Search Results

August 22, 2023 The Conversation Neil Carter Associate Professor of Wildlife Conservation, University of Michigan A federal policy could reduce instances of conflict between people and carnivores, like coyotes. Jason Klassi/iStock via Getty Images A video showing a close encounter between a hiker in Utah and a mountain lion defending her cubs went viral in 2020. The video, during which the hiker remained calm as the mountain lion followed him for several minutes, served as a visceral reminder that sharing the land with carnivores can be a complicated affair. For conservation scientists like me , it also underscored that Americans have a fraught relationship with large carnivores like wolves, bears and mountain lions. My colleagues and I have proposed a federal policy that, when combined with other initiatives, could allow for sustainable coexistence between people and carnivores. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pg2CDCm34w In a 2020 viral video, a Utah hiker encounters a mountain lion on the trail. Warning – strong language. Major state and federal government efforts are underway to reintroduce grizzly bears to the Northern Cascades and gray wolves to Colorado. These are places where stable populations of these animals have not roamed for many decades. More human development and, in some cases, expanding carnivore populations have led to more encounters between humans and carnivores. Coyote attacks on pets are more common, alligator bites are on the rise in some regions, and the killing of livestock by wolves has spread. Increasing conflict with these species may unravel decades of conservation success . From conflict to coexistence To manage these risks, people too often default to the widespread killing of carnivores. In 2021 alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services euthanized nearly 70,000 bears, wolves, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes and foxes. In the same year, controversial laws passed in Idaho and Montana that substantially reduced wolf numbers because people perceive these animals as risks to livestock production and game species hunting. Thousands of animals die every year in wildlife killing contests that often target carnivores such as coyotes and bobcats. These contests are legal in more than 40 U.S. states – under the guise that they help with wildlife management and protect livestock. But research has found that extensive carnivore killing to reduce levels of conflict is largely ineffective , ethically tenuous and undermines their conservation . Instead, coexisting with carnivores can benefit both carnivores and people. For example, the presence of wolves and mountain lions lowers the frequency of vehicle collisions with deer, saving money and human lives. Foxes, likewise, reduce an abundance of small mammals that carry ticks, likely reducing cases of Lyme disease in humans. Sea otters maintain healthy kelp forests that support tourism and fisheries and capture carbon. Many carnivores’ presence on the landscape benefits people. Foxes, for example, eat rodents that may carry Lyme disease. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik However, the U.S. has no unified approach for making interactions with carnivores more peaceful in the spaces that people share with them. Shared spaces – like multiuse forests and grasslands, coastlines, croplands and even cities – constitute over 70% of the continental U.S. by one estimate . These spaces will grow more crowded as human development and population growth pushes people into greater contact with carnivores. Currently, however, the management of conflicts with carnivores is piecemeal across states and municipalities. It lacks sufficient resources and polarizes the public over how to manage these animals in the future. And mitigating conflict as a policy objective is a short-term and partial solution that doesn’t enable long-term coexistence. Policy for enabling coexistence A federal policy like the one my colleagues and I propose that sets goals for sharing spaces with carnivores could allow for coexistence between people and carnivores while also recognizing local priorities. While much of wildlife management takes place at the state level, having a federal policy framework could provide resources and incentives for states and communities to adopt specific coexistence strategies relevant to the carnivores in their area. Large-scale policy goals may include lowering conflicts, increasing human tolerance to risks and fostering self-sustaining carnivore populations. Coexistence strategies should prioritize using proven, nonlethal deterrence methods such as properly disposing of trash or other attractants, bringing pets inside, erecting barriers to separate livestock from carnivores in risky places and times, and working with guard animals such as dogs that are trained to protect herds from carnivores. These strategies not only reduce carnivores’ impact on human property and well-being but also facilitate carnivore recovery . Several local projects demonstrate that nonlethal deterrence programs work. In Montana’s Blackfoot watershed , natural resource managers and local residents coordinate the disposal of livestock carcasses away from ranches. This prevents grizzlies and wolves from approaching the ranches. The city of Durango, Colorado , has supplied its residents with automatically locking bear-resistant trash containers. These containers keep bears from damaging property or scaring residents while looking for food in them. A study found that these new trash containers reduced trash-related conflicts with bears by 60%. A bear in Anchorage, Alaska, sifts through trash. Some cities have issued their residents locking trash cans, which prevent bears from encroaching on local residences. AP Photo/Mark Thiessen Negative encounters with carnivores still occur in these cases, but now that the communities are collectively adapting to them, they are less severe. And these carnivores are less likely to be euthanized. Some states are also taking incremental steps toward coexistence. For example, to reduce animal suffering, New Mexico passed the Wildlife Conservation and Public Safety Act in 2021 that bans the use of a trap, snare or poison to kill an animal on public land. In 2023, Maryland and Colorado authorized provisions that help fund provisions to prevent lethal encounters with black bears and gray wolves, respectively. A broader coexistence framework These local and state-level successes are encouraging, but not enough to address the issue at a broader, national scale. A federal coexistence policy could harness the insights from these individual communities’ coexistence efforts and encourage other communities to adopt these techniques. For example, members of universities, businesses, tribes, government and nongovernmental organizations and the public could come together at regional coexistence workshops to showcase their coexistence actions, receive support for new ideas and share tools and best practices. A federal policy could allow states and communities to try out high-risk, high-reward initiatives, like Pay for Presence programs. One such program, established in northern Mexico near the U.S. border in 2007, compensates landowners for the documented presence of jaguars on their properties. A federal policy might also facilitate the adoption of market-based solutions like predator-friendly meats. The predator-friendly certification enables ranchers who do not use lethal predator control to sell their meat products at a premium price. A federal coexistence policy could also support community outreach and education programs. Teaching communities about carnivore behavior can help them to avoid potentially risky situations , like jogging with a dog or leaving children unattended in mountain lion territory. By reducing negative encounters, these programs can enhance the adoption of nonlethal coexistence strategies, foster more positive attitudes toward carnivores and share the benefits carnivores offer humans . There are promising signs that the federal government and some states are starting to pay more attention to coexistence with carnivores. As the segment of the American public that views wildlife as deserving of rights and compassion grows, translating an ethic of coexistence into good policy could better align policy with public values.

