TROUBLE BRUIN
Bear Encounters On the Rise in the West as Food and Habitat Dwindle
By David Frey, 11-02-07
| Black bear in Yellowstone National Park. Photo: Jim Peaco, courtesy of the National Park Service. | |
A summer that parched bear habitat across the West has also been a bloodier one in terms of conflicts between humans and black bears.
The most tragic occurred in Utah, where 11-year-old Samuel Ives was carried off by a black bear from the tent where he slept while camping with his family at American Fork Canyon in June. But it wasn’t the only violent encounter between humans and black bears this year. The bruins have taken on outdoorsmen in Montana. As recently as Tuesday, a bear attacked an elk hunter, but it was unclear if it was a grizzly or a black bear. In Colorado, black bears took swipes at people in their homes.
The growing conflicts arise partly because more people are living and playing in bear habitat. But some wildlife officials say black bears are also becoming more aggressive as they get used to a steady diet of human food. Add to the mix the threat of global warming wreaking havoc on bear habitat, and problems between humans and bears could become even more frequent.
Black bears are often considered docile compared to grizzlies, but they’re no teddy bears.
“A black bear, pound for pound, is just as capable of hurting you as a grizzly bear,” said Kirk Robinson, director of the Western Wildlife Conservancy, based in Salt Lake City.
While grizzlies tend to be bigger and more temperamental, both are predators, Robinson says, and while neither rely on meat for most of their diets, both are carnivores, and both are powerful.
“You don’t want either one of them mad at you,” he says.
The Rockies have seen more and more people living in bear habitat, as urban areas spread into the hinterland and mountain towns boom. As more people move in, more also head into the mountains to recreate. The result is more homes in bear habitat and more people playing in bear habitat.
Meanwhile, 2007 was a tough summer for bruins. Drought throughout much of the West left slim pickings of acorns and berries that bears rely on. In some areas, early frosts dealt an extra blow to the crop.
“When there’s less food for bears, the first thing they do in the spring is, they move downhill from hibernation to where the land is greening up earlier and start feeding on grasses and seeds and roots,” Robinson says. “That only goes so far. … Then they start looking for food in other places.”
The problem is made worse by humans leaving garbage and birdfeeders outside their homes, and leaving messy campsites in the woods. Robinson blames most of the problems with bears on humans, for not learning how to live in bear country.
He also puts some blame on the Forest Service for not shutting down the remote campsite where Samuel Ives was killed before the tragedy, what wildlife officials believe was the state’s first-ever fatality caused by a black bear. Earlier, a camper reported that a bear had swiped at his head while he slept in his tent, but he was uninjured and a search didn’t turn up the bear.
A state wildlife official told the Salt Lake Tribune the bear was probably attracted by to the campsite by the smell of food; hadn’t come looking to prey on humans. But when the bear found the 11-year-old boy in his tent, it killed him and carried him some 400 yards away, the Tribune reported.
On Tuesday, the Associate Press reported, a hunter near Corwin Springs said he was “slapped by a bear.” The encounter damaged his nose and face and knocked one eye out of its socket. The hunter, Virgil Massey, 52, of Barstow, Calif., was taken to a Billings hospital, but it wasn’t clear if it was a black bear or a grizzly.
In August, the AP reports, Dan Root, of Billings, was sleeping outside his tent at a KOA campground near West Yellowstone when a black bear nibbled his leg. A wildlife official dismissed it as a “minor” encounter, probably a bear testing to see if the man was alive or not, but Root told a reporter he should have been warned.
“If the bear hadn’t bit me, I probably wouldn’t have ever bothered with it, but if it’s aggressive enough to grab someone’s leg in the middle of the night, they need to say something about that,” he said.
In Hungry Horse, a state wildlife worker was bitten on the elbow by a black bear as he set grizzly traps as part of a bear monitoring program.
Encounters haven’t just been by outdoors people. In Colorado, run-ins came happened indoors. In Aspen, where a family of roaming black bears prompted officials to cordon off the downtown pedestrian mall at one point, a black bear swiped a woman in her face at her home after she surprised it in her kitchen. In nearby Old Snowmass, a man took a blow from a black bear as he startled it in his garage.
