6), mixed forest (SR = 0.4), and spruce forest
(SR = 0.08), though data limitations and potential biases
may influence these interpretations and are discussed
further below. Only one habitat was neither selected nor
avoided: deciduous shrub (SR = 1.3).
DISCUSSION
Fur trade records and shared local and Indigenous
knowledge corroborate one another and make a strong case
for the historical presence of grizzly bears in the region.
Based on observations to date, grizzly bears appear to have
been historically present in very low numbers in northern
Manitoba but have been observed markedly more often in
the same three ecozones since the 1990s, especially near
the Hudson Bay coast. It is possible that some grizzly bear
TABLE 3. Distribution of all conrmed and locatable grizzly bear occurrences temporally by decade (1980 – 2020) and spatially by
ecozone.
Decade Southern Arctic Taiga Shield Hudson Plains Boreal Shield Total
1980 – 89 1 0 1 0 2
1990 – 99 2 0 3 0 5
2000 – 09 4 1 13 0 18
2010 – 19 3 3 97 0 103
2020 2 1 2 0 5
Total 12 5 116 0 133
TABLE 2. Summary of grizzly bear observations in northern Manitoba from 1980 to 2020, by type. Some observations were categorized
as more than one type, so the column numbers sum to greater than the total number of observations.
Observation type Number
1. Documented direct observations (with photos or eld notes by the observer) 77
2. Remote camera observations (may be > 1 photo) 50
3. Bear observation and incident repor ts from Parks Canada or Manitoba Conservation1 4
4. Local observations voluntarily shared with the rst author and descr ibed in dated eld notes 25
5. Local observations recalled and voluntarily shared during preparation of this report 3
6. Media reports and social media 3
7. Observations published in peer-reviewed and grey literature 2
8. Archival sources 13
1 Only conrmed observations were provided by these agencies.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS • 111
TABLE 4. Monthly frequency of conrmed and locatable grizzly bear obser vations where month was known, 1980 – 2020.
Month Southern Arctic Taiga Shield Hudson Plains Boreal Shield Total
April 0 0 3 0 3
May 0 0 9 0 9
June 5 2 47 0 54
July 3 1 27 0 31
August 0 0 18 0 18
September 1 1 0 0 2
Total 9 4 104 0 117
hides received by the HBC may have been recorded as
“brown” or “black” bears, so while these records of “grey”
and “grizzle” bear hides indicate presence, they represent
only the minimum number of grizzly bears incorporated
into trade records.
Population Dynamics
Our data suggest an increase in grizzly use across our
study area in recent years, though further research would be
needed to conrm such an increase. Only one unconrmed
observation suggested breeding may be occurring.
Consequently, inferences about population dynamics are
limited since all recent conrmed observations of grizzly
bears in Manitoba have been of lone animals, though
certainly more than one over time. The maximum assumed
life expectancy for barren-ground grizzly bears is 30 years
(McLoughlin et al., 2002), so even though some individual
bears have been observed more than once (Clark et al., 2018;
Barnas et al., 2020), clearly not all observations here could
have been of the same animal. Indeed, three publications
document observations of more than one grizzly in the
same year. Rockwell et al. (2008) saw two different and
distinguishable bears in 2008. Clark et al.’s (2018) remote
camera data clearly show a large mature male and a smaller-
framed bear of undetermined sex (Fig. 3a, b, c). Barnas
et al. (2020) observed two different grizzly bears in 2016,
distinguishable by a pronounced facial scar on one. In 2018,
when photos were exchanged with provincial conservation
ofcers in Churchill, it was determined that a grizzly they
had recently caught at Goose Creek was not one that had
been seen on the remote cameras (D. Clark, pers. comm.
FIG. 2. Habitat selection associated with spring, sum mer, and fall pooled grizzly bear occurrences in norther n Manitoba (1980 – 2020, n = 133) based on selection
ratios (SR) and 95% Bonfer roni-corrected condence inter vals. The red li ne represents an SR of 1. An SR − CI > 1 indicates that each habitat type is selected
for. When SR ± CI overlaps with 1, the habitat type is neither selected for or against, and when the SR + CI < 1, the habitat type is used less than available, i.e.,
avoided.

112 • D. CLARK et al.
2018). The muzzle scars on the captured bear did not match
those in the photos of the bear with the prominent rostral
scar noted in Barnas et al. (2020) either.
The population of grizzly bears in northern Manitoba
has probably been established and maintained by the
immigration of individual animals. Many observations
FIG. 3. Grizzly bear photographs taken in northern Manitoba: a – c) Grizzly bears traveling near permanent fenced camps in Wapusk National Park (photos:
Douglas Clark); d) Grizzly at an observation tower, Wapusk National Park (photo: Parks Canada); e) A grizzly predating a Lesser Snow Goose nest, La Perouse
Bay (photo: Andrew Barnas); f) A polar bear successfully defending a marine mammal carcass from an approaching grizzly bear, Kiask Island, 2013 (photo:
Robert Rockwell).