56c4bcbd-f906-4114-83f1-5dd7666af935 < Back Slide 38 of 83 < > This let litter and underbrush become so dense on the forest floor that it became hard for white pine seedlings to find soil and light.

May 15, 2021 Black Bears Do Not Deserve This Fate by Gosia Bryja | May 15, 2021 Current conservation policies are driven by irrational fears, reluctance to inconvenience ourselves in co-existence with nature, and resistance to challenging the status quo. "Bears are intrinsically social, they need to be social, but our species has not let them do so because of our own profound fear. ~ Charlie Russell Our streets are stained with blood. Between 2011 and 2020 , nearly 5, 000 black bears were killed by the Conservation Officer Service (COS) in British Columbia. In 2020, 628 bears lost their lives. They were not destroyed or euthanized, but shot dead or left to die, writhing in agony from mortal wounds. Still, the number of deaths is only a number, and no matter how high it is, the cold abstraction conceals individual anguish. It renders anonymous all those animals that ran for their lives, their hearts filled with panic and their eyes, at times, blurred by real tears. In some cases, whole families perished. Who died first? The mom? Or did she first see her little ones gunned down? Some people heard a mom crying for her little ones. The memory of the piercing wail never goes away. But our lives go on uninterrupted; the sound of a shotgun dies out soon. Anyway, in the large scheme of things, it doesn’t matter. Individual bears might have been shot and discarded, but “there’s still a healthy population” out there. That’s what one conservation officer takes solace in . He assures us that killing bears is “not fun,” and it is done “with care and with respect.” These euphemisms are disheartening. It is as if killing those bears was not enough. Their suffering needs to be rendered palatable with truth-distorting euphemisms. In the past 9 years, 4972 black bears that wandered into people’s backyards were “euthanized” without any “fun”. As for “care and respect,” carcasses of some of them were “ dumped into greenspace for carrion ” or “ deposited at the landfill .” And if the assurance of “a healthy population” is not enough, then the perennial, all-encompassing claim of “public safety” is dispatched to justify the slaughter. Bears were “destroyed”, because they were “aggressive”, “dangerous”, “food-conditioned” and “habituated”. Their very presence in urban areas posed a danger to the public. It is a case of choosing a lesser evil: bears must be killed, so they don’t kill us. To survive, we need to keep our urban habitat free of wild influences; we need to keep “the savage world” at bay. These are fictitious, self-serving arguments to soothe pangs of conscience. After all, nothing works better than fear-mongering; nothing works better than justifying cruelty as an unfortunate price to pay for ensuring a greater good. But let’s dispense with the falsehoods, just for once. Keeping the public safe? What danger to the public did a mother black bear pose running away from people? What danger to the public did juvenile bear cubs pose when they were shot dead next to their mother? None, of course. Their deaths prove nothing, except for our capacity for cruelty and indifference. And what about the notion of so-called “nuisance” or “problem” bears being a danger to the public? Making such a claim would require supporting data, but such data are lacking. Ironically, the COS itself provides counter-evidence to its assertion that the selective killing of “problem” bears is essential to keeping the public safe. Between 2011 and 2019, there have been at least 160,000 calls reporting bear sightings. The COS concedes that it has been able to respond to approximately 10% of those calls. Moreover, countless human-bear encounters taking place in urban areas of British Columbia go unreported. As often, the COS’s decisions to respond are driven by the perception of fear rather than by any inherent danger to the public. And, yet, despite the vast discrepancy between the number of human-bear encounters and the number of conservation officers’ actual interventions, we don’t hear about people being mauled or killed by “vicious” black bears. These attacks do not seem to happen whether conservation officers intervene or not. Given the media’s thirst for sensationalized headlines, it is proof as good as any that black bears do not pose a significant threat to the public. Moreover, the responded calls were not necessarily any more serious than all the other bear sightings, both reported and unreported. As often, the COS’s decisions to respond are driven by the perception of fear rather than by any inherent danger to the public. Why do we kill black bears, then? If gunning down whole families of bears does not contribute to public safety, what does it accomplish? What is its real purpose? Well, it makes the public feel safer. Conservation policies are designed not so much to prevent danger as to prevent the fear of danger . As Charlie Russell , a renowned bear expert, argued, our irrational fear of bears sets the stage for antagonistic relations with these animals. Removed from nature by the civilizing process, we live in fear of some of its most magnificent creatures, bears among them. The fear of the unknown magnifies the real danger: “We are the source of food for bears,” “What if is a bear encounters small kids playing on the playground?” “What if someone is mauled or killed?” Indeed, what if, what if, what if. The mind comes up with scenarios and the imagination stokes fears. Irrational ones. As Lynn Rogers , a researcher who studied black bears for over 50 years, says that most people expect a bear to behave aggressively rather than what a bear ends up doing in reality. In other words, the danger might not be real, but the fear of a non-existent threat persists anyway. And it is this distorted perception of fear that both instigates and justifies the lethal conservation policies. The psychology of risk perception illuminates the irrationality of our fears. We have an inflated perception of risk when facing situations over which we have little control. Regardless of the statistical data that objectively quantifies danger, we feel more vulnerable and endangered in a plane, up in the air, than when grasping a steering wheel of a car with our own hands. There is a distorted logic to it. Flying is what most of us do only occasionally, sitting passively in an assigned seat, while driving is a daily activity to which we are accustomed and over which we have a sense of relative control. Moreover, plane crashes, though rare, make headlines, whereas the mundane lethality of driving is, paradoxically, too commonplace to evoke fears. In this context, black bears have the misfortune of generating “a perfect storm” of irrational human fears. Encounters with them are still relatively rare; bears’ sheer physical power makes us feel defenceless, and if a human-bear encounter ever goes wrong, it can count on provoking a coverage tantamount to reporting on a plane crash. Not surprisingly then, in some urban neighbourhoods, residents fear being attacked by a bear more than driving a car. The truth doesn’t matter. Not when it is dwarfed by the overpowering irrationality of fear. But, still, what is the truth? Dave