Ursus americanus - Pallas, 1780
American Black Bear
Other English Common Names: American black bear
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Ursus americanus Pallas, 1780 (TSN 180544)
French Common Names: ours noir
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100661
Element Code: AMAJB01010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Carnivores
Image 10797

© Dick Cannings

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Ursidae Ursus
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Ursus americanus
Taxonomic Comments: Characterized by a relatively low level of protein variation (see Cronin et al. 1991). Cronin et al. (1991) found very similar mtDNA haplotypes among black bears from Alaska, Montana, Oregon, and New Hampshire, though divergent haplotypes were identified in the populations from Montana and Oregon; evidently there has been maintenance of polymorphism and considerable gene flow throughout the history of the species. Bears from insular Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Quebec, and most individuals from Alberta, exhibited very closely related mtDNA haplotypes; Newfoundland bears apparently arose through rapid genetic drift associated with a founder effect during postglacial colonization (Paetkau and Strobeck 1996).

Bears from Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), Vancouver Island, and coastal mainland British Columbia are indistinguishable with respect to mtDNA, but these bears are highly distinct from inland continental bears; the coastal mtDNA lineage occurs in each of the three recognized coastal subspecies, suggesting that the morphological characteristics differentiating these taxa may be postglacially derived (Byun et al. 1997).

See Cronin et al. (1991) and Shields and Kocher (1991) for information on phylogenetic relationships of North American ursids based on an analysis of mitochondrial DNA (black bear has been separated from brown and polar bears much longer than brown and polar bears have been separated from each other).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 15Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Widespread in North America; stable, secure population.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (21Feb2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S2), Alaska (S5), Arizona (S5), Arkansas (S4), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S3), Delaware (SX), District of Columbia (SX), Florida (S5), Georgia (S4), Idaho (S4), Illinois (SX), Indiana (SX), Iowa (SX), Kansas (SX), Kentucky (S2), Louisiana (S2), Maine (S5), Maryland (S3S4), Massachusetts (S4), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S1), Missouri (S4), Montana (S5), Navajo Nation (S5), Nebraska (SX), Nevada (S4), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S3), New Mexico (S4), New York (S5), North Carolina (S4), North Dakota (SX), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S1), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (SX), South Carolina (S5), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S3), Texas (S3), Utah (S3), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S4), Washington (S5), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (S5), Wyoming (S5)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (S5), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (S4), Northwest Territories (S5), Nova Scotia (S5), Nunavut (SU), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (SX), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5), Yukon Territory (S5)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (01Apr1999)
Comments on COSEWIC: The black bear has undergone some loss in its historic range but still occurs in large numbers over a very large range. The habitat is generally secure and there is no clear indication of overall population decline.

Designated Not at Risk in April 1998 and in April 1999.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix II

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Black bears exist throughout most of North America north of central Mexico, except the desert region of the southwestern United States, from north-central Alaska across boreal Canada to Labrador and Newfoundland, and south to central California, northern Nevada, northern Nayarit and southern Tamaulipas (Mexico), and Florida (Wozencraft, in Wilson and Reeder 1993). However, the species has been eliminated from most of the Midwest by intensive agriculture and human settlement. Now it occurs primarily in remaining large forested tracts.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Many EOs.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Locally threatened by habitat loss and interference by humans. Black market value of gall bladder and paws has led to an increase in the illegal harvest of this species.

Short-term Trend Comments: Populations have increased recently in the northeastern U.S.