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS • 113
from in and around WNP are of mature males as well as
smaller bears (which may be either subadults or adult
females), consistent with an immigration-driven grizzly
population. Given the very large home range of barren-
ground grizzly bears in the central Canadian Arctic (> 6000
km2, McLoughlin et al., 1999; Gau et al., 2004), the grizzly
bears observed in northern Manitoba are very likely part of
a larger continuous regional population whose boundaries
are not known. McLellan and Hovey (2001) observed that
grizzly bear emigration is typically driven by dispersal of
subadult male bears, which typically disperse twice as far
as females, and it is a multiyear process, not a single event.
Since the likely direction of immigration is southeast out
of Nunavut, understanding grizzly bear demographics
northwest of Churchill, where there are currently very few
observations and relatively little observer effort, will be
critical for accurately understanding the status, trends, and
population dynamics of grizzly bears in the province.
Grizzly bear population density in Manitoba cannot be
estimated from our data, nor do the data yield insights into
the proximate mechanisms driving apparent immigration
from adjacent Nunavut. Efford et al. (2018) conducted
a genetic mark-recapture density estimation for grizzly
bears in the Kivalliq region, Nunavut, immediately north
of the Manitoba border. They estimated 3.51 bears/1000
km2, extrapolated to a population of 662 bears (95% CI
385 – 1135 bears). Their entire study area was within two of
the ecozones, Taiga Shield and Southern Arctic, that extend
into Manitoba and are occupied by grizzly bears. However,
it is not known whether the same densities might be found
in northern Manitoba and this question deserves further
research.
Grizzly Bear Ecology
Seasonality and environmental uctuation determine
life history traits in grizzly bears (Ferguson and
McLoughlin, 2000). Therefore, in the highly seasonal,
variable, and generally low-productivity environment of
northern Manitoba, it would be surprising if grizzly bears
inhabiting it weren’t efcient at locating the highest-quality
food sources and denning sites across the large area in
which they have been observed. The grizzly bears observed
usually appeared in good shape physically, though body
condition was not quantied or assessed systematically.
Only two observed or reported bears appeared to be in
poor condition: the adult male relocated from Churchill in
2018 and the apparent subadult seen associated with a den
within WNP near Carey Lake in 2013, which appeared lean
to the two experienced local observers. That sighting is the
only direct evidence of denning that has been observed
in Manitoba. The two observations in mid-April are
considerably earlier than the average date of den emergence
in the central Canadian Arctic, which is typically late April
for males and early May for females (McLoughlin et al.,
2002). McLoughlin et al. (2002) also found that grizzly
bears in their study area typically entered dens in the
second half of October. Nagy et al. (1983) observed similar
emergence dates in the western Arctic but den entry in
early October. Selection for denning habitat could inuence
grizzly bear distribution in autumn, but this cannot be
assessed without knowing more about what habitats and site
attributes they actually use for dens in this region. The one
apparent den observation was in an area underlain by peat,
which is abundant in the Hudson Plains ecozone. Nagy et
al. (1983) documented grizzly bears denning in a peat bank
and even using snow dens in the western Arctic, similar
to what pregnant female polar bears do in our study area
(Clark et al., 1997; Scott and Stirling, 2002; Richardson et
al., 2005). However, McLoughlin et al. (2002) found that
grizzly bears sought out well-drained esker, heath tundra,
and spruce forest habitats for denning. These habitats are
also abundant in northern Manitoba but especially inland,
west of the Hudson Bay Railway (Dredge and Nixon, 1992).
Since none of the observations in our study are after
mid-September, there is likely at least a month’s time when
grizzly bears remain active but have not been recorded in
Manitoba. This lack of observations should not be taken to
indicate that they are not present in Manitoba during that
time or do not den in the province, although some may not.
It is notable that the Canadian Wildlife Service’s polar bear
biologists conrmed that they have not yet seen a grizzly
bear during their extensive helicopter-based fieldwork
throughout WNP and the CWMA from late August through
September, which occurred annually since the 1970s. The
grizzly bear observation that occurred latest in the year
from that specic area was 25 August. Consequently,
although this particular lack of observations doesn’t prove
that grizzly bears were absent from that area in autumn, it
is suggestive and also consistent with remote camera data,
which are collected year-round (Clark et al., 2018).
Most observations took place in spring and summer, on
or very near the Hudson Bay coast (Fig. 1). Coasts provide
a diversity of food resources, both observed and potential.
Grizzly bears are generalist omnivores (Coogan et al., 2014)
but observations of specic food resources being consumed
by grizzly bears in northern Manitoba are limited. The most
comprehensive are Barnas et al.’s (2020) 24 observations
of Lesser Snow Goose and Common Eider (Somateria
mollissima) nest predation in WNP (Fig. 2e). In years when
both grizzly and polar bears were detected feeding on nests
in waterfowl colonies, grizzly bears were detected earlier
in the year than polar bears. This nding indicates that
grizzly bears are making use of waterfowl eggs as a food
resource in coastal Manitoba and may have implications
for the use of terrestrial resources by polar bears. Two
observations were of grizzly bears feeding on subadult
polar bears but in those cases neither observer could
conclusively determine whether the grizzly bears had killed
them, though the details of one case strongly suggested so.