Garshelis , a bear research scientist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, says that “fatal black bear attacks on humans are so rare that they occur, on average, once per year across North America.” Rogers reiterates the low likelihood of the danger by stating that “about one black bear out of 1 million will attack a human in a predatory manner.” Long-term quantitative research corroborates these findings. According to the study led by Stephen Herrero, a professor emeritus at the University of Calgary and an eminent bear authority, black bears caused 63 fatalities between 1900–2009. Most of these lethal encounters occurred in remote areas of Canada and Alaska and were instigated by predatory male bears rather than “habituated” black bears or female black bears with cubs. Contrary to common belief, female black bears with cubs are not dangerous. There is not even a single case recorded where a female black bear killed anyone in defence of her cubs. Female black bears may appear ferocious and may show bluster, but it is a sign of them being nervous and not an indication of a threat to ‘public safety.’ After all, often, mother bears are entering urban areas not to forage on human food but to keep their cubs safe from male bears. How ironic it is that we do not offer them this protection and do not reciprocate the trust they put in us. Moreover, it has been documented that over 50 percent of the bear attacks took place in the presence of unleashed dogs. Clearly, an avoidable outcome. Indeed, statistically, more people are killed or mauled by domestic dogs than by black bears. Do we call conservation officers when a stranger’s dog passes us by? No, that would be silly. Not so insane, though, as killing a bear that happened to cross our path. Human-bear encounters in our urban neighbourhoods can lead to death. But only bears do the dying. Of course, as with everything in life, some danger exists. Bears are wild animals, and a bear-human encounter can turn tragic. Still, the remoteness of such an event falls within the scope of acceptable risk that all of us take every day without thinking much about it. For instance, in the US, about 100 people drown each day compared to one person killed by black in a whole year. But we still enjoy swimming. Between 1982 and 2012 , dogs accounted for more fatalities than bears. During this time, 497 people died from dog attacks across the US and Canada. But we are still eager to pat a stranger’s dog. As well as skiing, taking a hike in the forest, eating in a restaurant, going to a game, crossing an icy road in a park. There are countless examples of so-called risks that we take every day while accepting the remoteness of the danger inherent to them because they give us joy that makes life worth living. Why can’t we extend this to the joy of a peaceful co-existence with nature? We can’t. Those who advocate for a more compassionate approach in managing our interactions with bears are ridiculed as naïve and driven by emotions. This is sadly ironic since the whole conservation policy is driven by the emotion of irrational fear. It doesn’t matter, though, and the old misconceptions about bears are again churned up to the rescue. Bears that enter urban neighbourhoods are instantly labelled as “habituated” and “food-conditioned”. Once it happens, we might as well call them ‘dead’. These words -“habituated”, “food-conditioned”- and other qualifiers used to describe bears spotted in residential areas are frivolously tossed around until they become synonyms with “aggressive” and “dangerous”. It is at this point that the fate of a black bear is sealed. We must discard the old misconceptions that these words codify. An abundance of scientific data tells us that habituation does not make bears more likely to attack. As Rogers states, “[when] bears gain trust, they become much less likely to respond aggressively to people.” This is echoed by Stephen Stringham , a world authority on the behaviour of bears, who argues that “habituated bears have proven to be less of a danger than taking a walk through the woods or doing home repairs.” Again, it is our misplaced fear that dictates our interpretation of an encounter. In their peer-reviewed paper , Rogers and Stringham state: “Neither boldness nor trust for humans should be equated with aggressiveness.” False-charging, swatting the ground, and huffing loudly are “a tactic to delay confrontation to establish communication,” says Ben Kilham , a bear biologist and the founder of Kilham Bear Center . While many regard these actions as indications of imminent threat or danger, Stringham calls them a harmless bluster. They merely express nervousness and apprehension rather than readiness for an attack. Rogers and Stringham go even further arguing that bears are not anthropophobic or, to put it differently, naturally fearful of us. The fear of people is more likely a consequence of negative experiences they had with them. Still, expediency replaces real knowledge. It is less cumbersome, time-consuming, or costly to proclaim that “bears no longer afraid of people are dangerous” and then act accordingly on this misconception. Indeed, why bother with science, if it comes with the inconvenience of making informed decisions on a case by case basis? The same applies to the continuously repeated statement that “a fed bear is a dead bear.” No, it doesn’t have to be true. A fed bear is a dead bear only if the COS chooses to kill him. Certainly, we do not want black bears roaming about in proximity to our houses and feeding on human food, but this does not mean that the “punishment” for their doing so should be death. This is wrong. Killing a bear that may not pose any danger to people fits the strain of “conservation” that is based on unjustified fear and disregard for life rather than on solid science. Rogers argues there is no science supporting the necessity of killing bears that become “food-conditioned”. His and Stringham’s studies corroborate the effectiveness of diversionary and supplementary feeding as ways to wean bears off human food. Furthermore, a six-year Colorado Parks and Wildlife black bear study demonstrated that bears that eat human food do not become addicted to it. Black bears’ evolutionally make-up renders them more predisposed to subsist on wild food. Bears tend to return to wild places once the food becomes more plentiful. These are the facts that should inform our actions. The very notion of discretion implies that conservation officers do not have to kill black bears that show signs of “habituation” or “food conditioning”. It is their choice. This fact and the earlier statement of the conservation officer that bears are shot with sadness and heavy heart should steer this discretion towards employing non-lethal management approaches. Especially, since they exist, and employing them requires little more than basic compassion and humanity. For instance, when a tranquillized bear falls down from a tree, he often breaks his neck. Using a simple catching net would prevent such a needless death. Conservation officers’ failure to do so counters the claims of “care” and “respect”. Overall, the Get Bear Smart Society offers a comprehensive review of non-lethal options that reflect our knowledge of bears’ biology and behaviour. Some methods may work in some cases and not