“In 99.9 percent of the times that people are going to see bears, the bears are going to respond in a typical manner,” says Randy Hampton, spokesman for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. “They move away from people. They don’t like being around people. They tend to be really shy animals.”
But that’s changing, Hampton says, as bears get used to easy pickings from garbage cans, birdfeeders and refrigerators. Human food not only makes bears more likely to hang around humans, he says. It makes them bolder. Suddenly, he says, the human environment becomes bear habitat, and bears aren’t shy about defending their habitat.
“There are bears out there that are more likely to become a problem bear because they’ve become conditioned to it,” he says.
By mid-September, the state DOW had counted a record 1,136 bear encounters. It’s not unusual for some years to be worse than others, but those spikes are happening more frequently, Hampton says, and global warming predictions suggest they could get worse. Climatologists warn not just of hotter, drier summers in parts of the West, but of shorter winters. As plants start to bud earlier, it raises the danger of an early frost killing them off, leaving bears short on food.
“We’ve certainly got our eyes open to the idea that this kind of conflict could become more frequent,” Hampton says.
Wildlife advocates say that puts the onus on humans to be more careful as more and more move into bear habitat, and bear habitat becomes sparser.
“Encounters with black bears, and black bears that can be aggressive, are there,” says Billie Gutgsell, Bear Aware program assistant, for the Boulder, Colo.-based carnivore protection group Sinapu. “They’re just not as common, and maybe they’re just not as sexy, as grizzly encounters.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.




Comments
I was outside my home here in the middle of the Willamette Valley last night, and heard a great prairie warbler symphony, with multiple voices. The Urban Coyote song fest. I have to guess that explains a paucity of possums lately, no deer, and no ground nesting birds at all. The apparent coyote food of choice right now appears to be blackberries, although a gopher head showed up on the shop apron. Nobody has seen a cougar close to town lately, but that should change as the blacktail deer rut runs its course. I haven't seen any bear scat around, and probably won't. There is a deep, dark secret over on the Weyerhaeuser timberlands, and those of other corporate megapulp treefarms, and that is they employ legal trappers to kill many, many bears each year. Black bears eat the cambium layer of 10-20 year old douglas fir, and seem to show up after a precommercial thinning gives vigor to the remaining trees. They can decimate a plantation, girdling half the stand or more. So trappers set a lot of snares, and kill a lot of bears, all behind locked gates outside the purview of the public. Their friends in the Green Lobby evidently don't want to kill the money tree in protest. What they really don't want is those hillbillys chasing bears with dogs, which appears to be a threat to human decency and not in line with anthropomorphic ideals of Ecotopia. So we in town deal with dogs that have only the purpose of being surrogate children, who poop on our lawn. Does every young person have to own a pit bull? I have seen at least three dragging someone down the street on the end of a leash in the last hour or so. In another time, those were the dogs thrown into a pit with a bull or a bear. Bear Baiting!!!!! Golly, what a small world.
FWS counted 6700 elk left a year ago, the number of wolves as of last year have taken about 200/month. On top of that we have about 600 griz who are in the park at least part of the time. Even when grizzly numbers were high (although not this high) in the 40s and 50s, they were receiving a large amount of their food from dumps. It was the sudden closing of all of those dumps at once that caused the dramatic decline in their numbers due to their attempts to get food in all of the wrong places.
Early expeditions to explore the park did not mention wolf sightings, they mentioned griz, but not lots of numbers. The predators they mentioned most frequently were the lions and of course the coyotes.
I suspect this will eventually find a balance, but the repercussions on locals as they are blamed for the decline may be bad, because there is no way the park can continue to support the number of predators presently there.
The first thing the USFS should be burning is their wilderness meadows and adjacent woodlands. Those are firebreaks, needed food resources, and can provide some modicum of safety in a conflagration. And they need to be burned on a fairly frequent schedule if only to maintain their effectiveness as habitat and their integrity of size. Trees will encroach and destroy them, and have in many instances. Besides, our predecessors on this landscape created them, and as such, they are supposed to be preserved under the Antiquities Acts...the USFS needs a butt kicking on that issue.
