Technical Summary relating to Orphaned Cubs Orphaned black bear (Ursus americanus) cubs may be found when cubs become separated from the female because of: abandonment due to a lack of milk production to sustain the cub(s); environmental conditions (e.g. fire, drought); anthropogenic disturbance at den sites (logging operations, skiing and snowmobile trails); or when they are killed in vehicular, hunting or nuisance related incidences (Clark et al. 2002). As well, the public may inadvertently think a lone cub is orphaned when it may be the result of the cub(s) being left behind while the female feeds elsewhere. The emotional question that most often arises is what to do with the orphaned cub(s)? Several techniques are practiced leaving the cub in the wild (Rogers 1985, Swenson et al. 1998, Huber 2000, J. Beecham 2006, M. Ternent, Pennsylvania Game & Fish, personal communication, 2012); adoption by a foster mother (Clarke et al. 1980, Alt and Beecham 1984, Carney and Vaughan 1987); release after a period of captivity (Alt and Beecham 1984), and in artificial or selected den sites (Jonkel et al. 1980, J. Beecham 2006, Idaho Fish and Game, personal communication, 1997, and M. Ternent, Pennsylvania Game & Fish, personal communication, 2012, D. Garshelis, Minnesota Game & Fish, personal communication, 2012). 1. Although rehabilitation of individual bears is a human service that satisfies the emotional needs of some, is it necessary for the conservation and welfare of bear populations? At a workshop on the The evaluation of bear rehabilitation projects from a conservationist s point of view, held in the Netherlands in 2000, the conservation value of releasing rehabilitated bears could not be resolved; but there was agreement, that habitat protection is of utmost importance for bear conservation. It was thought that any release should contribute to or at least not conflict with wild bear populations. The release of bears habituated to human presence or held in captivity long enough to develop a strong attachment to humans might have genetic, health or behavioural consequences for wild populations. Other concerns cited included: high risk for the receiving wild population; social intolerance by the receiving wild population; tameness; lack of survival skills; genetic incompatibility; disease; and the cost-benefit of rehabilitation programs (costs of maintenance in captivity, veterinary and drug costs, personnel costs, preparation for release into the wild and post-release monitoring) vs. spending the same money on protecting habitat and wild populations. Because few data are available on the fate of rehabilitated and released bears and little is known of its effect on the receiving population, one can only assume that there will be an effect. Before one can evaluate the relative success of a rehabilitation program, one must first define what success represents is it to one month post-release; is it to breeding age; or is it somewhere in between? Van Dijk (2000) defines success as the release of rehabilitated bears in an area with few bears and enough food and, where the risk of density-dependent social intolerance is low, can be called a success when the released bears survive, reproduce and stay away from human settlements. From a bear s welfare point of view what is most humane for the cub(s): to release it/them immediately at or near the capture site; to raise in a captive environment and release into an unknown area without the learned skills of survival; to place in zoos; to place in facilities that market wild animals for the entertainment industry or public viewing at commercial game farms; or to euthanize? 2. Are rehabilitation programs effective?
We really don t know. Once the cub(s) is released as a yearling (at 15-17 months) from a rehab facility, there is little follow-up to determine the survivorship of captive-reared bears and whether they become nuisances later on in life. At Idaho s Black Bear Rehabilitation Center, 212 black bear cubs have entered the facility since 1989. Of these, only 96 releases have post-release data as to their status (48%). Of these, 36% remained alive past the year of release while only 7% are known to have survived to be 2+ years-old; 64% died from various causes, hunting being the primary reason at 37%. Seven bears had to be euthanized for being problem animals (8%). Arguments For Placing Cub(s) in a Rehabilitation Program 1. Social demand. A feel-good story. 2. Wildlife rehabilitators focus on individuals. Wildlife agencies focus on populations. 3. The goal is to successfully release an animal in good health back into the wild. 4. Rescue-and-rehab programs generate favorable publicity, public support and good will. Arguments Against Placing Cub(s) in a Rehabilitation Program 1. Saving a few cubs will have little to no impact on the overall population. 2. Release of captive animals brings the risk of introducing pathogens into wild populations, as well as, behavioural and genetic aberrations. 3. The public s perception of an uncaring and unfeeling wildlife agency. 4. The lack of agreement amongst bear-experts that these types of programs are successful. 5. The expense and effort associated with managing this type of program. Operational protocols would need to be strictly enforced. 6. Liability the potential for a released captive-reared bear to become a nuisance or worse, cause injury or death. 7. Little evidence to suggest that survival is significantly improved of rehabbed cubs vs. freeranging cubs. 8. Concern of the unknown Reintroduction programs are faced with balancing the benefits of time spent in captivity (for rehabilitation or pre-release training) with the potential damage that captivity can exert in terms of behavioral deterioration, especially in restricted environments (e.g. open pens). Maintaining bears in large, naturalistic enclosures, in which they can perform a full range of natural behaviors and exert control over their environment, is likely to offer some protection against behavioral deficits (Vickery and Mason 2003). Fully meeting the needs of bears in managed enclosures is a considerable challenge, and Stiver et al. (1997) reported that American black bears reared in large naturalistic enclosures still showed poor post-release survival. It is nearly impossible, or extremely unlikely, to hand raise orphaned wild born bears in a way that will develop all skills necessary for their life in nature and to behave properly in relation to man and to other bears (Huber 2000). Pazhetov (2000), a biologist and rehabilitator in Russia, states that for a rehabbed cub to survive in the wild, bear cubs must avoid people, fear them, and not be exposed to the smell and voices of humans or the structures used by humans. Swenson et al. (1998) and Huber (2000) argue that brown bear cubs should be left alone when found in July or later even though brown bear cubs remain with the female for two years (29 months).
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Guidelines (2002) state Animals held in captivity and/or transported, even for a very short time, may be exposed to a variety of pathogens. Release of these animals to the wild may result in introduction of disease to con-specifics or unrelated species with potentially catastrophic effects. Release into the wild of any animal that has been in captivity is risky. Animals held in captivity are more likely to acquire diseases and parasites. While some of these diseases can be tested for, tests do not exist for many animal diseases. Furthermore, animals held in captivity are frequently exposed to diseases not usually encountered in their natural habitat. Many bear experts argue that in addition to captive-reared cubs being susceptible to starvation, predation, and cannibalism upon release, the probability of being conditioned to humans and human food is arguably higher, especially if the cub(s) came from family groups that fed on anthropological foods or were not totally shielded from human contact during rehab. Tennessee found that pen-reared bears exhibited poor adaptability and survival when released into the wild (Stiver et al. 1997) due largely to their learned habituation to people. Sub-adult pen-reared yearling females may be the most desirable for release as they may eventually contribute reproductively to the population. Few sub-adult males reach breeding age. 3. Are there any Canadian rehabilitation facilities close by? No. There is one facility in Alberta that is not licensed to rehab any species of bear; four in British Columbia; one in Saskatchewan that will not accept out-of-province bears; and two in central Ontario which insists that cub(s) be returned to the jurisdiction of origin for release. Prior to 2002, cubs that had been sent from Manitoba to Ontario facilities had been released near the two facilities or elsewhere or had been transferred to other institutions. All these facilities are privately owned and funded. In almost all cases, the fate of the cubs is unknown. 4. What are some of the problems associated with sending orphaned cubs out of province? It is not known what effect cubs transported outside their genetic pool will have on local populations in another jurisdiction upon release. There is no guarantee that an animal, even after being examined by a veterinarian, will not transmit ectoparasites, endoparasites and disease, or will not introduce nonadaptive genes case in point, CWD in deer and elk, West-Nile through bird feeders. Trent Bollinger, Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, University of Saskatoon (2012) Although the public often perceives the rehabilitation of injured and orphaned wildlife and their subsequent translocation and re-introduction as humane and compassionate the practice carries with it numerous risks and the survival of the re-introduced animal is far from assured. This practice is of questionable value when it involves already abundant species or species which are hunted or trapped. The transmission of disease is one of the major risks related to wildlife translocation and there are numerous examples where translocated animals have introduced disease into areas with unexpected and significant consequences. To quote Dr. Michael Woodford in his review of protocols of wildlife translocation (Woodford, 2000), It is now widely recognized by wildlife veterinarians that every wild creature that is the subject of a translocation or rehabilitation release must not be regarded as just a single animal but rather as a package containing an assortment of potentially dangerous viruses, bacteria, protozoa, helminths and
arthropods, any of which may become pathogenic in a new situation, involving stressed individuals in a changed environment. Translocation of an animal and its potential pathogens, over even a short distance, may threaten the health of indigenous wild species, domestic livestock or humans. In addition, the effects of stress on the immune system of animals while held in captivity pending translocation and release may increase this risk, unless well managed. 5. Is there a solution? While the public much prefers the option of rehabilitating bear cub(s) with the intention of returning them to the wild as a yearling rather than having it destroyed or placed in a captive facility, rehabilitation programs are controversial and the results are, at best, uncertain. Wildlife managers focus on populations, while the public tends to focus on individuals. In Manitoba, it is estimated that between 2.0 and 5.5 thousand cubs die annually of natural causes compared to the half dozen or so orphaned cubs that may come to the department s attention. The resources of Manitoba Conservation are best served to manage entire populations or to save endangered species rather than channeling significant resources to rehabilitate 0-to-6 orphaned cubs annually. The annual operations budget for approximately 8-10 bears being housed at Idaho s Black Bear Rehabilitation Center is $35,000. This does not include the lease or purchase of land, construction and maintenance costs of the facility to the standards set by The World Conservation Union, The World Association of Zoos and Aquaria, and The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council, which could add another $250,000. Almost all rehab facilities rely entirely on public donations. A licensed facility could be established in Manitoba; however, no application has ever been received. If a private group wants to open one in Manitoba, it will need to submit a detailed proposal, including a business plan, to the Director of the Wildlife Branch for review prior to establishing such a facility. When the application is received, Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship will review the proposal and will work with the proponents to make sure it meets all the appropriate standards 6. What is the likelihood of an orphaned cub surviving in the wild? There is evidence to indicate that not all cubs orphaned in the spring will starve to death. About 40+% of these cubs will survive on their own. The following references document survival of orphaned cubs: ALT, G.L. and J.J. BEECHAM. 1984. Reintroduction of orphaned black bear cubs into the wild. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12:169-174. Between 1973 and 1983 we attempted to reintroduce 84 orphaned black bear cubs into the wild 45 were given to foster mothers and 39 were reared in pens and released at >5 months of age. Orphaned cubs placed into natal dens between 21 January and 18 April were adopted readily. Female bears frequently killed or abandoned orphans introduced between 27 April and 30 May. However, during the later period, orphans were adopted if females were drugged and Vicks VapoRub placed in their nostrils, or were separated from their natural cubs and orphans for >2 hours. Remoteness of release sites was an important consideration for reintroductions of penreared cubs. Orphans that had imprinted on humans and were released <3 km from developed areas were recovered in chronic nuisance situations within 4 days. BEECHAM, J. 2006. Orphan bear cubs rehabilitation and release guidelines. World Society for the Protection of Animals.
Leaving a cub in the wild is a viable option for many cubs if they are old enough to survive alone and have adequate fat reserves. American black bear cubs as young as 5 to 7 months of age have survived information from studying released bears suggests that survival rates are higher for older, larger cubs. ELOWE, K.D., AND W.E. DODGE. 1989. Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:962 968. In Massachusetts, all 4 cubs from 2 litters that were separated from their mothers in mid-june survived on their own. ERICKSON, A.W. 1959. The age of self-sufficiency in black bear. Journal of Wildlife Management 23:401 405. The self-sufficiency of 23 cub bears ranging from 51/4 to 8 months of age was tested in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. On the mainland, 20 test cubs were released at points remote from their mothers and 12 control cubs were released with their mothers. Three test cubs were released on Lake Michigan islands devoid of bears. One third of the cubs released on the mainland were recovered and two cubs re-leased on islands survived the winter. Cubs released alone survived as well as cubs released with their dams. Both sexes survived equally well, and several cubs survived alone despite serious injuries. Black bear cubs of either sex may be self-sufficient when as young as 51/2 months and as small as 18 pounds, even though handicapped by physical injury and released on unfamiliar range. LINDZEY, F.G., AND E.C. MESLOW. 1980. Harvest and population characteristics of black bears in Oregon (1971 74). International Conference on Bear Research and Management 4:213 219. Used 50% as an average estimate for the annual survivorship of cubs orphaned during the year in Oregon. KOLENOSKY, G.B. and S.M. STRATHERN (unpublished report 1987). Movements and survival of orphan black bear cubs in east-central Ontario. Reported on 49 orphaned cubs in Ontario fitted with radio-transmitters and released between May 24 and August 16, with 36 of the releases occurring prior to July 1. Twenty-seven were indigenous to the area, whereas 22 were transplants. Of the 49, the fate of 14 orphans was unknown, 14 survived to hibernation (with 10 surviving to 16 months of age), 7 died of starvation, 5 were killed by bears, 2 by lynx (Lynx lynx), 3 by unknown predators, 2 by vehicles, 1 when its den collapsed during snowmelt, and 1 was shot by a farmer when it tried to enter the back porch of a farmhouse. OLFENBUTTEL, BRIDGES, and VAUGHAN (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, unpublished data, 2002)...reported that a wild female bear abandoned 5 cubs (2 natural, 3 fostered) after being released from temporary captivity in mid-may, 2000. Four cubs were recovered, whereas the fifth died of unknown causes. The 4 remaining cubs were released on 18 June. Two of the cubs survived and were still being monitored as of 2002. The fate of the third cub is unknown (collar lost), whereas the fourth cub died of unknown causes.
ROGERS, L.L. 1985. Aiding the wild survival of orphaned bear cubs. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experimental Station 1992 Folwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 Although black bear cubs normally remain with their mothers for 17 months, they are commonly selfsufficient at 5 months [by June-July, depending on when they were born], and they instinctively construct dens in fall. Cubs raised in captivity and released at 5 months show good survival rates. SWENSON, J.E., R. FRANZEN, P. SEGERSTROM and F. SANDEGREN. 1998. On the age of self-sufficiency in Scandinavian brown bears. Acta Theriologica. 43:213-218. We left food for one of two cubs that were abandoned in May He was shot four years later and had a normal weight at that time...all cubs orphaned from the beginning of July be left where they are found. WILLOCK, A. (Canadians for Bears, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, personal communication, 2002) In Minnesota, Lynn Rogers put radiocollars on 14 cubs that were orphaned in late summer or fall. Of these, 2 were soon shot, 2 were killed by trains, 1 died of unknown causes, 1 was killed by predators, 1 probably died of starvation, and 7 survived past 17 months of age. In the wild, the odds of cubs surviving to breeding age, especially males, is very low. ELOWE, K.D. and W.E. DODGE. 1989. Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(4): 962-968 In Massachusetts, overall mortality of cubs was 41% by 1 year and 61% by 2.5 years (subadult)... Only 2 of 21 male cubs survived to adulthood. JONKEL, C.J. and I.M. COWAN. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildlife Monograph 27:42 In Montana, of free-ranging bears... only about 33 percent of the yearlings survived until the following year...20% remained in the population until 2 years of age...9% survived to 3 years. LEE, D.J. and M.R. VAUGHAN. 2005. Yearling and sub-adult black bear survival in a hunted Virginia population. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1641-1651 of free-ranging bears... 1-year old male survivorship was 32%... 7. Manitoba s policy regarding orphaned black bear cubs A black bear cub orphaned as a result of mitigation actions to resolve conflict will be removed from public view (where possible) and assessed. Whenever possible, an assessment will be done in consultation with other appropriate Wildlife Branch/Regional/Operations staff. Based on the assessment the cub will be: 1. Relocated and hard released, if it is not a member of a Category III family group and if there is a reasonable likelihood of survival (e.g. appears healthy, uninjured and weighs approximately 8 kg (18 lbs) or more), in the same general vicinity in which it was captured, but away from developed areas; or
2. If not immediately released, and if not a member of a Category III family group, and if it is practical given the circumstances, transported to an accredited Manitoba wildlife facility (if available) in a manner wherein it will receive minimal human exposure and interaction. While in captivity the cub will be maintained in isolation from visual and physical human exposure. The following sequence in descending order of priority will then apply: a. Determine if there is a possibility available to foster the cub with a wild black bear sow currently raising her own cub(s) of the year; or b. Determine if there is a suitable facility that can raise the cub to the point where it can be released to the wild (e.g. appears healthy, uninjured and is at least 5- months of age or weighs approximately 8 kg (18 lbs)), in the same general vicinity in which it was captured, but away from developed areas; or c. Determine if there is an accredited facility available to place the bear in permanent captivity; or d. The bear will be euthanized by a veterinarian; or 3. Euthanized by an authorized person if it is a member of a Category III family group or if there is no reasonable likelihood of its survival (e.g. appears unhealthy, and/or injured, and/or weighs less than approximately 8 kg (18 lbs)). Given that the chances of survival, normal growth and reproduction of orphaned cubs are encouraging enough, it is ethically responsible to leave cubs where they are to fend for themselves (Swenson et al. 1998). A general guideline of about 5+ months and 18 lbs (8 kg) (Erickson 1959) is to be used to assess likelihood of survival. Although black bear cubs normally remain with their mothers for 17 months they are commonly self-sufficient at 5 months by June-July, depending on when they were born (Erickson 1959, Rogers 1986). Swenson et al. (1998) and Huber (2000) recommend that all cubs orphaned from the beginning of July be left where they are found. However, if the orphaned cubs are near human habitation, they should be moved away and released, since Alt and Beecham (1984) found that orphaned black bear cubs had a propensity to visit human habitation to look for food. Orphaned bear cubs are to be captured and released in an area that is reasonably isolated from human activity but still within their native territory provided that the cubs appear to be in good health and of adequate size, and provided they have not been feeding on human foods. Should an orphaned cub be captured, it should be stored in a cardboard box with one hole punched in it large enough for a nipple of a bottle to fit. This will isolate the cub from human imprinting until a decision of what to do with it is made. If a cub appears to be in poor physical condition or is from a family group that has had exposure to human habitation, then it shall be euthanized. Due to disease transmission concerns, orphaned cubs will not be shipped to rehabilitation facilities outside the province if the expectation is to have them returned to Manitoba. The public must be informed of the risks associated with picking up what appear(s) to be an orphaned cub(s). In most instances, if the cub(s) were left to their own, they would reunite with their mother as they have been known to cache cubs for periods greater than fifteen hours.
Other References Beecham, J.J. 1980. Population characteristics, denning, and growth patterns of black bears in Idaho. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 101pp. Beecham, J.J. and J. Rohlman. 1994. A shadow in the forest: Idaho s black bear. The University of Idaho Press, Moscow. 245pp. Binks, M. 2008. Post-release behaviour and survival of shelter-reared, juvenile black bears in central Ontario. M.S. Thesis. Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON. Binninger, C.E., J.J. Beecham, L.A. Thomas and L.D. Winward. 1980. A serologic survey for selected infectious diseases of black bears in Idaho. J. Wildl. Dis. 16(3):423-430. Butterworth B.B. 1969. Postnatal growth and development of Ursus americanus. J. Mamm. 50:615-616. Carlstead, K. and J. Seidensticker. 1991. Seasonal variation in stereotypic pacing in an American black bear, Ursus americanus. Behavioural Processes 25:155-161.59 Carney, D.W. and M.R. Vaughan. 1987. Survival of introduced black bear cubs in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Intern. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 7:83-85. Clark, S.H., J. O Pezio, and C. Hackford. 1980. Fostering black bear cubs in the wild. Intern. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 4:163-166. Clark, J.E. 1999. Survival of orphaned black bears released in the Smoky Mountains. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Clark, J.D., D. Huber, and C. Servheen. 2002. Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges. Ursus13:335-346. Clark, J.E., M.R. Pelton, B.J. Wear, and D.R. Ratajczak. 2002. Survival of orphaned black bears released in the Smoky Mountains. Ursus 13:269-273. Criswell, A.R. and G.J. Galbreath. 2005. Behavioral persistence in captive bears: a critique. Ursus 16(2):268-273. Eastridge, R., and J.D. Clark. 2001. Evaluation of 2 soft-release techniques to reintroduce black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1163-1174. Fischer, J., and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2000. An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biological Conservation 96:1-11. Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Evans. 2000. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477-480. Huber, D., I. Kulier, A. Poljak, and B. Devjic-Kuhar. 1993. Food intake and mass gain of hand-reared brown bear cubs. Zoo Biology 12:525-533.
Huber, D. 2000. Why not to re-introduce rehabilitated brown bears to the wild. In: Rehabilitation and release of bears (Ed. by L. Kolter & J.J. van Dijk), pp. 28-34. Hulley, J.T. 1976. Hand-rearing American black bear cubs Ursus americanus at Toronto Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook 16:202-205 IUCN. 1998. IUCN Guidelines for re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 10 pp. IUCN. 2002. IUCN Guidelines for the placement of confiscated animals. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and ERWDA, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 24 pp. IUCN. 2004. 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Jenness, R., A.W. Erickson and J.J. Craighead. 1972. Some comparative aspects of milk from four species of bears. J. Mamm. 53:34-47. Jonkel, C.J., P. Husby, R. Russell, and J. Beecham. 1980. The reintroduction of orphaned grizzly bear cubs in the wild. Intern. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 4:369-372. Kilham, B. and E. Gray. 2002. Among the bears: raising orphan bear cubs in the wild. Henry Holt and Co., LLC. New York, NY. 289 pp. Lunn N.J. and I. Stirling. 1985. The significance of supplemental food to polar bears during the ice-free period of Hudson Bay. Can J Zool 63:2291 2297 Maughan, S. 1995. Rehabilitating orphaned bear cubs. Proceedings of the Western Black Bear Workshop. 5:91-97 Maughan, S. 2005. Black bear rehabilitation handbook. Unpublished. Idaho Black Bear Rehabilitation, Inc. Garden City, ID. Miller, E.A. 2000. Minimum standards for Wildlife Rehabilitation. 3rd edition. National Wildlife Rehabilitation Association. St. Cloud, MN. 77 pp. Oftedal, O.T. and J.L. Gittleman. 1989. Patterns of energy output during reproduction in carnivores. Pages 355-378 in Carnivore behavior, ecology and evolution. J.L. Gittleman, ed. Chapman and Hall, London. Palomero, Guillermo, J.C. Blanco, P. Garcia, and Gonzalo Palomero. 1997. Ecology and behavior of 3 wild orphaned brown bear cubs in Spain. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2):85-90. Pazhetnov, V.S. and C.V. Pazhetnov. 2000. Reintroduction of orphan brown bear cubs. In: Rehabilitation and release of bears (Ed. by L. Kolter & J.J. van Dijk), pp. 53-61.
Rogers, L. L. 1986. Effects of translocation distance on frequency of return by adult black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14:76-80 Quigley, K. 2000. Immobilization and biological sampling protocols. Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Bozeman, MT. 31 pp. Servheen, C. 1990. The status and conservation of the bears of the world. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. Monogr. Series No. 2. 32pp. Stiver, W.H., M.R. Pelton, and C.D. Scott. 1997. Use of pen-reared black bears for augmentation or reintroductions. Int. Conf. on Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2):145-150. Swenson, J.E., R. Franzen, P. Segerstrom and F. Sandegren. 1998. On the age of selfsufficiency in Scandinavian brown bears. Acta Theriologica. 43:213-218. Van Dijk, J.J. 2000. Considerations for the rehabilitation and release of bears into the wild. In: Rehabilitation and release of bears (Ed. by L. Kolter & J.J. van Dijk), pp. 7-16. Van Manen, F.T. and M.R. Pelton. 1997. Procedures to enhance the success of a black bear reintroduction program. Int. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 9(2):67-78. Vickery, S.S. 2003. Stereotypic behaviour in caged bears: individual and husbandry factors. Dissertation, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. Vickery, S. and G.12 Mason. 2003. Behavioural persistence in captive bears: implications for reintroduction. Ursus 14:35-43. Woodford, M.H. (Ed.). 2000. Quarantine and Health Screening Protocols for Wildlife prior to Translocation and Release into the Wild Published jointly by the IUCN Species Survival Commission s Veterinary Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), Paris, France, Care for the Wild, U.K., and the European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians, Switzerland.