Sightings and abundance in the southwestern Great Plains in western Oklahoma and adjacent northwestern Texas and southwestern Kansas increased in the 1980s and 1990s, with an apparently reproducing population now present in Cimarron County, Oklahoma; this population apparently expanded from those in southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico (Kamler et al. 2003).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles)) Black bears exist throughout most of North America north of central Mexico, except the desert region of the southwestern United States, from north-central Alaska across boreal Canada to Labrador and Newfoundland, and south to central California, northern Nevada, northern Nayarit and southern Tamaulipas (Mexico), and Florida (Wozencraft, in Wilson and Reeder 1993). However, the species has been eliminated from most of the Midwest by intensive agriculture and human settlement. Now it occurs primarily in remaining large forested tracts.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DCextirpated, DEextirpated, FL, GA, IAextirpated, ID, ILextirpated, INextirpated, KSextirpated, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NDextirpated, NEextirpated, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RIextirpated, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, PEextirpated, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Covington (01039), Mobile (01097)
CT Fairfield (09001)*, Windham (09015)*
FL Alachua (12001), Baker (12003), Bay (12005), Bradford (12007), Brevard (12009), Broward (12011), Calhoun (12013), Charlotte (12015), Citrus (12017), Clay (12019), Collier (12021), Columbia (12023), Dixie (12029), Duval (12031), Flagler (12035), Franklin (12037), Gadsden (12039), Glades (12043), Gulf (12045), Hamilton (12047), Hardee (12049), Hendry (12051), Hernando (12053), Highlands (12055), Jefferson (12065), Lake (12069), Lee (12071), Leon (12073), Levy (12075), Liberty (12077), Madison (12079), Marion (12083), Miami-Dade (12086), Monroe (12087), Okaloosa (12091), Orange (12095), Osceola (12097), Pasco (12101), Polk (12105), Putnam (12107), Santa Rosa (12113), Sarasota (12115), Seminole (12117), St. Johns (12109), Sumter (12119), Suwannee (12121), Taylor (12123), Union (12125), Volusia (12127), Wakulla (12129), Walton (12131)
GA Appling (13001), Atkinson (13003), Bacon (13005), Brantley (13025), Brooks (13027), Charlton (13049), Clinch (13065), Coffee (13069), Echols (13101), Grady (13131), Lanier (13173), Lowndes (13185), Pierce (13229), Thomas (13275), Ware (13299), Wayne (13305)
IA Allamakee (19005)*, Clayton (19043)*, Delaware (19055)*, Dubuque (19061)*, Tama (19171)*, Winneshiek (19191)*
KY Bell (21013), Estill (21065), Grant (21081), Harlan (21095), Lee (21129), Letcher (21133), Madison (21151), McCreary (21147), Menifee (21165), Morgan (21175), Powell (21197), Pulaski (21199), Rowan (21205), Whitley (21235)
LA Franklin (22041), Iberia (22045), Madison (22065), Pointe Coupee (22077), St. Landry (22097), St. Tammany (22103), Tensas (22107), Vermilion (22113), West Feliciana (22125)
MD Allegany (24001)*, Garrett (24023)
MO Iron (29093), Ozark (29153), Pulaski (29169), Shannon (29203), Washington (29221)
MS Adams (28001), Claiborne (28021), Copiah (28029), Franklin (28037), George (28039)*, Hinds (28049), Humphreys (28053), Issaquena (28055), Jackson (28059)*, Jefferson (28063), Lamar (28073)*, Marion (28091)*, Neshoba (28099)*, Pearl River (28109)*, Perry (28111)*, Pontotoc (28115), Scott (28123)*, Sharkey (28125), Stone (28131)*, Sunflower (28133)*, Union (28145), Warren (28149), Washington (28151), Wilkinson (28157), Yazoo (28163)
NV Carson City (32510)*, Douglas (32005)*, Washoe (32031)
OH Ashtabula (39007)
OK Atoka (40005), Cherokee (40021), Choctaw (40023), Coal (40029), Haskell (40061), Latimer (40077), LeFlore (40079), McCurtain (40089), Pushmataha (40127), Sequoyah (40135)
SC Aiken (45003), Charleston (45019), Greenville (45045)*, Hampton (45049), Horry (45051), Kershaw (45055), Newberry (45071), Pickens (45077)*, Richland (45079), Sumter (45085)
SD Custer (46033)
TX Armstrong (48011), Bexar (48029), Brewster (48043), Carson (48065), Cass (48067), Crockett (48105), Culberson (48109), Dallam (48111), Dimmit (48127), Franklin (48159), Frio (48163), Hopkins (48223), Hudspeth (48229), Jeff Davis (48243), Kendall (48259), Kinney (48271), La Salle (48283), Marion (48315), Maverick (48323), Morris (48343), Polk (48373), Reagan (48383), Shelby (48419), Smith (48423), Terrell (48443), Val Verde (48465), Zavala (48507)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Shetucket (01100002)+*, Saugatuck (01100006)+*
02 North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Cacapon-Town (02070003)+*
