BEEEEEAAAAAAAAR!

I don't think the bears must be killed. They can live-trap them and move them to a remote area. I think that should be tried first.
 
Yeah, I understand that the PGC has found a spot near Monessen to dump the problem bears.

A bear’s territory is hundreds of square miles. Pa is too heavily populated, there is no area to put the bears that are not inhabited with people. They will surely seek out populated areas to find the easy food – peoples trash cans, garbage dumps, farmer’s fields, etc. Once they lose their fear of humans and associate human activity with a food source, it's all over. Also, it's been documented many times where a bear is relocated a hundred or more miles away, and it returns to it's original home within weeks. It’ really too bad for them – it’s not their fault, they’re just hungry.
 
Not all relocated bears return to their nuisance behavior, nor attempt to return to their former territory. There is a technique of hazing the bears after they are trapped that can result in instilling an aversion to humans as well. While relocation is more burdensome than "lethal removal," it is worth the effort in the first instance in my opinion. As you note, it isn't the bear's fault, so why should they bear the brunt of burden?

You may appreciate this....

Bears Have Rights In Yellowstone:

•Bears may be relocated as many times as judged prudent by management authorities. No bear may be removed for any offense, other than unnatural aggression, without at least one relocation unless representatives of affected agencies document the reason in writing. All relocations outside the PCA will be governed by state management plans.
• Bears may be preemptively moved when they are in areas where they are likely to come into conflicts with site-specific human activities, but only as a last resort. Such preemptive moves will not count against the bear as nuisance moves.

-- From "Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area"
 
so i see Jack is all for statewide C&R of bears but opposed to it for brook trout :p :-D
 
JackM wrote:
Not all relocated bears return to their nuisance behavior, nor attempt to return to their former territory. There is a technique of hazing the bears after they are trapped that can result in instilling an aversion to humans as well. While relocation is more burdensome than "lethal removal," it is worth the effort in the first instance in my opinion. As you note, it isn't the bear's fault, so why should they bear the brunt of burden?
Click to expand...

Jack, I can believe that "not all" bears return to ... (what you said) However, can you provide some kind of statistics or studies? Same thing with the hazing. I would agree that it can be effective, but I believe it is mostly in wilderness areas. I speculate that it is not very effective in populated areas and I seriously doubt it is always effective. Are there any studies on whether a hazed bear returns to it nuisance behavior once released back into a populated area? That is basically what you have in PA as afishinado pointed out. You don't have big enough wilderness areas where the bears do not come into contact with humans. I would be very interested to know if hazing has been tried on PA bears and how effective it was. Also, one could argue that hazing a bear is more cruel to the bear than killing it, especially if the end result is the animal has to be destroyed anyway. I'm neither for nor against this practice. I’ve heard of it, but that is about it. If it can be reasonably effective, then why not. But I do have my doubts on whether it would be very effective in a state as populated as PA.

I'd preach about ignorant humans being the cause of these conflicts, but I have a feeling it would be like preaching to the choir.
 
Dave, here is one study to get you started (in PDF):
www.bearsmart.com/managingBears/ProgressReport2005.pdf

Search Yahoo or google for "hazing nuisance bears" and you'll find plenty other references.

I don't think the verdict is in on the effectiveness of hazing or relocation other than to say it "sometimes works." That is enough for me to decide these creatures should be given the benefit of the doubt and be treated with non-lethal measures first. Obviously if they persist, then destoying them will be required.

It is funny that people think that mountain lions and sasquatch can live in PA and avoid detection, but that there is no remote wilderness to relocate bears.
 
Makes me rethink that "cool experience" when that bear and I crossed paths on Clarks a few weeks ago.
 
Thanks for the link and the tip, Jack.

Bears are cool animals. For the record... I agree with you on giving them a chance unless they have attacked a human.

i had a bear in my yard in early spring this year. It sniffed around the barn doors (I kept few chickens in the barn). He then went and destroyed the bird feeder, and went and sniffed around the back door of the attached garage before going across the road to sniff around the neighbor's house. I told some people about it, and I was surprised at the reactions. Some scared, some actually asked if i shot it. However, most of them were city folk. The only way I would have shot it was with a camera, but I didn't actually see the bear. I just saw the smashed bird feeder and the fresh tracks in the snow. Big bear, too. I thought it was cool, because there aren't many bears over here. It was headed east, so I told these Clevelanders that he was probably going back home because he was tired of Ohio.

Besides, they make new bird feeders every day. But i did wait a couple months before replacing the bird feeder. I didn't want to encourage him to stick around. I also suggested to the wife that she walk the dog in the woods for the next few days. :-D (not)
 
In my younger days, I could apply a decent bear hug (ala Ivan Putski), but I'm not a bear hugger. If someone wants to kill bears within the boundaries of the laws for food or other lawful uses, I have no qualms. I just don't think a bear should be murdered for acting like a bear.

Editing to add:

My childhood dog, Tippy, was quite the well-behaved canine. So much so that we thought of her like one of the family-- meaning like a human being. One day, she was acting aggressive and my mom yelled at her: "Tippy, quit acting like an animal." It became a classic M Family story for years to come.
 
The first time I saw this topic header, I thought it was about beer.
Alas.
 
JackM wrote:
It is funny that people think that mountain lions and sasquatch can live in PA and avoid detection, but that there is no remote wilderness to relocate bears.
Click to expand...

Yes but most of the wilderness areas already have bears. Not that I'm suggesting anyone on this thread or board but the same people who would get upset for planting brown trout in a mountain brookie stream forget that you can't just dump the bear off in the remote woods without some thought. Anyway rest assured the game Commission does put an effort into relocating problem bears and they also put some thought into where to put em.
 
Bet its the same bear.
 
I was in the Yellowstone/Grand Teton area this past August and all the pamphlets and many signs said "A fed bear is a dead bear" meaning that they could not afford to take a chance once a bear got a taste of human food and associated it with humans.

Yellowstone Park used to be an area where bears would come up to cars to feed. Management changed that back in the late 70s and part of that management, besides covering and closing garbage dumps, involved killing quite a few bears. They're all wild now and you generally have to get back in country to see them.

As noted above, PA does not have that type of wlderness area so relocating them just moves the problem to someone else's doorstep. Just ask some folks in New Jersey.
 
They caught the bear (or a bear in the park) and killed it.
http://wfmz.com/view/?id=164150

While I can understand why the Game Commission did it it's really a shame that the bear had to die when it did nothing wrong. It just did what bears do and the human "victim" gets to appear on national TV to tell his story. The whole situation really upsets me!
 
I'm not a bear hugger either and will take that one step further. I would never use the word "murder" to describe the killing of a bear, and I'm probably more related to bears than you are (figuratively). Contrary to what PETA says, they aren't human and don't have human rights.

I personally don't hunt them and have no desire to at this time (not sure i would like the meat), but I have nothing against other's hunting them. I'm not a trophy hunter. Oh sure, I hunt deer and would prefer to shoot a trophy deer, but I wouldn't hunt those either if I didn't like the meat.

I just think that bears are a cool and proud animal and would rather see one killed than caged up and mistreated. Have you ever seen the bear pit up at Niagra Falls? It disgusted me.

P.S. I like your story about the dog.
 
Steveo, I agree it is a shame, but it had to be done. But would you feel any better if it was somebody's pet pitbull that bit that kid? Bears are predators, and that bear clearly attacked that kid with intent to eat him. Even though it wasn't the bears fault, there is no bear alive that is worth the life of a child, or any human for that matter.

As you put it, that human "victim" was indeed a victim. I hold no animosity to him or anyone else who is attacked and ends up on TV. that is what the press does. Try looking at it this way. first of all, his appearance on TV might educate some ignorant human to be more careful with food laying around and to not feed the wild animals. The kid wasn't a victim of the bear. He was a victim of ignorant campers and once a year visitors who feed the cute cuddly wild animals that before that they only saw in their story books and Disney films. What do they care, they aren't coming back until next year.
 
Always unsettling walking around in Yellowstone area. Always thought that the bear spray would be useless. Hope I never have to find out it does'nt.
 
The real question is not does the spray work but would you have the nerve to hang tough and use it or cut and run.I use to wander around alone in the high country of the Spanish peaks which is griz country with a .357 with max loads just to test my courage.
Since I usually went up a very first lite I also had to look over my shoulder every few seconds as it was also mountain lion country.
Fortunately some force looks after fools and drunks as I was never attacked although I saw both.lol
Will say strolling along the ridge top in wilderness where there is no sign or sound of humans is the ultimate high for a outdoor type.You have to try it some time if you haven't.You will never feel better about yourself.lol
 
The rangers out west will tell you when you're that in Grizzly territory to wear tiny bells so you don't surprise them and always carry pepper spray. They'll also tell you how you can distinguish black bear scat from Grizzly bear scat. The grizzly bear scat has tiny bells in it and it smells like pepper spray!

I agree that no bear is worth a human life. It just tears me up to hear about such a magnificent animal put down because a few humans thought it was cool to feed the bears. The Game Commission did the right thing. Like I said it is a bad situation for all. The kid was a victim of other's ignorance. Maybe not his own. It just really Sucks any way you look at it.
 
I was hunting elk in Montana once and while I was stalking an elk I kept hearing some noise behind me. It was just at the edge of my hearing range and every time I stopped it stopped. After a while I stopped hearing the noise. I lost the elk so I circled back around and there on my trail was a large set of grizzly tracks and a steaming pile of dung.

The Game Commission must have assessed that no food was involved if they decided to euthenize the bear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top