in others. It all depends on an individual bear’s personality, habitat availability, wild food supply, and other interacting social and ecological factors. But we can’t judge the effectiveness of non-lethal options if we are not willing to test them. And we are not. According to Government Statistics , between 2011 and 2019, conservation officers relocated less than 1 percent of bears they dealt with. Moreover, only 5.4 percent of human-bear interactions were resolved by hazing. Indeed, for every hazed bear, four other bears were killed. Relocation data are even more depressing. For every black bear that was given a chance to be relocated, 25 other bears were shot. It is thus disingenuous to argue the ineffectiveness of non-lethal attempts if they are barely utilized. This reality presents a stark contrast to the claim of the COS that “shooting an animal is their last option when dealing with problem wildlife.” With more than 600 bears killed tin 2020, it seems like the only option. Bears are managed as “species” or, as government bureaucrats phrase it, “life game”, and not as living creatures with complex inner lives. A time for change has come. Current conservation policies are driven by irrational fears, reluctance to inconvenience ourselves in co-existence with nature, and resistance to learning and challenging the status quo. They are rooted in antiquated myths. Bears are managed as “species” or, as government bureaucrats phrase it, “life game”, and not as living creatures with complex inner lives. These conservation approaches are the legacy of a hunt, trap and kill mentality. The legacy we can’t free ourselves from. In their book Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age , Mark Bekoff and Jessica Pierce discuss the “knowledge translation gap”. Our adherence to misguided attitudes and practices allows us to justify causing harm to animals, despite the preponderance of science on animal cognition and emotions. It is enough to read the COS’ Bear Conflict Response Matrix to realize how easy it is to justify killing a bear. Each officer has discretion on how to define a conflict and how to deal with one; moreover, there is no independent oversight or transparency tool to evaluate individual decisions. In essence, killing a bear is never wrong. It doesn’t have to be like this. We have accumulated so much knowledge about black bears. As Kilham writes; “Bears are part of sophisticated societies that we are only beginning to understand.” They have different types of social behaviour that possibly parallel early human behaviour. They are not solitary, aloof animals, as often portrayed. They have impressively complex social relationships based on alliances formed with other bears and, once rules are established, they can do well in overlapping home ranges. They operate with a moral code, demonstrate altruism, and have a well-developed system of justice, punishment, friendship, and food-sharing. They use facial expressions, ear movements, and body language. They employ a wide array of vocalizations to communicate fear, danger, dominance, subordination, and a level of comfort with one another. Indeed, they have successfully communicated for millions of years. Now, they are trying to speak to us, but we refuse to listen. Fear begets fear. Again, it does not mean that we want black bears to roam freely in our neighbourhoods. We do not want it, and bears do not want it, either. They would rather roam in their habitat, feed on natural food sources, and stay away from people. It is thus paramount that we learn how to interact peacefully with these magnificent creatures. To make it happen, we need a holistic approach that targets the current problems at different levels. Firstly, properly securing our garbage and removing all attractants are a must. Just as buckling up the moment we enter a car or locking it once we leave it. Nothing justifies ignorance. It is also about educating ourselves. We are bound to co-exist with black bears, and so we owe them to learn about their way of acting when our paths happen to cross. It can be done. “Bears can read our emotional communication [and] it’s not that hard for us to understand how a bear communicates”, Kilham says. Charlie Russell’s decades-long peaceful relationship with bears has proven that . Knowledge, tools, resources are available to us. We need the will. Moreover, cities in B.C. have to pass bylaws that demonstrate that the lives and well-being of bears have value. Symbolic fines for improperly managing bear attractants do not send this message. We already witnessed some positive developments, such as increasing fines for unsecured garbage by the city of Port Moody . We still need to allocate, however, sufficient resources and staff to enforce solid waste bylaws. Finally, the creation of an independent oversight body for BC COS would ensure transparency and give the public a venue to voice its concerns. The Raincoast Conservation Foundation and the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre call, in their report , for both establishing a third-party oversight body and revising the BC COS internal policies. Pacific Wild , a B.C. environmental group, proposed outfitting all officers with body cameras while they operate in the field. It is also high time for wildlife management policies to close the “knowledge translation gap” and embrace decades of experiential and scientific knowledge about the true nature of bears and their emotional and cognitive capacities. We have the right to know how decisions are being made and whether killing a bear or a family of bears was indeed the “last option”. Leaving the fate of wild animals entirely in the hands of unaccountable conservation officers will not suffice. The sheer number of nearly 5,000 bears killed within the last 9 years tells us this. Indeed, any taxpayer-funded entity should have independent oversight. What we request is consistency. Hospitals, schools, police, and many other government-run service entities are overseen by independent agencies that monitor the actions of those in power. The conservation field deserves the same. It is also high time for wildlife management policies to close the “knowledge translation gap” and embrace decades of experiential and scientific knowledge about the true nature of bears and their emotional and cognitive capacities. This knowledge exposes the cruelty of treating bears as aggregate, inanimate, disposable objects. A concern for species and populations needs to give way to a concern for individual animals. This is what really counts, regardless of whether the “population” is “endangered” or “healthy .” In the end, we owe bears respect. No bear should die because of poorly secured trash or because irrational fears rather than compassion dictate our actions. There are no “nuisance” bears; there are no “problem” bears. These words are labels of convenience that we use to hide our discomfort with nature. Nor should bears die because raising a shotgun is the fastest way to deal with wild animals that cross our path. This doesn’t have to happen. This must not happen. We, British Columbians, are the lucky ones. We should be thankful for the privilege of living so close to nature, within the reach of its magnificent embrace. Wild animals are an integral part of nature, and so are we, after all. A peaceful, non-violent co-existence between us and them is possible. And it depends on us. We need to change how we interact with animals whose habitats we have invaded. Also, we need to urge those who have the power over life and death to change their ways. The article originally published on Jan 15, 2020. Updated on May 15, 2021. https://omere.ca/essays/black-bears-do-not-deserve-this-fate/

