5:34 The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team has changed a data point in their calculations for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population. This one adjustment shows how past population estimates on the number of grizzlies have been very conservative. Wyoming Public Radio's Kamila Kudelska asked study team leader Frank Van Manen why make this change now. Frank Van Manen: One of the first things that the study team looked at when it was first established in 1973 was, 'How can we best monitor this population?' At the time research tools were still somewhat limited. And so one of the things they immediately honed in on was to keep track of the number of unique females with cubs, because females with cubs are a good indication of what the population is doing overall. They're the backbone of the population, so to speak. And, so keeping track of females with cubs as a reproductive segment of the population made sense. And so a lot of effort went into that early on, that led to what we will now refer to as the Knight et al. rule set. This was basically a rule set to identify sightings from females with cubs, as belonging to unique individuals in unique family groups, so to speak. There's a number of criteria that goes into that determination, into that rule set. But the biggest one, the most important one is a distance criteria. So if you have clusters of observations, you can separate them out based on distance criteria, simply because we know what your typical movements and home range sizes are, etc, that allowed researchers at the time to identify how many unique females with cubs there were. And that number was then extrapolated to the total population estimate. Now, at the time, it was still a recovering population. So there was an implicit conservative mechanism built into it. And essentially at the time, they said, you know, if we use 15 kilometers as a distance criterion to separate observations of females with cubs, that is what the data indicated, but they said, 'Let's double that just to be sure that we're not counting paper bears.' So they just doubled it, which was very conservative but justified at the time, simply because the last thing you want to do when you're dealing with a small recovering population is to overestimate how many pairs there might be.