03 Waccamaw (03040206)+, Wateree (03050104)+, Saluda (03050109)+, Congaree (03050110)+, Cooper (03050201)+, South Fork Edisto (03050204)+, Bulls Bay (03050209)+*, Seneca (03060101)+*, Middle Savannah (03060106)+, Lower Savannah (03060109)+, Satilla (03070201)+, Little Satilla (03070202)+, St. Marys (03070204)+, Upper St. Johns (03080101)+, Oklawaha (03080102)+, Lower St. Johns (03080103)+, Daytona - St. Augustine (03080201)+, Cape Canaveral (03080202)+, Kissimmee (03090101)+, Western Okeechobee Inflow (03090103)+, Lake Okeechobee (03090201)+, Everglades (03090202)+, Big Cypress Swamp (03090204)+, Caloosahatchee (03090205)+, Peace (03100101)+, Myakka (03100102)+, Charlotte Harbor (03100103)+, Crystal-Pithlachascotee (03100207)+, Withlacoochee (03100208)+, Waccasassa (03110101)+, Econfina-Steinhatchee (03110102)+, Aucilla (03110103)+, Upper Suwannee (03110201)+, Alapaha (03110202)+, withlacoochee (03110203)+, Little (03110204)+, Lower Suwannee (03110205)+, Santa Fe (03110206)+, Apalachee Bay-St. Marks (03120001)+, Upper Ochlockonee (03120002)+, Lower Ochlockonee (03120003)+, Apalachicola (03130011)+, Chipola (03130012)+, New (03130013)+, Apalachicola Bay (03130014)+, St. Andrew-St. Joseph Bays (03140101)+, Choctawhatchee Bay (03140102)+, Yellow (03140103)+, Blackwater (03140104)+, Pensacola Bay (03140105)+, Lower Choctawhatchee (03140203)+, Escambia (03140305)+, Town (03160102)+, Mobile - Tensaw (03160204)+, Upper Leaf (03170004)+*, Lower Leaf (03170005)+*, Pascagoula (03170006)+*, Black (03170007)+*, Upper Pearl (03180001)+*, Lower Pearl. Mississippi (03180004)+
04 Grand (04110004)+
05 Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Licking (05100101)+, North Fork Kentucky (05100201)+, Middle Fork Kentucky (05100202)+, Upper Kentucky (05100204)+, Lower Kentucky (05100205)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+, Rockcastle (05130102)+, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+
06 Upper French Broad (06010105)+*, Powell (06010206)+
07 Upper Iowa (07060002)+*, Turkey (07060004)+*, Apple-Plum (07060005)+*, Middle Iowa (07080208)+*, Meramec (07140102)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Greenville (08030100)+, Upper Yazoo (08030206)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Lower Yazoo (08030208)+, Deer-Steele (08030209)+, Bayou Macon (08050002)+, Tensas (08050003)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+, Bayou Pierre (08060203)+, Coles Creek (08060204)+, Homochitto (08060205)+, Buffalo (08060206)+, Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge (08070100)+, Bayou Sara-Thompson (08070201)+, Lower Grand (08070300)+, Atchafalaya (08080101)+, Bayou Teche (08080102)+, Vermilion (08080103)+
10 Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Upper Gasconade (10290201)+
11 Bull Shoals Lake (11010003)+, Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+, Eleven Point (11010011)+, Lower Neosho (11070209)+, Rita Blanca (11090103)+, Carrizo (11090104)+, Dirty-Greenleaf (11110102)+, Illinois (11110103)+, Robert S. Kerr Reservoir (11110104)+, Poteau (11110105)+, Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red (11120103)+, Upper Salt Fork Red (11120201)+, Upper North Fork Red (11120301)+, Muddy Boggy (11140103)+, Kiamichi (11140105)+, Pecan-Waterhole (11140106)+, Upper Little (11140107)+, Mountain Fork (11140108)+, Lower Little (11140109)+, White Oak Bayou (11140303)+, Cross Bayou (11140304)+, Lake O'the Pines (11140305)+, Caddo Lake (11140306)+
12 Middle Sabine (12010002)+, Toledo Bend Reservoir (12010004)+, Middle Neches (12020002)+, Middle Concho (12090103)+, Medina (12100302)+, Cibolo (12100304)+, Upper Nueces (12110103)+, Upper Frio (12110106)+, Lower Frio (12110108)+
13 Rio Grande-Fort Quitman (13040100)+, Terlingua (13040204)+, Big Bend (13040205)+, Maravillas (13040206)+, Santiago Draw (13040207)+, Reagan-Sanderson (13040208)+, San Francisco (13040209)+, Lozier Canyon (13040210)+*, Amistad Reservoir (13040212)+, Salt Basin (13050004)+, Upper Pecos-Black (13060011)+, Delaware (13070002)+, Salt Draw (13070004)+, Coyanosa-Hackberry Draws (13070006)+, Lower Pecos (13070008)+, Independence (13070010)+, Howard Draw (13070011)+, Lower Pecos (13070012)+, Elm-Sycamore (13080001)+, San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel (13080002)+
16 Lake Tahoe (16050101)+*, Truckee (16050102)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bear.
General Description: Pelage is usually black, brown, or reddish, but some in Pacific Northwest are bluish or whitish. Snout is tan or grizzled, straight or slightly convex in side view. Males grow larger than females, may reach several hundred pounds. Head and body length 150-180 cm, tail about 12 cm, mass about 90-140 kg for females, 115-270 kg for males (Nowak 1991, Burt and Grossenheider 1964).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from the grizzly bear in having the claws of the forefeet only a little longer than those on the hind feet (about twice as long in the grizzly), length of second upper molar less than 29.5 mm (in part of range where grizzly occurs), snout profile straight rather than dished, and in lacking a prominent hump at the shoulders; maximum size of black bear is less than that of the grizzly (170-280 cm head and body length) (Nowak 1991, Hall 1981).
Reproduction Comments: Breeding occurs in June-July. Implantation is delayed about 4 months (also reported as 5-6 months). Gestation lasts 7-7.5 months (average 220 days). Females give birth every 2 years at most. Young are born in January-February, stay with mother until fall of second year. Litter size is 1-5 (modal number generally is 2 or 3, average is less than 2 in western North America). Females generally first give birth at 2-5 years (usually 4-5 years).

