Ecosystem services and disservices of bear foraging on managed timberlands

The literature on ecosystem services has been criticized for inadequately acknowledging culture values and for de‐emphasizing economic disservices. While economic loss due to tree damage by American black bears (Ursus americanus, hereafter bears) may negatively affect timber production, it also alters forest structure and habitat that may contribute to forest wildlife diversity, including culturally significant species. We examined the relationship between bear damage to Douglas‐fir trees (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii) and response of cavity‐nesting birds on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. We measured disservices from bear damage by calculating current and future timber revenue loss, and ecosystem services by calculating forest structural complexity, abundance and diversity of cavity‐nesting birds, and woodpecker activity. Bear damage was correlated negatively with tree growth and positively with estimated timber loss. Forest structural complexity was positively correlated with bear damage, and cavity‐nester abundance and woodpecker foraging activity were positively correlated with forest structural complexity and bear damage. Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) and red‐breasted sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus ruber) used bear‐damaged trees out of proportion to their availability, and pileated woodpeckers selected for more structurally complex sample units. Information from this study advances our understanding of the potential for bear foraging to negatively affect economic revenue and the trade‐offs with habitat conditions favoring other important wildlife species. Understanding the costs and benefits of bear damage can help guide management decisions vital to forest managers both on and off tribal lands. In the last twenty years, the concept of ecosystem services has been mainstreamed in the field of conservation biology (Fisher et al. 2009, Gómez‐Baggethun et al. 2010), yet it has also been sharply criticized for several reasons, including its supposed assumption that nature is benevolent (McCauley 2006, Child 2009). Moreover, the recognition of cultural values has lagged behind work on services with more direct economic impact. This may be due to the intangible nature of cultural services; they are difficult to characterize and even more so to measure, yet they present some of the most compelling reasons for conserving ecosystems (Chan et al. 2012, Milcu et al. 2013, Satz et al. 2013, Johnson and Hackett 2016). Indigenous cultural values are especially underappreciated, stemming from a long history of systemic colonization of resource