Logging will not stop climate change, as the primary generator of CO2 is our use of fossil fuel for energy generation and transportation.
Trees cut into lumber do not store carbon "until eventually the house or structure is destroyed and burned." All lumber decays and releases both CO2 and CH4 over time.
Burning forest do not release "all the carbon in one fail swoop." That's like saying 100% burns, which means there would never be anything left to salvage log.
Dude, come on. Isn't this about bears and humans?
By the way, I saw no elk in the last 3 days of my hunting in otherwise known habitat. Must be the wolves, right?
Or could it be the ranchers blocking off access?
It is so sad that the greed of these folks blinds them to facts. The earth is designed to be an evolving process of death and birth. that si true of trees the same as humans. Taking the trees when they are mature to use for building speeds up the renewal process.
Dr. Thomas Sowell has an article out today that points out "making a difference" is not the solution to anything. Libs want to talk everyone into doing exactly as they are told so the libs themselves can have the exclusive use of resources.
It's becoming clear elk herds are suffering, but certainly not because of wolves or anthropological hunting, but maybe because what were free roaming herd cultures are shifting to sedentary herd culture living on private land.
One ignorant comment above says that certain groups want exclusive use of resources. Let's dissect this ridiculous comment:
Ranch owners are compensated for cows lost to wolves through certain public/private programs. So, a public good (wolf) that has destroyed a private good (cow) is financially backed (ie enviros put their money where their mouth is). Contrary, ranch owners too often do not allow public hunter access, yet then sometimes turn around and outfit rich hunters on their ranches. They coddle the ungulates, maybe even plant some alfalfa or biologic or whatever to attract and maintain populations. Therefore, elk are essentially public goods being privatized by ranchers who apparently have no problem taking public money for private losses (ie when cows are destroyed by wolves). This clearly appears to be a one-way street, and it's a big problem. Some give back by allowing access, and thanks to you by the way. Those that do are clearly conservationists and wildlife and wildland lovers. But not enough.
Seems to me there is a group that wants exclusive use of both private and public resources - greedy ranchers.
Yo soy el pendejo, por una razon holmes.
Public entered ranch-shot 4 deer and one horse. Dragged off the deer and left the horse-Got the H__l out of there.
Here is one article about studies showing that ranchers lose 5-8 animals for every one "confirmed". That does not even include the pets they lose in their yards.
quote:"Kraig Glazier, a district wildlife supervisor for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, empathizes with the frustration that Quigley, Stucky and other ranchers are experiencing. He noted that one recent study showed that for every confirmed calf kill by wolves, there's anywhere from five to eight unconfirmed kills." end quote.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/03/16/helena_top/a01031605_02.txt
I think Freud would have had a ball with all of this intent on the part of so called environementalists to take over control of other people's property. I can't help but think the whole thing is based on land envy.
Bearbait, I own land, and just the other day let my neighbors (who are awesome ranchers) run their cattle across it. I might even help them brand too. That's the way we roll around here.
My argument stands still unchallenged. Mostly I bet it is because REAL ranchers are too busy working to post on obscure websites.
The most biological diverse forests in Oregon are the Old-growth forests followed by mature forests (100 to 200 years). Their species diversity has been measured with mathamatical certainity and they are the most diverse! Compare these diverse forests with the Wal-Mat, 15 to 35 year old, industrial forests that are nothing more than "biological desserts". There is a reason why bears must be killed in industrial forests because there is nothing to eat but young trees. And make no mistake about it young forests burn hotter & faster than old forests to the point that post fire conditions look like asphalt parking lots while it is rare that fire in Old-Growth forests are "stand replacing".
The transcendent value of our western public forests are water, water & water production! Old & mature forests store more water than 2nd growth forests because of the array of diverse plants (moss & lichens & such) and large down logs & coarse woody debris that are "storage vats" for water. Plus mature & old forests are move resilient againist disease as contrasted with homogenous nursery created forests with limited genetic diversity that favors wood production verses disease resistance.
I am not anti-logging as I have been a forester for 35 years but isn't there a more middle ground for managing our public forests? In lieu of following Wal-Mart forestry that is totally market driven ("conferious carrot farms") our public forests should be managed using "biological forest rotations" ranging from 80 to 200 years--that retains the genetic diversity that has evolved thru eons. And the remaining 500 years plus Old-Growth forests should be left in place as logging them is nothing more than "mining". And yes, we should use an array of silvicultural prescriptions that includes clearcutting, partial cuts, thinnings & seed tree. But by no means should public forests become a mirrow image of industrial forestry.
And last but not least, I believe that the human condition will be much impoverished if we turn our world into a "vast urbanized human feedlot" devoid of wildlands & all creatures wild & free. From reading some of the above remarks, I believe that the "feedlot vision" dominates much of your thinking.
Maybe you are just referring to elk & deer. The following is a partial list of plants that grow in old forests that deer & elk & moose eat: Big Leaf Maple, all huckleberries, red-osier dogwood, willows, saskatoon, seviceberry, oxalis, vine-maple, old-growth lichen, some ferns, common vetch & there are many others. There are many different varities of berries that grow in these forests that utilized by black beer. In wstside Oregon & Washington Black bears & elk & deer evolved in old forests. It is the 10 to 50 year old young forests--that privide nothing more than excape & thermal cover for these animals.
Again it is the 15 to 100 year old forests--in the stem exclusion stage--that are the most biological impoverished. Once these forests get beyond this age, they become more biological diverse.
I too have spent 35 years working in the northwest forests & now that I am retired, I spend one out of ever three hiking in these forests. As I live in rural Oregon & am surrounded by public forests, studying the relationship of forests to wildlife is my hobbie. And it is not "theoritical" that I find healthy populations of deer & elk & bear in these old forests. It is true if one wants to maximize the "production" of JUST deer & elk--excluding the variety of lesser known Old-Growth species--then one should "clearcut the world". In other words, practice Wal-Mart industrial forestry.
I found this site recently through a friend of mine and gotta say I love this place already. I'm a proud owner of two volumes of restaurant recipe cookbooks. So far, I have saved a lot of money and prepare most of my dishes from restaurant recipes where I purchased the cookbooks. Just thought I’d share the link with y’all.
You heard about the Fat Loss 4 Idiots diet which is sweeping the world right now with its promises that you can lose up to six to nine pounds every eleven days? The diet calls for 4 perfectly balanced meals per day. Between the eleven-day cycles where they determine the menu, you have 3 days when you can eat anything you want.
If you wish to maximize your weight loss during these cycles, here are a few tips that might benefit you. First of all, don't totally binge on your cheat days, but don't be afraid to enjoy yourself either. You'll get moody and irritable if you diet constantly without some time off.
You may be inclined to weigh yourself each day, but that might only depress you if you do not see substantial weight loss daily. It can happen very quickly, so weigh yourself once at the beginning of the cycle and not again until the entire 11 days have passed.
Even though the diet calls for four meals daily, don't think skipping one will speed up weight loss. A serious mistake this is. Skipping a meal is just causing you to make up for it at your next meal. Your metabolism reacts to more frequent, smaller meals more positively, so do not skip them!
The <a >Fat Loss 4 Idiots diet plan</a> has varied menu that you should prepare for yourself. An instance would be if you prefer chicken, keep your portions small. Cook chicken for yourself rather than ordering take out as it will be healthier.
Although the Fat Loss For Idiots diet doesn't call for exercise, if you put in some brisk walking regularly you will most likely double your weight loss possibilities. Walking speeds up your metabollism as well as making you feel more energetic.<a >:)</a>
Highly Recommended Weight Loss Resources:
<a >Lose Weight 4 Idiots</a>
YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uO2pR9EBDs
<a >Fatlossforidiots Diet News</a>
This amazing website teaches such things as;
<a >Getting A Six Pack</a>
<a >Have Amazing Fat Loss</a>
<a >How To Burn Fat</a>
They have many more articles and guides, check them out today.