Grizzly bears are known to have killed and consumed polar
bears on the sea ice in the western Arctic (Taylor, 1995) and
typically dominate polar bears when they interact on shore
in Alaska (Miller et al., 2015). These two observations

114 • D. CLARK et al.
contrast though with Rockwell’s 2013 observation of an
adult male polar bear successfully deterring an approaching
grizzly that appeared attracted to an unidentiable marine
mammal carcass the polar bear was standing on (Fig. 2f).
One observation was made of a grizzly eating a beluga
whale (Delphinapteras leucas) carcass. Ballard et al. (1993)
mentioned beluga carcass – scavenging in Kotzebue Sound,
Alaska, but did not provide any details. Similarly, Edwards
et al. (2011) speculated about the potential for marine
mammal use by grizzly bears in the Mackenzie Delta but
found no evidence of it.
As noted by Rockwell et al. (2008) and Barnas et
al. (2020), potential food sources for grizzly bears in
northern Manitoba include caribou, moose, marine
mammal carcasses, black bears, berries such as Vaccinium
uliginosum (Clark, 2018) and V. vitis-idaea, Hedysarum
sp. (Johnson et al., 1987), and beaver (Castor canadensis).
Other potential foods include Arctic ground squirrels
(Spermophilus parryi) north of the Seal River (Wrigley,
1974), ringed seals (Pusa hispida), as documented in the
Western Arctic (Ross, 2002), or even harbour seals (Phoca
vitulina), which may be even more accessible in the ice-
free period since they have increased in abundance in the
study area (Florko et al., 2018). Fish are present in creeks
near where grizzly bears have been observed (Rockwell
et al., 2008) but have not been observed being eaten by
grizzly bears. They are unlikely to be eaten unless caught
opportunistically in shallow water; for example, as with
polar bears eating pike (Esox lucius) (Gormezano, 2017).
Spawning Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) or sea-run brook
trout (S. fontinalis) are also possible food sources in coastal
Manitoba.
Rockwell et al. (2008) cited a traditional knowledge
interview conducted with York Factory Cree Nation
Elder Flora Beardy who identied Thompson Point as
an area traditionally used for berry picking. Productive
berry crops could explain the preponderance of grizzly
observations at Thompson Point, but the extended timing
of bear observations (June – August) does not suggest a
seasonal focus on berries. However, these observations
(from goose-banding ights, wildlife surveys, and remote
cameras placed seasonally for studying nest predation)
were likely not optimal for observing bears during “peak”
berry season from August through September (D. Clark,
unpubl. observ.) so any such focus by grizzly bears may not
have been clear. Clark (1996) quantied berry production in
the CWMA (including what is now WNP) and concluded
it was much lower than areas where berry crops support
bear populations. However, berry productivity may have
increased in the 28 years since those measurements were
recorded and should be reexamined (Clark, 2018).
Range and Habitat Use
Based on these observations, the range of grizzly bears
in northern Manitoba appears to extend from the Nunavut
border southward to the Nelson River and westward nearly
to Saskatchewan. Most observations have been in the
Hudson Plains and Southern Arctic ecozones, although
it’s not known whether the entire portions of the ecozones
where grizzly bears have been observed are inhabited or
even habitable by grizzly bears. If signicant portions of
those ecozones are occupied by grizzly bears, and assuming
no signicant changes in such availability or suitability
due to human activity or climate warming, then grizzly
bears could eventually inhabit a large area of the province
and even northeastern Saskatchewan (COSEWIC, 2012).
Similarly, establishment throughout the Hudson Plains
ecozone could permit immigration into northern Ontario,
though that ecozone narrows to a band along the coast
and is therefore vulnerable to blockage by development or
environmental change, potentially preventing immigration
southeastward.
Most observations took place in spring and early
summer, mainly in open habitat types, with the majority
occurring along the Hudson Bay coast. Curiously though,
grizzly bears have rarely been observed past August in this
region (Table 4), even on remote cameras, which operate
year-round at the three fenced camps in WNP that are no
busier with people at that time of year. There are notably
few observations from forested areas; even bears spotted in
this habitat were seen in openings such as the Hudson Bay
Railway or Nelson River. Since grizzly bears are commonly
associated with open habitats (Herrero, 1985) and not
typically with the non-mountainous boreal forest east of
the Rocky Mountain foothills (Nielsen, 1975), it is not clear
whether this absence is an artifact of biased observer effort,
decreased grizzly sightability or detection associated with
increasing canopy cover, or a real biological phenomenon.
Since barren-ground grizzly bears are highly mobile
(Edwards et al., 2009), the observations we document may
represent only part of a seasonal “round” between known
food sources that peak at different times in different
places—a strategy known for this species elsewhere
(Munro et al., 2006; Nielsen et al., 2010). Speculatively,
caribou, gut piles, and any wounded animals from hunters
northwest of Churchill could be such a resource in autumn
and this provisional hypothesis would be straightforward
to test through telemetry-based research. Both September
observations were in the area where caribou hunting
occurs. Grizzly bear scavenging of hunter kills has been
documented elsewhere and has implications for managing
human-bear conicts (Ruth et al., 2003; Haroldson et
al., 2004). Grizzly bears in autumn may also be seeking
denning locations outside the poorly drained habitats that
dominate the Hudson Plains ecozone, though as noted
above, those habitats are used for denning elsewhere so this
potential explanation remains hypothetical.
Data Limitations
Taken together, our different data sources provide
a consistent picture but individually they all possess
limitations. First, there is a gap in the available fur trade

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS • 115
record following the end of the Northern Fur Returns
series in outt 1891 (HBCA, 1842, 1846, 1860, 1869,
1875, 1892a, b). Some limited data for the trading posts of
interest are reported in Churchill fur account les from
the early 1900s (HBCA, 1909, 1910). These records show
10 “grey bear” hides procured at Churchill in outt 1908
(HBCA, 1909). No additional details were reported, and
these hides may have been secured elsewhere (e.g., Inuit
harvests from farther north). We note that these data, while
a primary source of fur return information for this period,
are only a subset of the overall archival material available
for the time frame under consideration. Further archival
research is needed, including of post journals and other
fur trade accounting records. Missing, unaggregated, and
uncatalogued data will pose challenges for such work, as
will the lack of spatial resolution in some sources such as
district reports that include parts of both Manitoba and
Nunavut.
Second, observer and sampling efforts are spatially
uneven across northern Manitoba since so much
scientic research takes place in WNP and the CWMA,
concentrating researchers and helicopter ights along the
Hudson Bay coast during the summer. This heterogeneity
very likely introduces some bias into the apparent spatial
distribution of grizzly bear observations in the province,
the implications of which we discuss further below.
Third, it is difcult to know how much of the increased
frequency of observation is due to changes in observer effort
over time, but it is probably much less of a data limitation
than spatial bias. Clark (2000) and Rockwell et al. (2008)
both noted that intensive helicopter-based eld research in
the WNP area began in the 1970s, predating most recent
grizzly observations, and has continued since. Those
authors judged it unlikely that grizzly bears would have
been present in any signicant number but not observed.
Indeed, since those publications, in-person researcher effort
has changed little. The introduction of remote cameras for
wildlife research in WNP in 2010 has certainly yielded
many more grizzly bear observations that would not
have been made without them, but the other categories of
observations still show an accelerating increase over time.
Also, the trends in observations recorded here far outweigh
any apparent trends in park visitation. Helicopter ights
are common during the summer tourism season (June to
September) and fall polar bear viewing season (October to
November) for wildlife observation.
Fourth, recent observations of grizzly bears across all
data types have generally been unambiguous and easily
conrmable (e.g., high-quality photographs). Only 16.8%
of observations were considered unconrmed (27/160) and
these tended to be secondhand reports or, more recently,
situations where damage to cabins was ascribed to grizzly
bears but the bear itself was not seen. Confusion between
grizzly bears and brown-phase black bears is unlikely to
have been signicant, especially for earlier observations.
Although Clark (2000) observed that brown-phase black
bears were uncommon in northern Manitoba, they have
since been documented on remote cameras at Owl River
(Clark et al., 2018) and have appeared at the Churchill
cottage community of Goose Creek annually since 2017
(M. Webb, unpubl. observ.). The rst author has had many
conversations about grizzly bears over several decades
with experienced hunters, trappers, elders, pilots, park
staff, guides, and researchers, and none have ever had or
suggested any difculty telling grizzly bears from brown-
phase black bears. In open (mostly tundra) habitats where
most observations have been made, the physiognomic
differences are usually easy to observe. Moreover, a
substantial number of those observers have prior experience
identifying grizzly bears in other regions.
Research Needs and Recommendations
Signicant gaps remain in our understanding of grizzly
bear ecology in this region. From a species management
and conservation perspective, the most important
information needs about grizzly bears in northern
Manitoba are 1) whether grizzly bears are breeding within
the province, which would trigger a reassessment of the
species’ “extirpated” status under provincial legislation;
2) grizzly bear distribution and demographics, particularly
inland from the Hudson Bay coast; 3) where grizzly bears
are located between late August and when they enter dens;
4) what grizzly bears are feeding on and what habitats they
select or avoid, especially in late summer and autumn when
they are hyperphagic and preparing for hibernation; and 5)
the specic denning habitats and site attributes that grizzly
bears choose, as well as any broader landscape-scale
patterns of den distribution.
Because grizzly bear populations have typically been
studied where they are declining or stable, the factors that aid
colonization and population establishment into largely new
habitats—as opposed to just facilitating dispersal—are not
well understood. Consequently, we recommend a multifaceted
regional effort to ll these knowledge gaps that starts with a
base of local and traditional knowledge, builds in mechanisms
for local input and guidance, and employs multiple methods,
especially non-invasive research techniques such as genetic
sampling, remote cameras, and track transects (e.g., Service et
al., 2014, 2020). Those methods lend themselves particularly
well to community-based monitoring efforts since many local
residents already have the requisite eld skills. Oral history
research should be a priority since it would provide greater
detail and broader context than the eld notes presented here.
Such research would enable a fuller discussion of traditional
and local knowledge about grizzly bears in a responsible
and culturally appropriate manner (e.g., Battiste, 2008;
Wilson, 2008; Chilisa, 2012). It would also be useful to learn
more about hunting guides’ observations from inland areas.
That local knowledge can be systematically collected and
validated through methods such as interviews, focus groups,
and workshops (Clark et al., 2014), and would be a valuable
complement to Indigenous and non-Indigenous oral history
research.

116 • D. CLARK et al.
Greater coordination between existing research efforts
would also be benecial. Specically, this cooperation
would involve coordinating and expanding existing remote
camera deployments; expanding ongoing goose, polar
bear, and caribou surveys; and systematically recording
the coordinates of ight paths for all research ights,
perhaps even incorporating tourism or industrial ight
observations as well. More detailed habitat analysis would
be benecial, especially once more is learned about the
species’ occupancy of the ecozones in which it has been
observed. If grizzly bears in northern Manitoba do have
a seasonal round between habitats or jurisdictions, there
may be transient grizzly bears in Manitoba as well as bears
that den within the province. Studying the movements
and reproductive status of individual bears—either with
an extensive remote camera and DNA-sampling grid,
telemetry, or multiple approaches—will be needed to
determine whether this is the case. That information
gap is probably the most urgent one to ll for foreseeable
conservation and management decisions about grizzly
bears in northern Manitoba.
CONCLUSIONS
The documented quantity of observations clearly shows
that grizzly bears, while not commonplace, have become
regular residents of northern Manitoba over a span of
roughly four decades. Moreover, we were able to document
the species’ historical occurrence in Manitoba from
multiple sources. While our diverse data contain spatial
and temporal biases that must be borne in mind, they
describe a coherent picture of increasing grizzly bear use
of largely coastal habitats in northern Manitoba and suggest
clear questions for further research in order to more fully
understand this dynamic biological situation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many Churchill and York Landing community members
shared their observations and ideas with the rst author over the
years. We particularly thank Jack Batstone, Robert Beardy, Joan
Brauner, Cyril Fredlund, Jill Larkin, Mike Reimer, Greg Rennie,
Stanley Spence, and Donald Saunders for their ongoing interest
in grizzly bears. Observations, photographs, and data beyond the
authors’ own were provided by Andrew Derocher (University
of Alber ta), Andrew Didiuk (Canadian Wildlife Service [CWS],
retired), Murray Gillespie (Manitoba Conservation, retired),
Derek Leask (University of Saskatchewan), Nick Lunn (CWS),
David McGeachy (CWS), Evan Richardson (CWS), and Bruce
Stewart (Arctic Biological Consultants). Andrew Szklaruk
(Manitoba Conservation) conrmed details of specic early
observations. We also wish to thank Jill Larkin (Parks Canada)
and the many other eld technicians and graduate students who
participated in the projects related to grizzly bear data collection.
Financial support for this work came from Environment and
Climate Change Canada (ECCC) contract # 3000705538 to D.
Clark, Parks Canada, the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, the
University of North Dakota, the Hudson Bay Project, Central and
Mississippi Flyways, Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada, Genome Canada, the Polar Continental Shelf
Project, the University of Saskatchewan, and a Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada grant to R.K.
Brook. Diana Ghikas (ECCC) supervised the ECCC contract and
helpfully reviewed multiple drafts of this manuscript. Logistical
support for many of these projects over many years was capably
provided by Hudson Bay Helicopters.
REFERENCES
Ballard, W.B., Ayres, L.A., Reed, D.J., Fancy, S.G., and Roney, K.E. 1993. Demography of grizzly bears in relation to hunting and mining
development in northwestern Alaska. Scientic Monograph NPS/NRARO/NRSM-93/23. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service.
http://npshistory.com/series/science/23/demography_grizzlies.pdf
Banci, V. 1991. Updated status report on the grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribbilis in Canada. Unpublished report written for the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
Baneld, A.W.F. 1959. The distribution of the barren-ground grizzly bear in northern Canada. Contributions to Zoology. National
Museum of Canada Bulletin 166:47 – 59.
———. 1977. The mammals of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Barnas, A.F., Iles, D.T., Stechmann, T.J., Wampole, E.M., Koons, D.N., Rockwell, R.F., and Ellis-Felege, S.N. 2020. A phenological
comparison of grizzly (Ursus arctos) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) as waterfowl nest predators in Wapusk National Park. Polar
Biology 43:457 – 465.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-020-02647-w
Battiste, M. 2008. Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In:
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., and Smith, L.T., eds. Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage. 497 – 510.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385686.n25
Brook, R.K. 2001. Structure and dynamics of the vegetation in Wapusk National Park and the Cape Churchill Wildlife Management Area
of Manitoba, community and landscape scales. MNRM thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS • 117
Bumsted, J.M. 1999. Fur trade wars: The founding of Western Canada. Winnipeg: Great Plains Publications.
Chilisa, B. 2012. Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Clark, D. 1996. Terrestrial habitat selection by polar bears (Ursus maritimus Phipps) in the Western Hudson Bay lowlands: MSc Thesis,
Department of Zoology, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
———. 2018. The grizzlies of Wapusk: An unfolding story of change. Grizzly Times, November 2.
https://www.grizzlytimes.org/single-post/2018/11/02/The-Grizzlies-of-Wapusk-an-Unfolding-Story-of-Change
———. 2000. Recent reports of grizzly bears, Ursus arctos, in northern Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 114(4):692 – 694.
Clark, D.A., and Slocombe, D. 2011. Adaptive co-management and grizzly bear-human conicts in two northern Canadian Aboriginal
communities. Human Ecology 39:627 – 640.
https://doi.org /10.1007/s10745-011-9423-x
Clark, D.A., Stirling, I., and Calvert, W. 1997. Distribution, characteristics, and use of earth dens and related excavations by polar bears
on the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Arctic 50(2):158 – 166.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1098
Clark, D., Workman, L., and Slocombe, D.S. 2014. Science-based grizzly bear conservation in a co-management environment: The
Kluane region case, Yukon. In: Clark, S.G., and Rutherford, M.B., eds. Large carnivore conservation: Integrating science and policy
in the North American West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 108 – 139.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226107547.003.0004
Clark, D.A., Brook, R., Oliphant-Reskanski, C., Laforge, M.P., Olson, K., and Rivet, D. 2018. Novel range overlap of three ursids in the
Canadian subarctic. Arctic Science 5(1):62 – 70.
https://doi.org /10.1139/AS-2018-0013
Coogan, S.C.P., Raubenheimer, D., Stenhouse, G.B., and Nielsen, S.E. 2014. Macronutrient optimization and seasonal diet mixing in a
large omnivore, the grizzly bear: A geometric analysis. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97968.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097968
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the grizzly
bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Ottawa: COSEWIC. xiv + 84 p.
https://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/les/cosewic/sr_ours_grizz_bear_1012_e.pdf
Doupé, J.P., England, J.H., Furze, M., and Paetkau, D. 2007. Most northerly observation of a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in Canada:
Photographic and DNA evidence from Melville Island, Northwest Territories. Arctic 60(3):271 – 276.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic219
Dredge, L.A., and Nixon, F.M. 1992. Glacial and environmental geology of northeastern Manitoba. Memoir 432. Ottawa: Geological
Survey of Canada.
https://doi.org/10.4095/133546
Dubois, J., and Monson, K. 2004. Mammals of Wapusk National Park: Survey results and a provisional checklist. Blue Jay 62(3):160 – 163.
https://doi.org/10.29173/bluejay5993
Dunning, G. 1998. When the foxes ran. Itsanitaq Museum. 242 La Vérendrye Avenue, Churchill, Manitoba R0B 0E0.
Edwards, M.A., Nagy, J.A., and Derocher, A.E. 2009. Low site delity and home range drift in a wide-ranging, large Arctic omnivore.
Anim al Behaviour 77(1):23 – 28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.09.025
Edwards, M.A., Derocher, A.E., Hobson, K.A., Branigan, M., and Nagy, J.A. 2011. Fast carnivores and slow herbivores: Differential
foraging strategies among grizzly bears in the Canadian Arctic. Oecologia 165(4):877 – 889.
https://doi.org /10.1007/s00442-010-1869-9
Efford, M., Boulanger, J., and Awan, M. 2018. Grizzly bear population and density estimates in Kivalliq, Nunavut, using DNA-based
mark-recapture method. NWRT Project number 2-2017-01. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut.
Elton, C.S. 1954. Further evidence about the barren-ground grizzly bear in northeast Labrador and Quebec. Journal of Mammalogy
35(3):345 – 357.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1375959
Fawcett, D., Pearce, T., Notaina, R., Ford, J.D., and Collings, P. 2018. Inuit adaptability to changing environmental conditions over an
11-year period in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories. Polar Record 54(2):119 – 132.
https://doi.org /10.1017/S003224741800 027X
Ferguson, S.H., and McLoughlin, P.D. 2000. Effect of energy availability, seasonality, and geographic range on brown bear life history.
Ecography 23(2):193 – 200.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2000.tb00275.x
Florko, K.R.N., Bernhardt, W., Breiter, CJ.C., Ferguson, S.H., Hainstock, M., Young, B.G., and Petersen, S.D. 2018. Decreasing sea
ice conditions in western Hudson Bay and an increase in abundance of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Churchill River. Polar
Biology 41(6):1187 – 1195.
https://doi.org /10.1007/s00300-018-2277-6
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX

118 • D. CLARK et al.
Gau, R.J., McLoughlin, P.D., Case, R., Cluff, H.D., Mulders, R., and Messier, F. 2004. Movements of subadult male grizzly bears, Ursus
arctos, in the central Canadian Arctic. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 118(2):239 – 242,
https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v118i2.920
Gormezano, L.J., Ellis-Felege, S.N., Iles, D.T., Barnas, A., and Rockwell, R.F. 2017. Polar bear foraging behavior during the ice-free
period in western Hudson Bay: Observations, origins, and potential signicance. American Mu.
https://doi.org/10.1206/3885.1
Government of Canada. 2002. Species and Ecosystem at Risk Act. (S.C. 2002, c.29).
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/
Government of Manitoba. 2022. The Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act. C.C.S.M. c. E111.
https://www.gov.mb.ca/sh-wildlife/wildlife/ecosystems/index.html
Harington, C.R., MacPherson, A.H., and Kelsall, J.P. 1962. The barren ground grizzly bear in northern Canada. Arctic 15(4):294 – 298.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic3584
Haroldson, M.A., Schwartz, C.C., Cherry, S., and Moody, D.S. 2004. Possible effects of elk harvest on fall distribution of grizzly bears
in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1):129 – 137.
https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0129:PEOEHO]2.0.CO;2
HBCA (Hudson’s Bay Company Archives). 1840. Churchill general account book 1839 – 1840. Series: Churchill account books. HBCA
B.42/d/157. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1842. York Factory District fur returns 1821 – 1842. Series: Northern Department district fur returns. Winnipeg, Manitoba:
Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1846. Abstract of outt and returns 1821 – 1846. Series: Norther n Department district fur returns. HBCA B.239/h/4. Winnipeg,
Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1860. Sketches of Northern Department returns 1840 – 1860. Series: Northern Department district fur returns. HBCA B.239/h/7.
Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1869. York Factory District fur returns 1842 – 1869. Series: Northern Department district fur returns. HBCA B.239/h/2.
Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1875. Abstract of outt and returns 1846 – 1875. Series: Northern Department district fur returns. HBCA B.239/h/5. Winnipeg,
Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1892a. York Factory District fur returns 1869 – 1892. Series: Northern Department district fur returns. HBCA B.239/h/3.
Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1892b. Abstract of outt and returns 1875 – 1892. Series: Northern Department district fur returns. HBCA B.239/h/6. Winnipeg,
Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1909. Churchill packing account of returns 1901 – 1909. Series: Churchill account books. HBCA B.42/d/217. Winnipeg,
Manitoba: Manitoba Provincial Archives.
———. 1910. Churchill fur book 1903 – 1910. Series: Churchill account books. HBCA B.42/d/218. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba
Provincial Archives.
Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks: Their causes and avoidance. Piscataway, New Jersey: Nick Lyons Books.
Jefferies, R.L., Rockwell, R.F., and Abraham, K.F. 2003. The embarrassment of riches: Agricultural food subsidies, high goose numbers,
and loss of Arctic wetlands – a continuing saga. Environmental Reviews 11(4):193 – 232.
Johnson, K., Faireld, L., and Taylor, R.R. 1987. Wildowers of Churchill and the Hudson Bay region. Winnipeg: Manitoba Museum of
Man and Nature.
Laforge, M.P., Clark, D.A., Schmidt, A.L., Lankshear, J.L., Kowlachuk, S., and Brook, R.K. 2017. Temporal aspects of polar bear (Ursus
maritimus) occurrences at eld camps in Wapusk National Park, Canada. Polar Biology 40:1661 – 1670.
https://doi.org /10.1007/s00300-017-2091-6
Latifovic, R. 2019. Canada’s land cover. General Information Product 119e, version 2015. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada.
https://doi.org/10.4095/315659
Manly, B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., Thomas, D.L., McDonald, T.L., and Erickson, W.P. 2002. Resource selection by animals: Statistical
design and analysis for eld studies, 2nd ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McLellan, B.N., and Hovey, F.W. 2001. Natal dispersal of grizzly bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79(5):838 – 844.
https://doi.org /10.1139/z01-051
McLellan, B.N., Proctor, M.F., Huber, D., and Michel, S. 2017. Ursus arctos (amended version of 2017 assessment). The IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species 2017: e.T41688A121229971.
https://doi.org /10.2305/I UCN.U K.2017-3.R LTS.T41688A121229971.en
McLoughlin, P.D., Case, R.L., Gau, R.J., Ferguson, S.H., and Messier, F. 1999. Annual and seasonal movement patterns of barren-ground
grizzly bears in the central Northwest Territories. Ursus 11:79 – 86.
McLoughlin, P.D., Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2002. Denning ecology of barren-ground grizzly bears in the central Arctic. Journal of
Mammalog y 83(1):188 – 198.
https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2002)083<0188:DEOBGG>2.0.CO;2
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS • 119
XXX
Miller, S., Wilder, J., and Wilson, R.R. 2015. Polar bear – grizzly bear interactions during the autumn open-water period in Alaska.
Journal of Mammalogy 96(6):1317 – 1325.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv140
M’Lot, M. 2002. Kâ Isinâkwâk Askîy: Using Cree knowledge to perceive and describe the landscape of the Wapusk National Park Area.
MNRM thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Munro, R.H.M., Nielsen, S.E., Price, M.H., Stenhouse, G.B., and Boyce, M.S. 2006. Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and
activity in west-central Alberta. Journal of Mammalogy 87(6):1112 – 1121.
https://doi.org/10.1644/05-MAMM-A-410R3.1
Nagy, J.A., Russell, R.H., Pearson, A.M., Kingsley, M.C.S., and Larsen, C.B. 1983. A study of grizzly bears on the barren-grounds of
Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula and Richards Island, Northwest Territories, 1974 to 1978. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Wildlife Service.
Nielsen, P.L. 1975. The past and present status of the plains and boreal forest grizzly bear in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian
Wildlife Service.
Nielsen, S.E., McDermid, G., Stenhouse, G.B., and Boyce, M.S. 2010. Dynamic wildlife habitat models: Seasonal foods and mortality
risk predict occupancy-abundance and habitat selection in grizzly bears. Biological Conservation 143(7):1623 – 1634.
https://doi.org /10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.007
Preble, E.A. 1902. A biological investigation of the Hudson Bay region. North American Fauna No. 22. US Government Printing Ofce.
Richardson, E., Stirling, I., and Hik, D.S. 2005. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternity denning habitat in western Hudson Bay: A
bottom-up approach to resource selection functions. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83(6):860 – 870.
https://doi.org/10.1139/z05-075
Richardson, E., Stirling, I., and Kochtubajda, B. 2007. The effects of forest res on polar bear maternity denning habitat in western
Hudson Bay. Polar Biology 30(3):369 – 378.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-006-0193-7
Rockwell, R., Gormezano, L., and Hedman, D. 2008. Grizzly bears, Ursus arctos, in Wapusk National Park, northeastern Manitoba.
Canadia n Field-Naturalist 122(4):323 – 326.
https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v122i4.639
Ross, P.I. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and updated status report on the grizzly bear Ursus arctos in Canada. In: COSEWIC assessment
and update status report on the grizzly bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Ottawa.
https://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/les/cosewic/sr_grizzly_bear_e.pdf
Ruth, T.K., Smith, D.W., Haroldson, M.A., Buotte, P.C., Schwartz, C.C., Quigley, H.B., Cherry, S., Murphy, K.N., Tyers, D., and Frey,
K. 2003. Large-carnivore response to recreational big-game hunting along the Yellowstone National Park and Absaroka-Beartooth
Wilderness boundary. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):1150 – 1161.
Schwartz, C.C., Miller, S.D., and Haroldson, M.A. 2003. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). In: Feldhamer, G.A., Thompson, B.C., and
Chapman, J.A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and conservation, 2nd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns
Hopkins University Press. 556 – 586.
Scott, P.A., and Stirling, I. 2002. Chronology of terrestrial den use by polar bears in western Hudson Bay as indicated by tree growth
anomalies. A rctic 55(2):151 – 166.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic700
Service, C.N., Adams, M.S., Artelle, K.A., Paquet, P., Grant, L.V., and Darimont, C.T. 2014. Indigenous knowledge and science unite to
reveal spatial and temporal dimensions of distributional shift in wildlife of conservation concern. PloS ONE 9(7): e101595.
https://doi.org /10.1371/jour nal.pone.0101595
Service, C.N., Bourbonnais, M., Adams, M.S., Henson, L., Neasloss, D., Picard, C., Paquet, P.C., and Darimont, C.T. 2020. Spatial
patterns and rarity of the white-phased ‘Spirit bear’ allele reveal gaps in habitat protection. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 1(2):
e12014.
https://doi.org /10.1002/2688- 8319.12014
Shilts, W.W., Aylsworth, J.M., Kaszycki, C.A., and Klassen, R.A. 1987. Canadian shield. In: Graf, W.L., ed. Geomorphic systems of
North America, Vol. 2. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 119 – 161.
ht t p s://doi.o rg/10.1130/DNAG - CENT-v2.119
Statistics Canada. 2017a. Census prole, 2016 census: Churchill, Town [Census subdivision], Manitoba and Manitoba [Province].
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4623056&Geo2
=PR&Code2=46&SearchText= Churchill&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=4623056&TAB
ID =1& typ e=0
—— —. 2017b. Census prole, 2016 census: Gillam [Population centre], Manitoba and Manitoba [Province].
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=1415&Geo2=P
R&Code2=46&SearchText=Gillam&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=1415&TABID=1&ty
pe=0
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

120 • D. CLARK et al.
XXX
Struzik, E. 2015. Future Arctic: Field notes from a world on the edge. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-592-2
Sutton, R.W. 1967. Possible recent occurrence of grizzly in Manitoba. Blue Jay 25(4):190 – 191,
https://doi.org/10.29173/bluejay3006
Taylor, M. 1995. Grizzly bear sightings in Viscount Melville Sound. In: Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., Garner, G.W., eds. Polar bears: Proceedings
of the Eleventh Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, held 25 – 27 January 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) 10. 191 – 192.
Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Wrigley, R.E. 1974. Ecological notes on animals of the Churchill region of Hudson Bay. Arctic 27(3):201 – 214.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic2874
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX