I compared distribution and range of brown bears (Ursus arctos middendorffi) with temporal and spatial distribution of Sitka blacktailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) hunting activity on westside Kodiak Island, Alaska, to examine impacts of deer hunting on bears. Mean number of bears that annually ranged 5 km inland from the coast, or in both areas was 10, 8, and 11, respectively. Bears that exclusively or seasonally occupied the coast zone were usually classed as having moderate or high potential to interact with hunters because most hunter access and effort (>95%) was via the coast. Bears that ranged exclusively inland were considered unlikely to encounter hunters. Animals that ranged in both zones often (39%) moved inland during fall (Oct-Dec) and most bears (70%) denned in the inland zone. Females that denned near the coast entered dens later (x = 22 Nov) than females that denned inland (x = 12 Nov). Two radiocollared bears were known to raid deer-hunting camps and 9 other marked bears were observed by hunters or were located < 200 m from hunting camps. Deer-hunter surveys revealed that more than two-thirds of the deer harvest occurred during October-November. About half of the hunters observed at least 1 bear during their hunt. Seven to 21 % of the respondents reported having a threatening encounter with a bear and 5-26% reported losing deer meat to bears. Human-induced mortality to radio-collared bears occurred more often near the coast (5) than inland (3); 7 bears were harvested by sport hunters and 1 was killed (nonsport) in a Native village. Deer hunters killed 2 unmarked females in defense of life or property situations in the study area. High bear densities and concentrated deer-hunting activity combine to make conflicts unavoidable. Adverse impacts to bears can be minimized by maintaining low levels of human activity in inland areas and improving hunter awareness of bear ecology and behavior. Int. Conf Bear Res. and Manage. 9(l):63-73 Management of wildlands to simultaneously preserve wildlife and provide recreational opportunity can result in conflicting goals (Cole and Knight 1991, Knight and Cole 1991). This problem is especially applicable to brown bears because they require large areas of wildland with limited human disturbance (Mattson 1990, Schoen 1990). Loss of habitat and human disturbance usually leads to population declines. Brown bears on Kodiak Island, Alaska, occur at high densities (Barnes et al. 1988), and the population appears healthy primarily because food is abundant (Barnes 1990, Smith and Van Daele 1990), sport harvest is intensively managed, and there are large tracts of remote and inaccessible habitat. About twothirds of the island is within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which has a primary goal of conserving brown bears and their habitat. The Kodiak NWR also accommodates seasonally high concentrations of people engaged in hunting, fishing, or other recreational activities. Levels of human activity have risen sharply in recent years and that trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). The task of maintaining a healthy bear population and satisfy ing increased demand for recreation will ultimately result in conflicting goals on specific areas of the refuge. The development of guidelines to effectively minimize conflicts will require an improved understanding of bear-human interactions associated with specific recreational activities. Sitka black-tailed deer were introduced to the Kodiak Archipelago in 1924 and had become common to abundant in most areas by the late 1970s (Smith 1979). A dramatic escalation in deer-hunter effort paralleled rapid growth and expansion of the deer population (Burris and McKnight 1973, Smith 1979, Smith et al. 1989). Conflicts between bears and hunters became inevitable as increasing numbers of hunters encroached on occupied bear habitat and because the activity created new sources of food (gut piles, meat caches, garbage) attractive to bears. By the mid-1980s deer hunters had become the leading cause of defense of life or property (DLP) kills and were primarily responsible for an overall increasing trend in DLP mortality (Smith et al. 1989). It is reasonable to suspect that an increase in unreported nonsport kills of bear by deer hunters has also occurred (Miller and Chihuly 1987). Risk to hunters also became an issue (Medred 1987); 6 nonfatal maulings of deer hunters were documented during 1981-88. Resource managers recognized that misinformation concerning danger to hunters could increase the incidence of nonsport kills (Smith et al. 1989). This study was undertaken in response to a growing concern for potential adverse impacts of deer-hunting activity on brown bears. Principai objectives were to (1) assess effects of deer-hunting activity on range and movement patterns of brown bears and (2) evaluate real or potential interactions between deer hunters and bears. Funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). I am grateful to J. Bellinger, K. Ryan, D. Munoz and D. Menke (USFWS) for essential administrative support and to R. Smith (Alaska Department of Fish and Game This content downloaded from 207.46.13.85 on Sat, 28 May 2016 06:46:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 64 Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1) 1994 [ADF&G]) for support, fieldwork, and access to ADF&G questionnaire data. R. Hander and J. Selinger (USFWS) were invaluable office and field assistants, and C. Robbins (USFWS) contributed computer analyses. Important field assistance was provided by G. Garner (USFWS) and L. Van Daele (ADF&G), safe and efficient flying skills were provided by K. Becker, T. Chatto, J. Patterson, J. Sarvis (USFWS), E. Gunter, and B. Lofstedt, and timely manuscript typing was provided by J. Barnes and J. Revalee. I thank G. Garner, R. Smith, and 3 anonymous referees for helpful manuscript reviews. The cooperation of numerous hunters, guides, and outfitters is appreciated.