A female bear's reproductive success is dependent on her condition when she enters winter dormancy. A female that has fed well in autumn puts on much body fat and gives birth to usually 2 (rarely up to 5) cubs, whereas a female in poor condition does not produce any cubs. In the southern Appalachians, productivity and survival of young were enhanced when fall food (especially hard mast) supply was favorable (Eiler et al. 1989).

Ecology Comments: Density estimates in different areas: 1 bear per 1.3-8.8 sq km. Estimated density of 0.52-0.66 bears/sq km at Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, is the highest known density in the southeastern U.S.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Black bears exhibit large variations in home range, depending on location and gender(Banfield 1974, Baker 1983, Klenner 1987). Female and subadult ranges typically are much smaller than those of adult males. In Minnesota, females rarely dispersed from natal home range, males dispersed when 2-4 years old (Rogers 1987). In western North Carolina, neighboring individuals often used areas of overlap for same activities and at same time (Horner and Powell 1990). Home ranges of males averaged 505 hectares on Long Island, Washington (Lindzey and Meslow 1977), 5,200 hectares in northern Washington (Poelker and Hartwell 1973), 1,060 hectares in northwestern California (Kelleyhouse 1975) and 2,240 hectares in the San Bernardino Mountains of southern California (Novick 1979). Home ranges in Idaho ranged from 1,660 to 13,030 hectares (Armstrup and Beecham 1976).


Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Fallen log/debris, Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Black bears inhabit forests and nearby openings, including forested wetlands. When inactive, they occupy dens under fallen trees, ground-level or above-ground tree cavities or hollow logs, underground cave-like sites, or the ground surface in dense cover. Young are born in a den. A low rate of den reuse was recorded in Pennsylvania.

These bears prefer mixed deciduous-coniferous forests with a thick understory but may occur in various situations. Large hardwood swamps and pocosins are important habitats on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. In the Great Dismal Swamp, Virginia and North Carolina, preferred habitats were pocosins, gum-cypress and maple-coniferous stands, disturbed areas, and roads; females exhibited seasonal changes in habitat preference (Hellgren and Vaughan 1991). In some areas (e.g., Alaska), bears make significant use of salmon spawning streams. In southeastern wetlands, bears would benefit from maintenance and enhancement of pocosins, mature gum, oak, and disturbed habitats (Hellgren et al. 1991).

Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Granivore, Herbivore, Invertivore, Piscivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Granivore, Herbivore, Invertivore, Piscivore
Food Comments: Opportunistic omnivore. Variable diet of plants and animals (vertebrates and invertebrates), commonly including fruits, insects, and carrion; also garbage. There is no evidence of black bears being preferentially attracted to human menstrual odors or attacking menstruating women (Rogers et al. 1991).
Adult Phenology: Circadian, Crepuscular, Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Circadian, Crepuscular, Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Bears are dormant (but do not truly hibernate) in winter, though winter denning by males and barren females in the southern part of the range relatively short.

Daily activity may vary seasonally.

Length: 160 centimeters
Weight: 200000 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Gall bladder and paws are of great value in the Asian black market (see Boston Globe, 2 March 1992, pp. 23-24).
Management Summary
Help
Restoration Potential: Smith and Clark (1994) discussed factors (including release of 20-40 individuals/year for eight years) contributing to the successful re-establishment of a population after extirpation in the Ozark and Ouachita mountains of Arkansas.
Management Requirements: Adults (e.g., "problem bears") must be moved at least 64 km to assure that less than 50% return to original location; no increase in natural mortality occurs in translocated bears of age 2 years or older (Rogers 1986). See also Herrero (1985), Williamson (n.d.), Darling and Archibald (1990), and Clark and Smith (1991) for management information.
Monitoring Requirements: See Gibeau and Paquet (1991) for information on immobilization methods.

Layering of dental cementum in teeth collected from harvested bears can provide reasonably good accounts of present and past reproductive rates (Coy and Garshelis 1992).

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Den site, Feeding concentration site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Major water barriers; arbitrarily set at those greater than 5 kilometers across.
Alternate Separation Procedure: Occurrences generally should be based on major occupied physiographic or ecogeographic units that are separated along areas of relatively low bear density or use (e.g., major urban areas, very rugged alpine ridges, very wide bodies of water). These units may be based on available bear sightings/records or on movements of radio-tagged individuals, or they may be based on the subjective determinations by biologists familiar with bears and their habitats. Where occupied habitat is exceptionally extensive and continuous, that habitat may be subdivided into multiple contiguous occurrences as long as that does not reduce the occurrence rank (i.e., do not split up an A occurrence into multiple occurrences that would be ranked less than A).
Separation Justification: Black bears are highly mobile and readily disperse hundreds of kilometers across many types of habitats; populations and metapopulations tend to encompass huge areas. For example, in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, genetic data indicate that northern Mexico was the source of bears that recently recolonized areas in western Texas (Onorato et al. 2004). Female-mediated gene flow is proceeding slowly in this system, but its occurrence was inferred via field observations. Long-distance colonization is the likely cause of extant geographical associations between New Mexican and Mexico-Texas populations (Onorato et al. 2004). The naturally fragmented, xeric environment of the Chihuahuan Desert impedes colonization but is not a complete barrier to this process (Onorato et al. 2004).

Hence, meaningful bear occurrences should represent large occupied landscape units, but these often will not be demographically isolated from other occurrences. Isolation would require huge separation distances that would yield impractically large occurrences.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 3.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Home ranges vary considerably in size. This distance based on a conservatively small male home range of 1000 hectares (see Separation Justification).
Date: 08Mar2005
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 01Feb2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 01Feb2010
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Addison, E.M. 1978. Crenosoma spp. (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) from black bears, Ursus americanus, of central Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 56: 1993-1997.

  • Addison, E.M., M.J. Pybus, and H.J. Rietveld. 1978. Helminth and arthropod parasites of black bear, Ursus americanus, in central Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 56: 2122-2126.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Alvo, R. 1998. National status evaluation of 20 selected animal species inhabiting Canada's forests. Final Report prepared for the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Biodiversity Convention Office and the Canadian Forest Service. 328 pp.

  • Amstrup, S. C., and J. Beecham. 1976. Activity patterns of radio-collared black bears in ldaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 40:340-48.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des mammifères du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 5 pages.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of Mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence. 415 pp.

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1977. Les Mammifères du Canada. Publié pour le Musée national des sciences naturelles, Musées nationaux du Canada, par les Presses de l'Université Laval. 406 p.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

  • Barichello, N. 1998. Status Report on the American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) in Canada. Committee On the Status of Endangered Widllife in Canada. 53 pp.

  • Barichello, N. ?. Status of the North American Black Bear, Ursus americanus, in Canada. unpublished report. 49 pp.

  • Beeman, L.E. and Pelton, M.R. 1980. Seasonal foods and feeding ecology of black bears in the Smoky Mountains. Bears - Their Biology and Management (B80MAR02TNUS).

  • Boddicker, M.L. 1983. Black Bears. Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Resources Committee; Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 11 pp.

  • Bowers, A. K., L. D. Lucio, D. W. Clark, S. P. Rakoe, and G. A. Heidt. 2001. Early History of the Wolf, Black Bear, and Mountain Lion in Arkansas. J. Ark. Acad. Sci. 55:22-27.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf

  • Byun, S. A., B. F. Koop, and T. E. Reimchen. 1997. North American black bear mtDNA phylogeography: implications for morphology and the Haida Gwaii glacial refugium controversy. Evolution 51:1647-1653.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1975. Black Bear. Hinterland Who's Who. Environment Canada, Wildlife Service, Ottawa.

  • Cannings, S. 2001. EO Specifications for American Black Bear (Ursus americanus). NatureServe, Unpublished. 2 pp.

  • Clark, J. D., and K. G. Smith, editors. 1991. Proceedings of the eastern workshop on black bear research and management. Univ. Arkansas. 150 pp.

  • Coy, P. L., and D. L. Garshelis. 1992. Reconstructing reproductive histories of black bears from the incremental layering of dental cementum. Canadian J. Zoology 70:2150-2160.

  • Cronin, M. A., S. C. Amstrup, G. W. Garner, and E. R. Vyse 1991. Interspecific and intraspecific mitochondrial DNA variation in North American bears (Ursus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69(12):2985-2992.

  • DUCATEL, J.T. 1837. OUTLINES OF THE PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY OF MARYLAND, EMBRACING ITS PROMINENT GEOLOGIC FEATURES. TRANS. OF MD. ACAD. SCI. AND LIT. 1:24-54.

  • Darling, L., and R. Archibald, editors. 1990. Bears--their biology and management. Proc. Eighth Int. Conf. on Bear Res. and Manage., Victoria, British Columbia, Feb. 1989. 438 pp.

  • Dawson, N. 2001. A survey of Ontario trappers to estimate wildlife population levels and population changes: 1999-2000 Summary Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Region, Wildlife Assessment Program. Unpaginated.

  • Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown. 1981. Public attitudes toward black bears in the Catskills. New York Fish and Game J. 28(1):1-20.

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

  • Doan-Crider, D. L. 1995. Population characteristics and home range dynamics of the black bear in northern Coahuila, Mexico. M. S. Thesis. Texas A & M University, Kingsville, TX. 117 pp.

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario. 120 pp.

  • EILER, J.H. 1981. REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OF BLACK BEARS IN THE SMOKEY MOUNTAINS OF TENNESSEE. TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY, TECH. REPT. 81-4127 PAGES.

  • EILER, J.H. AND W.G. WATHEN AND M.R. PELTON. 1989. REPRODUCTION IN BLACK BEARS IN THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS. J. WILDL. MGMT. 53(2):353-360.

  • ELOWE, K.D. AND W.E. DODGE. 1989. FACTORS AFFECTING BLACK BEAR REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS AND CUB SURVIVAL. J. WILDL. MGMT. 53(4):962-968.

  • ESHER, ROBERT I. AND DWIGHT K. BRADSHAW. 1988. DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE AF VERTEBRATES OF DELISLE FOREST AND ADJACENT MARSH. MS. STATE UNIV. RES. CENTER. 51 pp.

  • Eastridge, R. 2005. 2004 Black Bear Harvest Report. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Wildlife Management Division, Little Rock, AR.

  • Eiler, J. H., W. G. Wathen, and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Reproduction in black bears in the southern Appalachian Mountains. J. Wildlife Management 53:53:353-360.

  • Epps, C.W. 1997. Habitat suitability for black bear (Ursus americanus) in the Neches Bottom and Jack Gore Baygall units of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Senior Honors thesis, Rice University, 66 pp.

  • FULLER, D. 1989. BLACK BEARS FIND AN UNLIKELY PROTECTOR. NEW SCIENTIST 1684:46.

  • Figg, D. E. 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report, July 1992-June 1993. 75 pp.

  • Garris, R.S. and Pelton, M.R. 1984. Activities of black bears in Cherokee National Forest, TN. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, No. 38.

  • Garshelis, D.L. and Pelton, M.R. 1980. Activity of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Mammalogy 61(1):

  • Garshelis, D.L. and Pelton, M.R. 1981. Movements of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 45(4):

  • Garshelis, D.L., Scheick, B.K., Doan-Crider, D.L., Beecham, J.J. & Obbard, M.E. 2016.Ursus americanus. (errata version published in 2017) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41687A114251609. Available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41687/0. Accessed on July 26, 2017.

  • Gibeau, M. L., and P. C. Paquet. 1991. Evaluation of Telazol for immobilization of black bears. Wildlife Society Bull. 19:400-402.

  • Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 304 pp.

  • HALL, E.R. 1981. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, SECOND EDITION, 2 VOLUMES. JOHN WILEY & SONS, NEW YORK. (1:600 P., 2:581 P.).

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HALL,E. AND K.KELSON. 1959. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, VOL 1 & 2.

  • HAMILTON, W.J. JR., AND J.O. WHITAKER, JR. 1979. MAMMALS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, ITHACA, NEW YORK. 346 P.

  • HAMITON, ROBERT J. AND R. LARRY MARCHINTON. 1980. DERIVING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES OF BLACK BEARS IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF NC, IN MARITINKA & McARTHUR (EDS) BEARS-THEIR BIOLOGY & MANAGEMENT. INTERNAT'L BEAR BIOL. ASSOC. CONF. KALISPELL FEB. 20-24, 1977.

  • HELLGREN, E.C. AND M.R. VAUGHAN. 1989. DENNING ECOLOGY OF BLACK BEARS IN A SOUTHEASTERN WETLAND. J. WILDL. MGMT. 53(2):347-353.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hall, E. Raymond and Keith R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1083 pp.

  • Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Handley, C. O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pages 539-616 in K. Terwilliger, coordinator. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • Hebda, A.J. 2011. List of mammals of Nova Scotia (including synonyms used in the literature relating to Nova Scotia) (revision 2) 24 July 2011. Nova Scotia Museum Collections Unit, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 24 pp. Online. Available: https://naturalhistory.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/inline/images/names_and_synonyms_ver3.pdf

  • Hellgren, E. C., M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1991. Macrohabitat use by black bears in a southeastern wetland. J. Wildlife Management 55:442-448.

  • Hellgren, E. C., and M. R. Vaughan. 1989. Demographic analysis of a black bear population in the Great Dismal Swamp. J. Wildlife Management 53:969-977.

  • Hellgren, Eric C. 1993. Status, distribution, and summer food habits of black bears in big bend national park. Southwest. Nat. 38(1):77-80.

  • Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks: their causes and avoidance. Winchester Press. 287 pp.

  • Herrero, ed. Bears -- their biology and management. IUCN Publ. new ser., No. 23, 371 pp.

  • Horner, M. A., and R. A. Powell. 1990. Internal structure of home ranges of black bears and analyses of home-range overlap. J. Mammalogy 71:402-410.

  • JENKINS, J. H. 1953. GAME RESOURCES OF GEORGIA. GA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION. ATLANTA. 114 PP.

  • JONES, C. AND C. CARTER. 1989. ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE RECENT MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 128:1-9.

  • Jackson, Hartley T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI 53701. 504pp.

  • Johnson, K.G. and Pelton, M.R. 1981. Selection and avail- ability of dens for black bears in Tennessee. Journal of Wildlife Management 45(1):

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • Jonkel, C.J. and I.M. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildlife Monographs 27. 57 pp.

  • KENNEDY, M.L., ET. AL. 1974. A REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI MAMMALS. STUDIES IN NATURAL SCIENCES. 2(1):1-36.

  • Kamler, J. F., L. A. Green, and W. B. Ballard. 2003. Recent occurrence of black bears in the southwestern Great Plains. Southwestern Naturalist 48:303-306.

  • Kelleyhouse, D. G. 1975. Habitat utilization and ecology of the black bear in northern California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata. 60pp.

  • Klenner, W. 1987. Seasonal movements and home range utilization patterns of the black bear, URSUS AMERICANUS, in western Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:558-568.

  • Kohn, B.E. 1982. Status and Management of Black Bears in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Technical Bulletin No. 129. 32 pp.

  • LeCount, A.L. 1986. Black bear field guide: a manager's manual. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (Special Report no. 16). 135 pp.

  • Lindzey, F. G., and E. C. Meslow. 1977. Home range and habitat use by black bears in southwestern Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:413-25.

  • Linzey, D.W. 2016. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 2016 revision. Southeastern Naturalist 15(Monograph 8):1?93.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Kingsport Press, Inc. Kingsport, Tennessee. 565 pp.

  • MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION. MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE. ENDAGERED SPECIES OF MISSISSIPPI.

  • MISSISSIPPI MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 1989. COUNTY INFORMATION FOR MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI.

  • Martinka, C. J., and K. L. McArthur, eds. 1980. Bears: their biology and management. Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 3. Bear Biology Assoc., Boise, Idaho. 375 pp.

  • Martinka, C.J. and McArthur, K.L. 1980. Bears - Their Biology and Management. Bear Biology Association ConferenceSeries, No. 3.

  • Merritt, J.F. 1987. Guide to the Mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 408 pp. B87MER01PAUS.

  • Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation. Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1988. Public Notice No. 279.

  • Mount, R. H., editor. 1986. Vertebrate animals of Alabama in need of special attention. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama. 124 pages.

  • Mount, R.H. 1986. Vertebrate animals of Alabama in need of special attention. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama. 124 pp.

  • Naughton, D. 2012. The natural history of Canadian mammals. University of Toronto Press, Toronto: 784 pp.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1985. Draft Environmental impact statement - Honeoye Creek Wetland Project.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1987. New York State black bear harvest, 1986. Big Game Unit. Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • Novick, H. J. 1979. Home range and habitat preferences of black bears (URSUS AMERICANUS) in the San Bernardino Mountains of southern California. M.S. Thesis, California State Poly. University, Ponoma. 58pp.

  • Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vols. I and II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1629 pp.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • Onorato, D. P., E. C. Hellgren, R. A. Van Den Bussche, and D. L. Doan-Crider. 2004. Phylogenetic patterns within a metapopulation of black bears (Ursus americanus) in the American Southwest. Journal of Mammalogy 85:140-147.

  • Opezio, J, S.H. Clarke and C. Hackford. 1983. Chronology of denning by black bears in the Catskill region of New York. New York Fish and Game J. 30(1):1-11.

  • PELTON, M. R. 1982. BLACK BEAR. PP. 504-514. IN WILD MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA. OP CIT.

  • PELTON, M.R. 1985. 1985. HABITAT NEEDS OF BLACK BEARS IN THE EAST. IN WILDERNESS AND NATURAL AREAS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES: A MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE. STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIV., NOCOGDOCHES, TX. PP. 49-53.

  • Paetkau, D., and C. Strobeck. 1996. Mitochondrial DNA and the phylogeography of Newfoundland black bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:192-196.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Pelton, M.R. and Burghardt, G.M. 1976. Black bears of the Smokies. Natural History 85(1):

  • Poelker, R. J., and H. D. Hartwell. 1973. Black bear of Washington. Washington State Game Department Biol. Bulletin No. 14, viii + 180 pp.

  • Prescott J. et P. Richard. 1982. Mammifères du Québec et de l'est du Canada. Tome 1. Éditions France-Amérique. 199 p.

  • Prescott J. et P. Richard. 2004.. Mammifères du Québec et de l'est du Canada. Editions Michel Quintin, 2ème édition. 399 pages.

  • Rogers, L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth and reproductive success of Black Bears. Transactions of the 41st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference p. 431-438.

  • Rogers, L. L. 1986. Effects of translocation distance on frequency of return by adult black bears. Wildlife Society Bull. 14:76-80.

  • Rogers, L. L. 1987. Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 97:1-72.

  • Rogers, L. L., G. A. Wilker, and S. S. Scott. 1991. Reactions of black bears to human menstrual odors. J. Wildlife Management 55:632-634.

  • Rogers, L.L. and A.W. Allen. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black Bear, Upper Great Lakes Region. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 82(10.144). 55 pp.

  • Runge, W. and J. Mulhern. 1985. The status of wild furbearers in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. February. Mimeo. 43pp.

  • SCHWARTZ, C.W., AND E.R. SCHWARTZ 1981. THE WILD MAMMALS OF MISSOURI. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI PRESS AND MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI. 356 P.

  • SCHWARTZ,C. AND E.SCHWARTZ. 1981. THE WILD MAMMALS OF MISSOURI, REV. ED.

  • Sauer, P.R. , S. Free and S. Browne. 1966. Age determination in black bears from canine tooth sections. New York Fish and Game J. 13(2):125-139.

  • Sauer, P.R. 1975. Relationship of growth characteristics to sex and age for black bears from the Adirondack region of New York. New York Fish and Game J. 2292):81-113.

  • Sauer, P.R. S.L. Free and S.D. Browne. 1969. Movements of tagged black bears in the Adirondacks. New York Fish and Game J. 16(2):205-213.

  • Schultz, V. 1955. Status of the black bear in Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Sciences 30(1):

  • Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 356 pp.

  • Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals: Their Natural History, Classification and Distribution. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Servheen, C. and S. Herrero. 1999. Bears: Status survey and conservation action plan. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

  • Shields, G. F., and T. D. Kocher. 1991. Phylogenetic relationships of North American ursids based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 45:218-221.

  • Skiles, J.R. 1995. Black bears in Big Bend National Park - the Tex-Mex connection. In proceedings of the fifth western black bear workshop. J. Auger and h. Black, eds. Provo Utah. Pp. 67-73.

  • Smith, C.R. et al. 1974. The mammals of northeastern Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 49(3):88-94

  • Smith, K. G., and J. D. Clark. 1994. Black bears in Arkansas: characteristics of a successful translocation. Journal of Mammalogy 75:309-320.

  • Smith, K.G. and J.D. Clark. 1994. Black bears in Arkansas: characteristics of a successful translocation. J. Mamm. 75(2):309-320.

  • Strickland, D. 1992. What Can We Learn? - The Algonquin Bear Attack. Pathways 4(3): 22-25.

  • Tlen, D.L. 1993. Kluane Southern Tutchone glossary: english to Southern Tutchone. First edition. The Northern Research Institute, Whitehorse, Yukon. 38 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 19 August 1988. Notice of findings on petitions to list the Louisiana black bear, lower Keys marsh rabbit, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Federal Register 53:31723-31725.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 8 December 1998. New 12-month finding for a petition to list the Florida black bear. Federal Register 63(235):67613-67618.

  • WARD, R.P. 1965. THE MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 11:309-330.

  • Warburton, G.S. 1982. Contents of black bear scats from the central Adirondacks in late summer. New York Fish and Game J. 29(2):210-213.

  • Williamson, S. J. No date. Forester's guide to wildlife habitat improvement. Cooperative Extension Service, Univ. of New Hampshire. 56 pp.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [Available online at: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/ ]

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wolfe, J.L. 1971. Mississippi land mammals. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi 44 pp.

  • Wooding, J. B., and T. S. Hardisky. 1992. Denning by black bears in northcentral Florida. J. Mammalogy 73:895-898.

  • Yancey II, Franklin D. 1997. The mammals of Big Bend Ranch State Park, Texas. Special Publication 39. 1 October 1997. Texas Tech University. Lubbock. 210 pp.

  • Youngman, P.M. 1975. Mammals of the Yukon Territory. Publications in Zoology, No. 10., National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 192 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.