TO FEED OR NOT TO FEED Eagles Nest Township is home to one of the most comprehensive, long running scientific behavioral studies of black bears in the world. Dr. Lynn Rogers Ph.D., one of the most prolific authors of peer-reviewed scientific articles on black bears, chose Eagles Nest Township because of its long history of feeding and peacefully coexisting with bears for over sixty years. Known as the Jane Goodall of bears, he developed a trust-based method of collaring and changing batteries in GPS units by using a handful of nuts instead of tranquilizers which can injure or kill bears. The study focuses on the bears of Eagles Nest Township, most of whom are descended from Shadow, a 34 year old resident black bear. Using airplanes, canoes, snowmobiles and snowshoes he has followed over 300 individual bears for over 30 years and has been able to develop a family tree of the generations of bears descended from Shadow (Shadow's Family Tree ). Dr. Rogers' initial population study has developed into a broad-based study of behavior, ecology, hibernation, vocalizations, body language, social organization, physiology, and bear-human relations. One of the many goals of this long-term study is to reduce bear-human conflict and find ways to coexist. Never has education been so important. Bear habitat is shrinking worldwide. People will not coexist with an animal they fear. The future of the bears that live around people depends upon knowledge and attitude of those humans. The need for accurate information about these animals is essential. To Feed or Not to Feed - UPDATE October 1, 2021 Read the article here Wildlife Research Institute To Feed or Not to Feed Consequences of feeding black bears? Feeding bears is one of the least studied aspects of bear biology. As a result, many of the beliefs about it have little or no scientific foundation. Here is a list of statements (in italics ) that were handed out to residents of Eagles Nest Community as gospel by a wildlife official in September 2007. Some of the statements may be true from time to time, but none typify black bear behavior. The bulleted information is from actual research—either cited from other sources or from our own research. However, a caveat is that the last two years (2020 and 2021) have produced such extreme drought and scarce berries and hazelnuts that we are seeing more bears than ever in our studies. Some are familiar bears taking advantage of diversionary feeding sites that keep them out of trouble in times of food scarcity. These include some of the oldest bears in Minnesota. But this year we are also seeing bears we never saw before as bears are driven out of large areas by fire and smoke. Some of these are coughing up blood and thick phlegm that we believe is from smoke inhalation. Feeding these bears has allowed us to see them recover. Some of the bears are skinny from the lack of food. Skinny mothers that appeared here did not appear to be producing much milk and had unusually small cubs. Feeding them allowed us to see the mother produce more milk and the cubs grow into healthy youngsters. The drought and scarce food situation extends far up into Canada. Bears that face scarce food travel much farther than usual, and some of them are likely the skittish newcomers that we are seeing here in this time when Minnesota’s own population is at a recent low. The latest DNR estimate is only 10,000 to 12,000 in the state compared to 20,000 to 25,000 a couple decades ago. At the same time more bears are coming out of the woods due to hunger, making bear numbers appear to be high. In this time of hunger, hungry bears are traveling from one diversionary feeding site to another and mostly staying out of trouble as they pass through people’s yards. Numbers have waned now as bears have gained weight and slowed down as they approach hibernation. Here are some common beliefs and what we and others have found. 1. A fed bear is a dead bear. ● This slogan was developed by campground managers to promote clean camping. A fed bear often does end up a dead bear in campground situations, but people blindly recite this rhyme as a mantra for all situations, not realizing it has no science behind it. 2. When bears congregate around feeding stations they spread communicable diseases to each other. ● Birds (Altizer et al 2004) and deer (Dobson and Foufopoulos 2001), can spread disease when congregating at feeders, but we know of no disease spread among bears in this way. We are currently conducting a study to determine whether a higher incidence of intestinal parasites occurs among bears that congregate around feeding areas. 3. Supplemental feeding is not necessary for bears. They survive well on natural foods. ● In good food years, black bears do survive well on natural foods, but in poor food years, cubs and yearlings may starve to death. ● In poor food years, hunger may drive bears to human food sources, and some of those bears are killed by landowners. Often, the bears are only gut-shot, resulting in slow, inhumane, and wasteful deaths. ● An increasing body of data from across North America suggests that diversionary feeding can help prevent problems around some rural communities. Where there is diversionary food for hungry bears to turn to, efforts to reduce nuisance problems by reducing attractants and using aversive conditioning are more effective and house break-ins are rare, resulting in fewer bears killed. 4. Bears prefer human foods over natural foods. ● What bears eat depends upon what the alternatives are. If the only natural alternatives are low quality foods, bears may temporarily prefer human foods. However, when high quality natural foods like emerging vegetation, colonial insects, nuts, and berries become abundant, bears demonstrate their preference for those foods and spend little or no time seeking human foods. ● In the State of Washington, where foresters provide diversionary food to reduce tree damage, Ziegltrum (2004) stated, “If given a choice among sapwood, pellets, and berries, bears prefer berries. In July [when berries ripen], bears quickly wean off the man-made feed.” ● Until recently, hunters in Virginia fed bears year-round. One hundred twenty-eight hunters surveyed provided 6,473,267 pounds of feed in a year (Gray et al. 2004). The Virginia Bear Hunters Association maintained that this supplemental feeding did not cause bears to cease their natural feeding and that bears will not use feeding sites, or will greatly reduce their rate of use, when acorns begin dropping from trees in late summer and early fall (Gray et al. 2004). ● In Minnesota, bears are killed over bait in higher numbers in years when natural foods are scarce (Garshelis and Noyce 2007). ● In Minnesota garbage dumps, most bear droppings during the summer berry season are natural food. Only after natural foods wane do most droppings contain garbage (Rogers 1989) 5. Bears may prefer natural food, but foods that people feed are more concentrated and easier to obtain – making for lazy, dependent bears. ● Researchers in northeastern Minnesota who walk with wild bears that have access to supplemental food find that black bears prefer high quality natural foods and forgo supplemental food to forage for natural foods when those foods are available. They say, “Anyone who thinks a fed bear is lazy should try following one around for a day as the bear travels far and works hard for wild foods. Variety is important in bear diets.” 6. Feeding is simply for human entertainment, not for the health of the bears. ● In many cases feeding bears is simply for human entertainment, as is feeding of deer, birds, or any other wildlife. People enjoy watching wildlife. ● Feeding in some areas is turning out to be important in reducing nuisance problems—whether it is done for entertainment or to divert bears from problem areas in times of natural food shortage. ● Feeding bears enables people to learn about bears and get past the ferocious images most people carry in their minds. This leads to better coexistence. ● Wildlife Research Institute feeds bears for research, keeping records of bear visits, weights, social interactions, and activities. The bears are also radio-tracked to learn what they do away from the feeding station. The study is revealing some of the information written here. Feeding also enables researchers to establish the trust needed to place radio-collars on bears without drugs, adjust collars for growth, and walk with bears to learn aspects of bear biology that could not be learned in any other way. 7. Bears get unnaturally fat when feeding on human foods. ● What is ‘unnaturally fat’ for a bear? Bears are not like people and dogs. Bears are built to gain and lose huge amounts of weight over the course of a year so they can hibernate overwinter and produce and nourish cubs for several months before emerging from the den. Fat bears maintain favorable HDL/LDL ratios. ● Ely researchers are not aware of any data that show harmful effects from supplementary human foods. WRI has obtained more weights on free-ranging wild black bears than any other bear study in the world. In northeastern Minnesota, adult bears with unlimited access to high-quality supplemental food do not show consistent weight gains until mating season ends and berries ripen. ● Out of 105 bears that have been observed at feeding stations during the 12 years to date, only two (both pregnant females) might be considered “obese.” Both produced healthy cubs. ● In captivity, an obese female black bear set a longevity record of 34 years at Grandfather Mountain, North Carolina. 8. Even if the bear you’re feeding does not damage your property, it may create nuisance problems and cause property damage at your neighbor’s home. ● This may happen from time to time, but data from Alaska, Montana, Colorado, Wisconsin, British Columbia, Michigan, and Minnesota show that hungry, emaciated bears (not fed bears) are the ones most likely to be nuisances, damage property, break into houses, and cause problems in campgrounds. ● House break-ins are most common where natural food is scarce and there is no diversionary food. ● Supplementary feeding sites are just another source of food to bears—along with natural feeding areas—but the reliability of supplementary food can become important in years of scarce natural food. ● Property damage is always possible with bears, whether they are fed or not, but people who feed bears in Eagles Nest Township experience very little damage, and neighbors of people who feed bears see few or no bears in the course of a year. 9. Feeding Bears = Tame Bears. A tame bear’s inherent wildness is compromised by feeding, making it unwary of people. This results in more unwanted human-bear encounters, which overall reduces the value, appreciation, and tolerance of bears by the general public. ● Many people believe it is wrong to feed birds, bears, or any wildlife. Perhaps that would be ideal. However, in many parts of the country people are moving into bear habitat and usurping valleys and shoreline areas where bears once fed. More needs to be learned about how people and bears can coexist. ● In Eagles Nest Township, where residents have fed bears for over 40 years, DNR records show fewer complaints over that period than elsewhere in the state. ● Although bears learn to trust people at feeding locations, most run when they encounter people in the woods where people are not expected. ● If “inherent wildness” means inherent fear of people, we are not sure there is such a thing. Wild bears are intelligent animals whose behavior depends more upon learning than instinct. Bears are seeing more and more people in their habitat and are adapting to it. Bear personalities vary greatly. Some adapt more readily than others. More and more, bears are learning that they can continue foraging and caring for cubs without wasting energy running from people. This is normal habituation. Does this ability to learn mean they are not wild? ● In Eagles Nest Township, the vast majority of bears cause no trouble—even when natural food is scarce and bears in other townships become nuisances. Only 2 out of 105 bears identified at feedings stations in the township since our research began in 1996 have been the source of complaints. By contrast, in a nearby community that did not provide diversionary food, 1 out of every 9 households killed a “nuisance” bear each year during an 8-year study (Rogers and Allen 1987). Whether it is better to feed bears or kill them when natural food is scarce is a matter of opinion. ● Where bears are fed, neighbors commonly come over, meet the bears, and overcome misconceptions. This increases the value, appreciation, and tolerance of bears by the general public and enables people to enjoy the woods without fear. 10. Too many bears concentrated in one area can create a multitude of problems including threat to humans, bodily injury, property damage, car kills, and vulnerability to illegal killing. ● This could happen if feeding were done to excess in the wrong place. However, the resident population of Eagles Nest Township is no larger than DNR estimates for surrounding areas—about 1 bear per 1½ square miles. ● “Threat to humans, bodily injury” It is well known that black bears pose little threat to humans. It is disturbing that wildlife agencies continue to portray bears as dangerous. ● “Car kills” Bears routinely cross roads and occasionally get killed whether or not they have access to supplemental food. In Eagles Nest Township, the core of the study area, 2 bears out of 105 seen in the township during 1996 to 2007 were killed by vehicles. Both were over a mile from any feeding station. ● “Vulnerability to illegal killing.” Bears are illegally killed throughout their range. In the Eagles Nest Study Area, after four decades of feeding, most people are more knowledgeable and tolerant of bears than people elsewhere. 11. Bears concentrated at feeding areas fight with each other and kill cubs. ● Where bears concentrate around food sources of any kind, aggression can increase as bears integrate into a peaceful hierarchy. Some bears watch from treetops until they have an opportunity to feed without conflict. Chases occur, but injuries are rare. By far the vast majority of injuries to black bears occur during mating season when bears are scattered and seldom use feeding stations. ● Of 59 cubs born during 1996 to 2007, none were killed at feeding stations. One was killed by a bear elsewhere. 