The lives of salmon and bears in B.C. are inextricably linked and new research by scientists at Raincoast Conservation and the University of Victoria underlines the importance of conservation managers looking at entire ecosystems in order to keep both species healthy.

The wide-ranging study of the amount of salmon eaten by bears in different areas was conducted by a group led by Megan Adams, Hakai-Raincoast scholar and PhD candidate at UVic and was published today in the peer-reviewed journal Ecosphere.

Researchers looked at more than 1,400 hair samples from 886 grizzly and black bears, which ranged over almost 700,000 square kilometres of B.C. from 1995 to 2014.

The huge database has produced a pattern showing salmon hotspots and demonstrating how the health of bears improves and population density increases when there is an abundance of salmon and declines when salmon runs fail — illustrated by bear deaths on the Central Coast when sockeye runs crashed.

“The more meat that bears get, and especially more fish, the healthier they are. They have a larger body size and they have more cubs,” Adams said in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

“I like to look at these hotspot maps as health indicators of the ecosystem. If it is thriving, you have fishy, fitter bears,” she said.

Male grizzlies are the biggest consumers of salmon and one surprise of the study was the discovery that it is not only bears living in coastal areas such as the Great Bear Rainforest that rely on salmon — bears living 1,000 kilometres from the coast prefer a fishy diet.

Salmon Conservation Would Help Bear Populations

“We are letting the animals tell the story themselves. One of the exciting things to me is how far into the interior this predator/prey system goes,” Adams said, pointing out that the maps show salmon/bear hotspots stretching up to the Alberta border.

However, in the interior of B.C., the bears cannot access as many fish and, in those vulnerable areas, where every fish counts, salmon conservation efforts would help bear populations.

The study shows that protected areas with plentiful salmon produced the fittest bears and resource managers looking at new protected areas should focus on areas with high salmon availability, Adams said.

One of the problems in salmon/bear management is the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for salmon while the provincial government is responsible for bears.

Adams would like to see barriers broken down and different levels of government working cooperatively together.

“These results demonstrate important connections between land and sea over huge landscapes,” Adams said.

“Fisheries and land-use management would benefit from integrating beyond discrete geo-political jurisdictions to take ecosystem processes into account.”

Salmon Play Role in Human-Bear Interactions

Ensuring bears have sufficient salmon to eat would also benefit humans as the study shows that bears eating high-salmon diets show decreased levels of stress hormones.

Fishy bears are happier bears and that is likely to mean fewer human/bear conflicts, Adams said, linking the research to a previous study by Raincoast Conservation biologist Kyle Artelle.

Artelle, who is also a co-author on Adams’ study, looked at patterns of bear-human conflicts that resulted in bears being killed by private individuals or conservation officers, over the last 35 years.

Usually the bear is killed if it comes too close to town and the study looked at whether there were patterns indicating why there were more conflicts at certain times and in specific areas, Artelle said in an interview.

“We found that in the years with very low amounts of salmon, there was a disproportionate amount of conflict. There was a strong association,” he said.

“Most likely bears take greater risks in times of food insecurity and come closer to humans . . . Salmon are so important to bears and salmon are strongly associated with conflict,” he said.

Artelle’s study found that, contrary to some expectations, increased hunting had no effect on conflict.

“At first you might think that, if you up the hunting, you have fewer bears to get into trouble, but there is no data to support that,” Artelle said.

It also found that removing bears that were seen as “bad apples” had no effect on future incidents.

Bears are already facing challenges ranging from trophy hunting — the largest source of mortality across all grizzly populations — to climate change and development and Adams wonders what the hotspot maps would have looked like a century ago, before development, ecosystem fragmentation in the Interior and dams on the Columbia River wiped out populations of salmon and grizzly bears.

Megan Adams conducts research in her lab. Photo: A.S. Wright

“For both male and female grizzlies, there’s a big hole in the interior, all up the main passage of the Fraser (River). That’s because bears have been extirpated — there are no grizzly bears living along that huge salmon thoroughfare,” she said.

Now, with research showing the importance of salmon runs, the emphasis should be on ensuring plentiful fish because the bears are the final consumers after salmon have survived orcas, hungry seals and the fishing fleets, scientists emphasize.

Danielle Shaw, Wuikinuxv Nation stewardship director, who has collaborated with Adams on the Central Coast Bear Working Group, said the health of salmon stocks are a direct indicator of the health of the ecosystem and consideration must be given to all the consumers.

“By looking at what other species need to ensure theirr own sustenance, we are progressing towards a more ecosystem-based approach to conservation and management.”

“We have a responsibility to ensure all other species are fed before we fill our own bellies,” she said.

Image: Grizzly bear. Photo: A.S. Wright

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada's northwest coast stands alone as one of our planet's last unspoiled coastlines. Its rich assemblage of wildlife, wild rivers and intricate landscapes makes it qualitatively different from any other place in the world.

British Columbians have increasingly come to cherish this maritime commons of waters, islands, and forests. According to an Angus Reid public opinion poll, wild salmon — the foundation species on which this coastal bounty is built — are as important to British Columbians as the French language is to Quebec.

With March 24 marking the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, this disaster provides a lens into considering the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil tanker and pipeline project and the risk it poses to wild salmon, one of our country's greatest natural assets. The Valdez spilled more than 41 million litres of crude oil. Negative impacts from the spill are still felt, with only 13 of the 32 monitored wildlife populations, habitats and resource services injured in the spill listed as fully “recovered” or “very likely recovered.”

A recent report by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation concluded that the consequences just to wild Pacific salmon from Enbridge's project are not a risk worth taking. The report, "Embroiled: Salmon, Tankers and the Enbridge Northern Gateway Proposal," explores the connections between the oil industry's anticipated activities on the B.C. coast and how those activities could adversely affect salmon.

The Queen Charlotte Basin, the backdrop for Enbridge's oil tanker routes, is home to more than 5,000 spawning populations of wild salmon. These fish represent 58 per cent of Canada's Pacific salmon and are the foundation of B.C.'s remarkable coastal ecology, the iconic wildlife that rely on them and the basis for multi-million dollar economies in eco-tourism, salmon-based tourism and the salmon resource sector.

Salmon naturally have poor odds for survival. On average, only one salmon for every thousand eggs that a female lays will return to spawn. These odds have further declined in recent years due to intense human activities in salmon watersheds and in the ocean. Oil tankers and terminals present a new, added threat to salmon survival.

With a fresh oil spill, toxic vapours from the oil threaten living organisms that breathe in air and water. In contrast, other components in oil, known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are of equal, if not greater, concern. These compounds can persist in the environment for years, if not decades, and can continue to harm organisms long after the oil first spills. Even low levels of exposure to PAHs — in parts per billion — can have lethal consequences for salmon.

The most vulnerable period for salmon to be exposed to oil is during their egg incubation in the spawning gravels. Embryos and larvae are 10 times more sensitive to oil than adult salmon because their high lipid content attracts oil. In the gravels, chum and pink salmon are at the highest risk to marine oil spills because their parents tend to spawn in the lower reaches of streams, where oil residue can reach the gravels.

Early life is the next most vulnerable period from an oil spill. When young salmon first migrate to sea, they rely on estuaries and near-shore waters for food, protection, and safe migration. These areas are usually the most heavily impacted by oil spills.

Importantly, there are threats from industrial oil activities even in the absence of large spills. Oil tankers and terminal activities bring routine small spills, dramatically altered shorelines, river water extraction, increased underwater noise, ship wakes, turbidity and impacts to salmon food sources.

In Alaska's Port of Valdez in Prince William Sound, the rise and accumulation of PAHs in ocean sediments from small, chronic oil spills (while loading tankers), tracks perfectly the volume of oil shipped. In B.C., stressors from oil industry habitat loss and toxicity would add to cumulative affects that push salmon — most of which are already at their lowest levels of known abundance — beyond their ability to survive.

Enbridge has maintained there are no significant risks or consequences to salmon from their proposed Northern Gateway project. This is based on their wholly inadequate assessment of baseline conditions and project impacts, and is exacerbated by their failure to adequately consider cumulative impacts, including climate change. Consequently, the conclusions arrived by Enbridge cannot be scientifically supported in many cases.

In the absence of an adequate assessment of risk by Enbridge (risk defined as the probability of an oil spill times the consequence of an oil spill), Raincoast performed a limited risk assessment to demonstrate the type of analysis that should have been undertaken. Our assessment found that more than 400 spawning populations of salmon lie adjacent to the confined channels of the tanker routes and that these streams contain some the highest densities of spawning salmon on the B.C. coast. These salmon streams drain into Enbridge's highest risk routes for tanker accidents.

Salmon, and the wildlife and human communities that they support, are the very soul of British Columbia and the lifeblood of our coastal ecosystem. Despite the National Energy Board's blessing that Northern Gateway should go ahead, British Columbians are clearly not willing to surrender these values and way of life to the oil industry.

This article was co-authored by Misty MacDuffee, a biologist and fisheries ecologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Image via NOAA

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.