« National Catfish Day: Bottom-Dwellers At Risk | Main | The Bear-Human Conflict: Part II »

June 27, 2005

The Bear-Human Conflict

Just like plane crashes, animal attacks always seem to make the news. Usually these are about underestimated guard dogs or exotic pets like lions and tigers. Only occasionally do you hear about an animal in the wild harming someone, usually a mountain lion or a grizzly bear - your common predators. Sometimes even a wild animal generally thought of as prey like deer, moose, buffalo. And, as usual, these cases are usually about encroachment on wildlife habitats and the dwindling wildernesses.

National Park System - Striving for Balance

According to the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act, it's primary goals are to:

• Conserve the scenery and the natural elements and the park wild life
• Conserve the historic elements of the parks
• Provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations

This means that the National Park Service has to protect park contents, but also provide a safe place for as many people as possible. What's interesting though, if you're injured in a park, chances are it wasn't by an animal at all. Just check out the National Park Service's Postings of Recent Incidents and you'll notice that most are due to human-human conflict or accidents due to lightning, falls or drownings. NPS Rangers spend far more time dealing with crime in the parks and search and rescue missions than wildlife problems.

That said, the National Park Service does have a policy for dealing with predatory animals. Below are their broader terms on the subject, but it seems that the particulars may be left to the individual park management officials.

The National Park Service believes that predatory animals have a real place in nature, and that all animal life should be kept inviolate within the parks. As a consequence, the general policies relative to predatory animals are as follows:

1. Predatory animals are to be considered an integral part of the wild life protected within national parks and no widespread campaigns of destruction are to be countenanced. The only control practiced is that of shooting of coyotes or other predators when they are actually found making serious inroads upon herds of game or other mammals needing special protection.

2. No permits for trapping within the borders of a park are allowed.

3. Poison is believed to be a non-selective form of control and is banned from the national parks except where used by Park Service officials in warfare against rodents in settled portions of a park, or in case of emergency.

More at: The National Park Service's Policy on Predatory Mammals (1931)

Problem Animals Vs. Man-Killers

From what I've seen and heard, individual cases of problem animals seem to be dealt with in one of three ways: relocation to the remote wilderness, relocation to a zoo, or permanent removal. Some parks, like Yosemite, have developed a kind of three strikes rule, relocating problem bears, but if they persist they may be removed.

There seems to be a somewhat different policy if a person is severely hurt or killed by an animal. These animals are said to have commited "predatory acts" and the animal is generally put down immediately. This past weekend, two campers were killed by a grizzly bear while camping along the Hulahula River in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska. The bear was shot and killed, its corpse taken to Fairbanks to confirm it killed the couple.

Now perhaps it's because I'm not a believer in the death penalty, but the way these kinds of situations are resolved doesn't feel right to me. Shoot first, ask questions later. Guilty until proven innocent? Now, I'm certainly not saying this is a conspiracy and the bear was framed or anything, but its a predator, so of course it would commit predatory acts. Do we have the right to then shoot the animal? Is it a problem animal? Has it learned to target humans? We'll never know now.

But here's what we do know. Brown bears, especially the grizzly, are listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act - but only in the lower 48 states. In Alaska, where most of them live, they are not protected - in fact, they are hunted. In some parts of Alaska, the moose populations are not what the hunters would desire, so they've blamed it on the grizzlies. Now hunters are allowed to bait traps for these moose-eating grizzlies (and wolves) and hunt them instead.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game began issuing permits last week [Apr 2005] for a predator-control program aimed at clearing out the majority of grizzlies in a 3,000-square-mile area of brushy terrain and tundra near the Canadian border.

...

An estimated 135 grizzly bears live in the targeted area, and the program seeks to have up to 81 of those killed, state officials said. The target area is included in a program that has allowed aircraft-assisted hunters to kill 266 wolves since November, according to Fish and Game figures.

More at: Alaska starts grizzly bear hunts using bait

This really begs to question: What can predators like brown bears eat, safely?

• They've upset the moose hunters.
• They've upset the elk & caribou hunters.
• They've upset the salmon fisherman.
• They've upset the farmers.
• They've upset the adventurous backcountry campers.
• They're meat-eaters biologically.
• They're predatorial by nature.
• They already eat plants and berries for 80-90% of the time (Canadian Wildlife Service)

Now let's look at encroachment, shall we?

Today, brown bears inhabit less than 2% of their original range. Furthermore, the current population is less than 2% of its original level. Today, there are between 40,000 and 50,000 brown bears left in the wild. This drop in numbers can be partially attributed to habitat loss and hunting. Fear and ignorance of bears has led to their extermination. An increase in the poaching of bears has also greatly affected bear populations. Poachers harvest bear body parts to provide ingredients for traditional Asian medicines. As a result of their low birth rate combined with a high death rate of cubs (up to 50% mortality), brown bear populations are not recovering from this dramatic decline.

More at: Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo.

Well, it's certainly not looking good for the bears.

Posted by sorsha at June 27, 2005 11:29 AM