12. Mother bears teach their cubs to be nuisances. ● Research has shown otherwise. Most mother bears with access to supplemental food spend the majority of their time foraging on natural foods away from feeding stations. ● Breck et al. (2008) stated “there was little indication that conflict behavior in black bears partitioned along related lineages. This indicates that the acquisition of human food conditioning behavior was a function of asocial learning and/or social learning independent of parents.” 13. Bears that get food at a house will then generalize and go from house to house looking for food. ● Neighbors of feeding stations seldom see bears. 14. Feeding often lures bears to areas where hunting is not allowed. Wildlife agencies rely on regulated hunting to thin out populations to reduce potential bear-human conflicts. ● When hunters distribute literally tons of bait in the woods, most bears are drawn away from diversionary feeding stations until the hunters stop baiting a month or so later. Hunters’ baits are a major source of supplemental food each year. ● In Virginia, a survey revealed that 128 bear hunters each distributed, on average, over 50,000 pounds of bear food/year (Gray et al. 2004). ● In Eagles Nest Township, MN, 4 collared bears and several non-collared bears with access to supplemental food were killed over bait between 2000 and 2007. 15. Bears accustomed to being fed by people will approach hunters and be killed. ● Habituation to humans seems to be location specific. Bears that are comfortable with people in their yards where they are used to seeing people generally avoid or run from people they encounter in the woods where they don’t expect to see people. ● Habituated, food-conditioned bears are not more susceptible to hunters. 16. Black Bears have lived for eons in Northern Minnesota habitats without supplemental feeding. In fact, today’s northern forests, with an interspersed diversity of types and ages, produce more natural bear foods than they did in the past.” ● Today’s forests likely do produce more natural bear foods than they did in the past, but scarce food years still occur. ● For many decades, bears ate at garbage dumps when natural foods were scarce. Since 1971, bear hunters have been putting tons of bear food in the Minnesota woods each year from mid-August until after mid-September. ● Bears survived for eons before people arrived with birdfeeders and garbage to lure hungry bears to be shot as nuisances. ● Bears and humans have competed for human food throughout history (Schorger 1946, 1949). WRI is studying ways to reduce the conflict. 17. Female bears that are supplementally-fed breed and produce cubs at a younger age and at shorter intervals; this artificially inflates their reproductive rate and hence the growth of the local population. ● Bears with access to supplemental food, including diversionary food, hunters’ bait, garbage, and birdfeeders often do have a higher reproductive rate. Where access to these foods is widespread, as with hunters’ bait, it could increase the overall population. ● However, where diversionary feeding was used in a portion of Eagles Nest Township, the local population did not increase. The population appeared to be limited by female territoriality, dispersal, and mortality. The number of territorial adult females (5-6) remained about the same—although the individuals changed over time—which each female occupying approximately 6 square miles. This territory size is consistent with that of females without access to supplemental food. The territoriality of resident females effectively limits the local bear population. Fersterer et al (2001) found that the home range sizes of bears with access to supplemental food in the state of Washington did not differ significantly from home ranges of bears in non-feeding areas. ● Of 21 females that held territories or were born in the 36-square-mile study area in Eagles Nest Township during 1996-2006, 7 (including a yearling) were still in the township in 2007, 8 moved out of the township, 5 were shot by hunters, and 1 died as a cub. Most juvenile males left their mothers’ territories and the study area at 1 or 2 years of age. ● Gray et al. (2004) stated that use of feeding sites in Virginia may be compensatory rather than additive and may only affect reproduction when acorns and other natural foods are scarce. 18. Supplemental feeding disrupts the normal social system of bears. ● Nothing in any study we know of supports that claim. Where it has been studied, females establish and defend territories normally, mothers care for cubs normally, families break up normally, bears court and mate normally, males disperse normally, bears make forays outside their usually areas normally, and bears forage on natural foods normally. ● Some of the forays are to diversionary feeding stations where social hierarchies reflect the social status of these bears within the overall study area. The same is seen at salmon streams or dense food patches across America. 19. Bear feeding often draws bears across busy roadways, increasing their chance of mortality as well as increasing the chance of dangerous car accidents for people. ● Highway deaths are a problem whether or not bears have access to diversionary food. Where bears do not have access to a few diversionary feeding stations, they are more likely to visit many bird feeders and garbage cans at houses along roads. In this study, 3 research bears were killed on Highway 169 and two others were hit and survived. Four of these were more than a mile from any diversionary feeding station. The fifth was seen being chased by a male during mating season minutes before it was killed. 20. Bears are adapted to natural food shortages. They have excellent memories and travel long distances to natural food sources. Supplemental feeding disrupts this. ● This statement wrongly assumes that bears prefer diversionary food over natural food and that bears become lazy and remain near feeding stations—a misconception that was covered above. When natural food is scarce, bears that remain near residential areas do spend more time at diversionary feeding stations than in other years, but these bears and other bears also make long trips to natural feeding sites. ● In a nearby study area, 40 percent of the females and 69 percent of the males made excursions outside their usual areas. Eagles Nest bears with access to supplemental food show a similar pattern. As examples, In September 1999, a bear with access to diversionary food traveled 24 miles outside her usual range for reasons unknown. On Sept 17, 2005, a female, and cubs with access to diversionary food traveled 15 miles north to feed on acorns in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. On August 13, 2007, a 2-year-old female with access to supplemental food left her territory east of Soudan and moved 4 miles outside her territory to a remote area for 19 days. Non-radio-collared bears are absent from diversionary feeding sites for up to 10 months at a time, depending upon natural food supply. 21. Bears feeding on natural foods rarely die of starvation, either in summer or winter. Supplemental feeding does not improve their chances of survival. ● Starvation is uncommon among adult bears, but cubs and yearlings often starve in years of scarce natural food. In a nearby study, cub survival ranged from 59% to 88%, depending upon natural food supply (Rogers 1987). Adding diversionary food in the current study increased cub survival to 91% (Mansfield 2007). Survival of yearlings after emerging from dens depended upon food and bodyweight (Rogers 1987). Only 40% survived as yearlings if they weighed less than 22 pounds upon emergence, 85% survived if they weighed 22-29 pounds, and all survived if they weighed over 29 pounds (Rogers 1987). ● The data clearly show that supplemental feeding improves survival. The data also show why hungry bears either become nuisances or go to diversionary feeding sites in years of scarce natural food. Some of them are literally starving to death. Also, pregnant females that don’t get enough to eat are unable to maintain pregnancies. 22. Help us keep our bears wild, healthy, free-ranging, and a source of enjoyment for all! ● “Wild” The black bears of Eagles Nest Township are truly wild whether or not they are accustomed to seeing people. All intelligent animals learn not to waste energy running from creatures that pose no threat, and yet they remain wild. ● “Healthy” The bears of Eagles Nest Township are very healthy. They eat mainly wild foods and use human foods as a supplement. They are above average in growth and reproductive success. ● “Free-ranging” The bears of Eagles Nest Township are indeed free-ranging. They show the same travel patterns that bears showed in a nearby study area where bears were not fed. Bears travel for many purposes, including mating, maintaining territories, and finding a variety of foods. ● “Source of enjoyment for all” Bears that are fed are a source of enjoyment and education for many. If the diversionary feeding were stopped, homeowners who feed deer and birds would likely have more bear visits, which may not be a source of enjoyment for them. Literature Cited Altizer, S., W. M. Hochachka, and A. A. Dhondt. 2004. Seasonal dynamics of mycoplasmal conjunctivitis in eastern North American house finches. Journal of Animal Ecology. 73:309-322. Breck, S. W., C.L. Williams, J. P. Beckmann, S. M. Matthews, C. W. Lackey and J. J. Beecham. 2008. Using genetic relatedness to investigate the development of conflict behavior in black bears. J. Mamm. 89(2):428-434. Fersterer, P., D.L. Nolte, G.J. Ziegltrum, and H. Gossow. 2001. Effect of feeding stations on the home ranges of American black bears in western Washington. Ursus 12:51-54. Gray, R.M., M.R. Vaughan, and S.L. McMullin. 2004. Feeding wild American black bears in Virginia: a survey of Virginia bear hunters, 1998-99. Ursus 15:188-196. Garshelis, D. and K. Noyce. 2007. Status of Minnesota Black Bears, 2006. Report to Bear Committee. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Mansfield, S. A. 2007. Effects of supplemental food on weights and reproductive success of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Master’s thesis. Antioch University New England. Miller R., J. B. Kaneene, S. D. Fitzgerald, and S. M. Schmitt. 2003. Evaluation of the influence of supplemental feeding of white-tailed deer (odocoileus virginianus) on the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in the Michigan wild deer population. Journal of Wildlife Diseases: Vol. 39, No. 1 pp. 84–95 Rogers, L. L., and Arthur W. Allen. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: black bear, Upper Great Lakes Region. National Ecology Center, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 82(10.144). 54 pp. Rogers, L. L. 1989. Black bears, humans, and garbage dumps in Minnesota. Pages 43-46. In, M. Bromley (ed.) Bear-people conflicts—Proc. Of a Symposium on Management Strategies (1989). Northwest Territories Department of Renewable Resources. Schorger, A. W. 1946. Influx of bears into St. Louis County, Minnesota. J. Mammal. 27:177. Schorger, A. W. 1949. The black bear in early Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Letters 39:151-194. Ziegltrum, G.J. 2004. Efficacy of black bear supplemental feeding to reduce conifer damage in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:470-474. Thank you for all you do. Lynn Rogers, Biologist, Wildlife Research Institute and North American Bear Center The information above attempts to dispel the most popular myths and misconceptions about bears.

e2ab2318-3284-4682-a997-159222283663 < Back Slide 82 of 83 < > If you already have white pine trees on your property you can help those trees reproduce by raking away the leaf litter downwind from the tree so the white pine seeds can reach bare soil and take root. Information on how to care for young white pines is available from the Forestry Division of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/treecare/whitepine/index.html).

fcbf2861-27bc-4543-9456-fbe21ff3ae3b < Back Grooming Grooming was frequent. Mothers groomed their cubs and their yearlings, and yearlings groomed their mothers. Previous Next

7cd965c8-4bef-4c30-a7a5-d7ee7cc4bc18 < Back Slide 46 of 83 < > Worse yet, millions of Minnesota acres are without any native white pine seed source, which makes it all the more difficult for Minnesota to rebuild its white pine industry and habitat.

27f3bfda-ae67-4f50-ab3d-5b3e36e291d7 < Back Slide 63 of 83 < > Wildlife Research Institute researchers who LIVED with wild bears observed that mother bears seemed to know every old white pine in their territories, and the mothers arranged their activities around those trees.

dc83779d-ec6c-4664-aab5-a964a8885473 < Back Slide 53 of 83 < > And wouldn't Minnesota's tourism industry benefit more from these tall pine forests than from the small common trees that usually replace white pines after cutting?

08710143-fcfb-405b-95e4-0bab6b023885 Day Beds Bears create comfortable places for resting and sleeping.

93b47548-0a19-44e2-aa32-6ed9a227f8f9 < Back Huffing is the release of nervous energy Bears huff when they’re getting over a scare, like a person taking a deep breath. They do it when they reach safety up a tree, when they finally dare to come down, and when they stop running away.

ae80f603-0ba7-4231-9f48-58d1f1dadae3 Bärle's Story: One Polar Bear's Amazing Recovery from Life as a Circus Act When a 19-year old female polar bear named Barle is rescued from the inhumane conditions of a circus in the Caribbean and flown to safety in Detroit, zookeeper Else Poulsen — renowned throughout the world for her work rehabilitating bears who have been abused — is on hand to meet her and help her on the road to recovery and self-discovery. Thus begins Barle’s gradual introduction into the world of polar bears. Slowly she forges relationships with the other bears in the zoo and eventually mates with a young male and successfully raises a cub. By living in a caring, enriched environment focused on her welfare, Barle is able to recover from the trauma she had suffered at the circus and develop skills that are important to thriving as a polar bear. As Poulsen documents, however, not all captive bears are so fortunate. Augmented with black-and-white photographs, Barle’s Story provides a rich and moving portrait of a remarkable bear and of the author’s inspiring work to help her discover her true polar bear ways. Else Poulsen June 10, 2014 256 Pages: