DEC Shoots Bear [Archive]

Mavs00

08-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Speculation only (I'm not a bear, and don't even play one on TV), but I suspect that a bear who has ben obtaining food from humans for 20 years, would have a hard time getting used to canisters.

"Let the old die in their ways. Teach the young."

I'm not a bear either, but I've been confused as one, so I must be qualified to answer. I'm with Pete and eddie.

It's alot like the seatbelt, or a new speed limit. Many of the old fart's (bears or people) are just too lazy or set in their ways to expect dramatic improvement.

I suppose, in due time, as the young bears (the ones with less "ingrained" memories of the free for all banquets at L. Colden, MDam JLB, et all) come up through the ranks, they will hopefully look first towards natural food sources and less for handouts from hikers.

Until then, you're still gonna come across the occasional curmudgeony old timer whose attitude is. "Hey I'm too lazy to go pick berries, and if these morons aren't gonna just leave their food out for me, perhaps I'll just see if I can scare it out of them". I'm sure he wasn't banking on the "official response". from DEC.

It pretty much how it happened out west. It was not an overnight fix.

Willie

08-03-2006, 01:40 PM

A DEC sharpshooter ... setting up an ambush ... at a lean to in the Flowed Lands area ... in the middle of the night ...
http://www.fullspeedfishing.com/forum/images/smilies/AR15firing.gif
How was the bear actually killed? Bullet? Tranquilized/lethal injection? Campers in the A.O.?

daLunartik

08-03-2006, 02:09 PM

In a related thread ( http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=4473&page=3&pp=20) on the ADKForum, the following was reported on Tuesday:

Noticeboard at the trail head. On our hike in to Lake Colden we met five park rangers with shotguns and tranquilizer darts hunting a bear that has become aggressive to people. The next night, around midnight, we heard a dart being fired and then six shotgun shells. The bear was being buried the next day.
Based on the dates of the encounters (the 18th-23rd), I am glad that HauntedFox and I decided not to hike into to the Lean-tos on the 19th, and stayed at the Lake Harris campgrounds instead. We'd have brought our bear cannister regardless, but am glad to have avoided a potentially aggresive bear.

Too bad we can't haze the humans who don't obey the rules and are forced to haze (and eventually kill) the bears instead...... :cry:

Boreal Chickadee

08-03-2006, 02:10 PM

My stinking question is what did they do with the carcass if it was killed near trails or a lean-to?

Jay H

08-03-2006, 02:37 PM

Wasn't DEC absorbed by Compaq in the 90s? :D

I guess only computer nerds might get that reference...

jay

spaddock

08-03-2006, 03:28 PM

Wasn't DEC absorbed by Compaq in the 90s? :D
I guess only computer nerds might get that reference...

And then Compaq turned into HP. Digital UNIX was cool.

Glad I picked up a bear cannister last night for next week's trip.
Has that been the only nuisance bear in the area lately?

In all my trips to the ADK's I've never seen a bear yet.

-Shayne

imarchant

08-03-2006, 04:22 PM

My stinking question is what did they do with the carcass if it was killed near trails or a lean-to?

Isn't that what bear canisters are for? :D

HAYDK

08-03-2006, 05:18 PM

Perhaps the four groups who were ticketed for violating the canister regulation,could have been made to walk the bear carcass out on a stretcher.That way they could have been conditioned to use a bear canister. :eek:

1ADAM12

08-03-2006, 08:11 PM

peak_bgr

08-04-2006, 07:37 PM

The funny part in the article--one group hung their food in the lean-to. I think they missed the whole concept.

I'm glad they're issuing ticket, that's what they need to do, to get the word out that it's very serious.

1ADAM12

08-04-2006, 08:15 PM

I feel bad for the bear. I was speaking with this afternoon with someone who is close to the situation. Everything possible was done to give this male bear every chance. From what I was told, it had been completely habituated to people, to the point where it was cornering people in the back of the leantos an forcing them out. The last straw was a very dangerous confrontation in the Bushnell Falls area. The bear's patrol range was the Johns Brook Valley over to Flowed Lands and Colden. Everyone involved hated to kill it, and had learned such dangerous behavior that releasing way out in the middle of someplace else was just putting off a tragedy.
Again, poor luck for the bear. Its the people who are to blame for getting it killed, but if DEC hadn't done what they did, it was just a matter of time until it seriously harmed or killed someone.

I agree we are to blame. I wonder why they could not trap the bear and give it to a zoo or something. Not that a zoo is a happy life for a bear or any animal but at least it would have lived :)

ken

08-04-2006, 08:52 PM

http://www.nols.edu/resources/research/movies/bearfence_xl.shtml

Mark Schaefer

08-04-2006, 09:32 PM

A bad situation for the bear and all caused by many years of human behavior. From what I have heard rehabilitation often fails for problem bears. The bears usually acquire additional bad habits, and become an even larger nuisance when released back into the wild. They usually end up being shot by the DEC or hunters.

I wonder why they could not trap the bear and give it to a zoo or something. Not that a zoo is a happy life for a bear or any animal but at least it would have lived :) There are few openings at zoos and game farms. The much beloved and well run Catskill Game Farm (http://www.catskillgamefarm.com/) just announced that it is permanently closing October 9 (http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17012627&BRD=1769&PAG=461[/URL). Declining attendance is the major cause for the impending closure.

Every year they had a new group of bear cubs in the zoo. I always wondered what happened to them at the end of a season. There are a few adult bears in a stage show, but there would never have been a need to keep all of the cubs for a show biz career.

lumberzac

08-04-2006, 09:57 PM

I agree we are to blame. I wonder why they could not trap the bear and give it to a zoo or something. Not that a zoo is a happy life for a bear or any animal but at least it would have lived :)
I believe I read in one of the reports that DEC had made attempts to trap the bear, but was unable to do so.

lumberzac

08-04-2006, 10:26 PM

I agree. I was just stating what I read. If I had to guess, it was put in the article to make the general public aware that everything the rangers could do was done. I’m not sure if everyone would understand that catching and releasing a problem bear back into the wild would not solve the problem. I was glad to read that ranges had ticketed people for not complying with the canister regulation. I hope they keep it up, as the regulation means nothing if it isn’t enforced. Stiffer fines aren’t a bad idea either. Those fined would learn a lesson for next time, or might not return, which in my opinion isn’t such a bad thing with the number of people using the area every year.
It is rather unfortunate that a bear has to die due to the stupidity of people.

hawk

08-05-2006, 01:20 AM

randomscooter

08-05-2006, 04:57 AM

pete_hickey

08-05-2006, 06:48 AM

In fact one could wonder, based on this one incident, if the canister policy has actually made the bears more aggressive than ever, finally giving the DEC adequate (in the public's eye) reason to eliminate the bears. ...This would be a good argument if NY was the first place to require cannisters, however, it is not. There is a lot of experience with canisters and bears, and it does not appear to be the case. Many areas have had manditory canister use for over 10 years.

randomscooter

08-05-2006, 09:48 AM

I suppose, in due time, as the young bears (the ones with less "ingrained" memories of the free for all banquets at L. Colden, MDam JLB, et all) come up through the ranks, they will hopefully look first towards natural food sources and less for handouts from hikers.

Until then, you're still gonna come across the occasional curmudgeony old timer whose attitude is. "Hey I'm too lazy to go pick berries, and if these morons aren't gonna just leave their food out for me, perhaps I'll just see if I can scare it out of them". I'm sure he wasn't banking on the "official response". from DEC.

It pretty much how it happened out west. It was not an overnight fix.

Pete, I certainly don't consider Tim to be an authority on the topic :D but my intuition regarding the implementation of canister policies in other areas of the country is consistent with Tim's comment that the changes didn't happen overnight. In other words (my speculation) there was a period of "trouble" with the already conditioned bears. When I took my family to Yosemite in '99 even the rental car companies wanted to know if that is where we were going because the bears were so aggressive about obtaining food they would tear open cars like sardine cans. I wondered at the time, and I continue to wonder, if this highly aggressive behavior was aggravated when the bear's "natural" food source (hikers' food bags) was eliminated.

Your own comment...
Speculation only (I'm not a bear, and don't even play one on TV), but I suspect that a bear who has ben obtaining food from humans for 20 years, would have a hard time getting used to canisters.
...implies a potential for an "attitude change" (aggressive behavior?) of bears suddenly confronted with loss of their primary food source.

The article itself, referenced in the initial posting of this thread, states that this bear had been exhibiting increasingly aggressive behavior and cited several incidents this year. The article didn't attempt to explain the reason for the behavior change, but the increasing difficulty of obtaining food certainly must IMO be near the top of the list of possible explanations.

hawk

08-05-2006, 10:06 AM

There seems to be a general agreement that it's unfortunate the bear had to be shot. But let's go past that and consider how this incident reflects on the newly implemented food canister policy in the eastern high peaks. Can there be any doubt that now that this bear has been eliminated there will be less hiker/bear confrontations in the area this bear regularly patrolled? So let's say that in the next few years the "bear problem" continues to decline. I speculate that DEC will claim a resounding victory for the canister policy.

But how can the success of the canister policy be determined if DEC shoots the bears? The conditioned bears are the control for the experiment. If they are eliminated there is no way to measure if the canisters caused a behavioral change in these nuisance bears. Did the problem go away because hikers are now required to carry food canisters or because the DEC shot the nuisance bears?

Would the problem have gone away if the DEC had shot the nuisance bears long ago? If say, ten years ago the DEC implemented a mandatory food bag hanging policy, then went out and shot the bears that tried to get the food bags, the problem would presumably have decreased, and would the DEC not have claimed that hanging food bags was a success?

Is it possible that shooting nuisance bears might in fact be the key to reducing hiker/bear confrontations?

In fact one could wonder, based on this one incident, if the canister policy has actually made the bears more aggressive than ever, finally giving the DEC adequate (in the public's eye) reason to eliminate the bears. Which begs the final question:

Was the canister policy implemented to change the behavior of the bears or to condition the public to accept the real solution to the problem - shooting of nuisance bears?

On the other hand, if years ago we had made it a policy to hang thieves on a first offense, and to execute minors who committed murder, not to mention locking up the executives of corporations guilty of fleecing the public for life, we would not have the crime we have today and the justice department and police departments would take credit for the low crime rates.

Since humans are more "intelligent" then bears, maybe if early on any human leaving food where a bear could get to food easy was shot, it would have been more of a deterrent because if the word got around, people sure would have been more careful.

I do not believe the Canister policy was implemented for the DEC to more easily jusify shooting bears. While neither a proponent or an opponent of the DEC which is "JAGB" (Just Another Government Burearacracy), I know that they have taken pains to try to protect the bears but their ability to do so has been limited because of the concentration of people in a particular area (the High peaks Wilderness) and the laziness, arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of a good number of those people.

In the long run, it has never been humans that neded protection, it was the bears. Lost somewhere in the backwater of this whole situation is that it is humans who have invaded and helped to destroy the bear habitat and that humans are true infringers, not the bears.

After years of a "free lunch" and conditioned to the equation that Humans = Easy Food Source, it's going to take more then a few months for the bears to become "deconditioned".

Your remark about the implementation of the canisters causing less of a food supply causing the bears to become more aggresive has some merit, but as in anything else, it depends on the nature of the individual (bear in this case).

Oddly enough, history has proven that in the long run, it's far more effective to teach the less intelligent (bears), then it is the supposedly more intelligent (humans), and that;s the shame of thw whole thing.

Let's just hope in the mean time that we do not have to lose many more of our furry friends.

Nessmuk

08-05-2006, 06:15 PM

spaddock

08-05-2006, 06:50 PM

I agree that there should be strict enforcement of the canister policy. I also believe that the fine should be substantial, in the $500 to $1000 range. An ordinance is no good if it doesn't have teeth. Some people will just take their chances figuring if they caught, they'll just pay the fine. A Good stiff fine will make them think twice about that strategy.

Although it's dissapointing to hear about the killing of the bear, I'm happy to know that this situation ended without the loss/injury of human life. No matter how stupid or ignorant human beings are, they are still more precious than bears. If the DEC truly thought the bear was potentially dangerous then I can respect that decision.

I agree that the fines should be stiff. $500 would be pretty stiff for me. Although this might sound silly, what about a five or six hundred dollar fine but with it you get a free bear cannister?

-Shayne

randomscooter

08-06-2006, 07:21 AM

I hope people stay grounded in the idea that the bear canister regulation was put in effect to protect the bears, not your food. When things get out of hand at the next level unfortunately it is the bears who, due to the accumulated actions of ignorant humans, are shot to protect humans. Protection of the bears has then failed. Hopefully with time and strict enforcement of the canister regulation some stability will return. Due to the numbers of hikers and the statistical certainty of idiots, canisters will always be a part of that stability.
To protect the bears, to protect the food...in reality neither is correct and we need to recognize this. The regulation would never have been implemented had there been no imminent threat to human beings. Somehow we all get so caught up in the romance of protecting the bears that we forget there is a creature walking this earth that is even more precious. I was heartened that at least spaddock recognized this reality.

Mavs00

08-06-2006, 08:28 AM

Pete, I certainly don't consider Tim to be an authority on the topic :D

Not being an expert of course, I still feel the need to respond. :eek:

Some of this has to do with the natural cyclical order of nature. There is a vibrant population of bear in the Adirondack and thankfully, the overwhelming majority are properly conditioned to look for natural sources for food most of the time and there is an eons old innate weariness of humans (well earned I might add). ALL will, if possible, except an easy, free (energy wise) meal if the opportunity exists and the bears internal risk/reward scale is tipped far enough, be that a late night foray to attempt to steal a food cache or strolling into camp in a brazen daylight raid with humans present. Both are stressful events for the bear. If it chances it, is based on how far it is willing to go to obtain a high quality food (human) and it's own personal risk/reward scale.

That said, a good deal of the equation depends on the natural (cyclic) state of available food (typically the nut and berry yield). I'm too lazy to look it up but google "nut berry yield bear attacks" and somewhere in there, there is a reports that shows a direct correlation between human/bear interactions and nut/berry yields. In the years of 2002-04, the NE (Adirondacks in particular) had a bad yields and if anyone remembers, bears seemed to be everywhere that year, and in fact the "canister" debate heated up then. This causes ALL bears to range farther for food and engage in riskier behavior (to them) as a result of poor natural resources (READ, there personal risk/reward factors changed).

It's my understanding (from reading about past wildlife management efforts) that canisters, food lockers, hell, even mandatory bear bags hangs (years ago), are all basically attempt to "condition bears" into understanding that the risk/reward balanced in our favor. For the average bear, any interaction with a human (be it walking into an empty camp laden with the human stench or confronting a live one in any setting) is a VERY STRESSFUL event. If past experience teaches them, over time, that the chance of getting free stuff is reduced (i.e. where the canister comes in), most will decide that it just isn't worth the stress and won't do it.

That's a normal bear. Now, as sloppy, lazy humans hit the backcountry and make food available, a certain percentage over time will become food conditioned, meaning that, while still holding that human fear, they become accustomed to human sources of food and a willing to go further into the "human world" to obtain it. The dump bears of the 70's and to an extent those pesky, persistent Marcy Dam, Flowed land bears that make regular visits, but generally DO NOT initiate direct confrontation with humans. I believe experts call these FOOD CONDITIONED bears.

On rare occasions, a percentage of bears lose (or ignore) that natural "fear" of humans and will go even further into the human world to obtain food, including direct confrontation with humans. It might be a due to a lower natural fear, it might be desperation (hunger) or any other number of factors These are called HABITUATED bears. These bears can present a real problem for WL managers. If the bear is food conditioned AND habituated, look out.... many of these bears will need to be put down. A landmark study in the 90's by a guy by the name of Steven Herraro studied all known bear attacks that resulted in death or serious injury from 1950 - the 80's and a very high percentage of FC / Habituated bears (both Griz and BB) were responsible for unprovoked attacks (i.e. not protecting young or food, etc.).

Where am I going with all this..... I don't know :D . But, it sounds like to me that for whatever reason, this bear didn't seem afraid of anything and actively sought human sources for food. IT'S GOTTA GO, whatever the reason it got that way (conditioning, old age, infirmary, poor berry yields).

That's good for us and good for the bears. Imagine a serious or fatal attack at the FLOWED LANDS. I envision a massive "response" which would likely result in negative responses for both us (closed areas) and bear (higher kills).

Okay, I'll stop now. All of this is from reading from Herraro books/findings and other studies that I've come across. I'll see if I can find links if anyone is interested.

Mavs00

08-06-2006, 09:56 AM

One other point. :eek:

Rik, I'm not saying (or even have a clue) that this is a bad berry/nut year. I've no idea. It has been a factor in the past. 03/04 comes to mind when we saw a bears on almost trip up that year. Some even along the road as we drove. It could be other factors for this particular bear, i.e age, infirmary, injury or any other number of factor.

Yes I agree to the point that "people are somewhat the problem" for the whole issue in general, however, when it comes to individual cases, it's tougher to pinpoint, without a full necropsy of the animal in question (which will tell you it's health, condition, etc.)

When it comes to black bears, predation is the primary reason for serious/or fatal encounters GOOD BG INFO (http://www.ursusjournal.com/volumes/ursus14/U14%201%20Herrero%20and%20Higgins.pdf) and MORE -NY based (http://home.ptd.net/~hatton7/Blackbear.htm), but not always, including the last fatal NY attack (ARTICLE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/19/national/main519186.shtml)), which happened with a FOOD CONDITIONED bear.

Bottom line, some of it is nature-based, some of it is human-based. One thing for certain, setting up conditions that stimulate SOME bears to lose a fear of humans and that actively seek human food is a recipe for disaster. I have NO PROBLEM with the DEC killing those bears, because no matter what caused the bear to get there, a LARGER CARNIVORE that has many of the prerequisites in place for human predation, is a VERY bad thing for all involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with fining the snot out of rulebreakers and ignorant human too. :D

-----------------

Someone said something about relocation? I think that that is a good option for out west, and it's done regularly with not only bears, but cougars too. Don't forget, they have oodles of trackless woodland areas that we do not have here. Here, you'd just transplant the problem to some other place in the park.

Additionally, I think there are certain "qualifications" that need to be met, I'm believe that they would not do it for HABITUATED animals that have already displayed aggression towards humans. I think they'd be more inclined to put those down. If you tagged "ole' number 10" (a fictitious aggressive bear) and simply move him 50 miles in the BC. If he ever came back and was involved in a fatal attack, you'd be effed' from a WL Management perspective. I have read of that happening too.

ken

08-06-2006, 10:49 AM

Tim- From all the indications I'd think this is going to be a very good berry year...lot's of moisture, lot's of heat...I've got some Blackberries in the backyard that are ready for picking...this years crop seems to be getting started a couple of weeks early.

This should help with the bear incidents as you mentioned...

I also agree with the cannister regulations to a certain extent...over time this will help...for now though, I suspect that there will be some more incidents, especially in lean mast/berry years.

The major drawback IMHO of the cannisters is that they do not provide once ounce of security for humans. The bear fence that I linked previously seems like a better alternative to me. Yes, it is a bit heavier and yes it is more expensive, but at least it offers protection for you and your gear. (The fence can be "parted out" thus spreading the load between the group...so in reality if three or four campers split the load VS everyone carrying a bear keg the net pack weight of the group is actually REDUCED...) More importantly, it would start teaching bears that humans HURT, making them less likely to try aggressive tactics. Might even save a bear or two along the way...

In twenty years or however long it takes for the already conditioned bears to run their course, the cannisters will likely be all that's necessary...until then??

hawk

08-06-2006, 11:53 AM

To protect the bears, to protect the food...in reality neither is correct and we need to recognize this. The regulation would never have been implemented had there been no imminent threat to human beings. Somehow we all get so caught up in the romance of protecting the bears that we forget there is a creature walking this earth that is even more precious. I was heartened that at least spaddock recognized this reality.

First of all, Let me state that I believe that ALL life is precious and with the exceptuons of friends and loved ones, I place humans no higher on the scale then bears or any other living creature.

Humans have the highest amount of "reason" and if we want to believe the story was given "Dominion over the earth". However, it appears that today that is translated as ownership, and the freedom to do whatever we want for our own enjoyment or comfort. It doesn't. it means that we are the "caretakers" (thats what "Dominion Over" meant back when it was put to pen), that we are to take care of the earth and all it's creatures, taking ONLY WHAT WE NEED for subsistance.

in other words, there is a RESPONSIBLILTY, that goes with it and we should (if we claim to be religious people) weigh our actions to protect the earth and it's creatures and resources.

The amount of people in the Adirondacks, and in the High Peaks Wilderness specificially, has among other things, cut down on all animals territory. Compounding the problem is the way that people were just plain lazy or stupid in treating the way they left their food easily available to animals (mice, squirrels, chipmunks, & bears).

So as a result of conditioning to an easy food source, among a diminishing natural supply, all created by humans, some bears have to pay the ultimate consequence. Trust me when i say i have no sympathy for humans in this case. Had the consequence of leaving food available been greater, like guaranteed bear attack years ago, humans would have been more cautious, just to save their own a**es. But it wasn't and they just didn't care if there were consequences down the line.

Bears don't start wars, bears don't take more then they need, bears don't pollute, bears don't kill other bears because they believe in a different god, bears don't kill or ridicule other bears because the color of their skin is different, bears don't overpopulate. I have "met" several bears, none ever tried to kill me, however, there were humans who did try to kill me. Of course, I was killing them too, solely because they believed differently then we did.

I have never met a bear that I did not like and respect. I have met a lot of humans that I neither liked nor respected (and I am sure that it was mutual)

All in all, the world would be a much better place if there were a lot more bears and a lot less humans. If that were the case, I suspect that many of the problems that exist now would not be the case.

And yeh, I love trees too, and rocks and dirt, cuddly little puppies and kittens and on occasion it has been suspected that i like babies and small children. :eek:

Mavs00

08-06-2006, 12:14 PM

Ken, I agree to a certain extent, and if I was gonna basecamp in a particular area bears are known to frequent, I might invest in it. Only out west though, in Grizzly country.

Not for black bears though, like I said, given the odds of nighttime "attack" back east here is quite remote. Most serious attacks are daytime attacks that appear to involve predation (bear sets out to eat you). It's one thing, for a bear to stroll through camp act aggressively for food, create a nuisance and scare the hell out those involved, but its altogether more, or otherwise ominous to be followed, stalked and otherwise treated like prey.

Out west though, for sure. plenty of night-time raid turned bad to get me to interested in one, particularly in prime Grizz country. Matter O' fact, not sure if I could get to sleep without one.

Might be a nice set-up for your garbage if you lived up there and had problems.

Mavs00

08-06-2006, 12:23 PM

First of all, Let me state that I believe that ALL life is precious and with the exceptions of friends and loved ones, I place humans no higher on the scale then bears or any other living creature.

I dispute that, there are decidedly several of "god creatures" whose existence does not hit my "precious" button. I'll start with Black Flies and a few other of those little biting critters. In fact, I'll even admit, I'm not above serious CHEMICAL WARFARE in a effort to rid my life of them.

Bears are not on that list for sure, but as a STRICT PRESERVATIONIST, if it comes to me (or my family) and a bear in the BC, there will be no "awwww, he's just a bear, being a bear" as I watch him eat me or one of my loved ones.

I may not win the epic struggle, but I'll surely sink my trusty ole "swiss army" into his eyes (neck or anywhere else I can reach), without one ounce of remorse. :D

Come to think of it, I don't have alot of use for spiders either. I won't pull their legs out like I did when I was a kid or anything :twisted: , but I won't go out of my way to share space with em either.

Willie

08-06-2006, 01:05 PM

With regard to any discussion concerning the bear shooting incident, I believe it's important to keep in mind the dual purpose of the bear cannister regulation. As the DEC states:

The purpose of the regulation is to protect people from black bears in the Eastern High Peaks Zone (EHPZ) of the Adirondack Forest Preserve. It also will ensure that individual bears do not become dependent on people for food, thereby jeopardizing human safety and potentially requiring the killing of those bears. See DEC website (http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/reg5/brcreg.html)

Without question, one purpose of the regulation is to protect people (“people purpose”).

With regard to bears, the other purpose of the regulation is to “ensure that individual bears do not become dependent on people for food” (“bear purpose”). The bear purpose, in my view, is forward looking into future generations of bears. In other words, the bear purpose is silent with respect to those bears that are currently dependent on people for food - there is no mention of conditioning or weaning bears off of their dependency. Apparently, the DEC foresees that it will take a generation or two (or more) of bears to pass before the bear purpose can be realized. In the meantime, the DEC has demonstrated that it will, when necessary, kill bears to fulfill the people purpose of the regulation.

ken

08-06-2006, 03:01 PM

Matter O' fact, not sure if I could get to sleep without one.

...me either...

The video of those Grizzly's turning inside out to get away from it is enough for me to put faith in it.

I'm considering one for hunting here in the dack's though...we typically will set up for 4-5 days in the same spot, and my tipi/stove combo is kinda pricey. It would be a lot cheper to buy the fence then to replace my camp. :D

spaddock

08-06-2006, 03:25 PM

First of all, Let me state that I believe that ALL life is precious and with the exceptuons of friends and loved ones, I place humans no higher on the scale then bears or any other living creature.

Humans have the highest amount of "reason" and if we want to believe the story was given "Dominion over the earth". However, it appears that today that is translated as ownership, and the freedom to do whatever we want for our own enjoyment or comfort. It doesn't.

I find this a little disturbing. Does that mean if a bear was fighting with a fellow human you would flip a coin to decide who to try and save? If a turtle is crawling across the street about to be hit by a car would you attempt a heroic rescue like I probably would if you replaced that turtle with a small child? I realize these statements might sound absurd, and they are admittedly extreme, but I just know myself that I have a separate scale for animals.

I completey agree with your comment about "Dominion over the Earth". I do believe we have "Dominion over the Earth" but need to use it responsibly and act as caretakers as you stated.

However, I definitely have a scale for different creatures. I'll smack a mosquito/black fly/deer fly hoping to kill it and then just flick it away. I'd probably try and trap a mouse running around my basement too. And as Tim stated if a bear or a cougar was coming after any human I would not hesitate in who to take down first. I felt a little sad when I hit a deer with my car though. RandomScooter is right, people do romantisize bears, they're seen as beautiful creatures worth fighting for, just as whales are. This thread wouldn't exist if the DEC had shot a snake, or a rabid chipmunk.

-Shayne

Neil

08-06-2006, 11:31 PM

A typical black bear preparing for winter consumes in the neighbourhood of 30-40,000 calories per day. I know the Marcy Dam-Flowed lands habituated bears score the odd windfall in June-July-August but if one individual bear consumes 400,000 calories in a ten day period how big a role can gorp etc. (at roughly 6 cals per gram or 2600 cals per pound) play?

hawk

08-07-2006, 12:51 AM

I find this a little disturbing. Does that mean if a bear was fighting with a fellow human you would flip a coin to decide who to try and save? If a turtle is crawling across the street about to be hit by a car would you attempt a heroic rescue like I probably would if you replaced that turtle with a small child? I realize these statements might sound absurd, and they are admittedly extreme, but I just know myself that I have a separate scale for animals.

I don't have a separate scale for animals. if it wasn't a family member or a friend, the human is on his/her own.

Strange isn't it that most people will reference "survival of the fittest" when it applies to anuimals, but that it's different if a human is in the equation. The same rule should apply since supposedly the human is supposed to be more intelligent and smarter.

If you're in the bear's territory and incapable of avoiding the bear or staying out of trouble, then you have no business being there. if you aren't there then there will be no "bear incident".

And as disturbing as it may be, as far as I'm concerned, your on your own. Force me to choose sides and I WILL choose for the bear.

I have more respect bears then I do for humans in general.
I've never had a bear lie to me, I've never met a bear that pretended to be anything but what he was. I've never met a bear that was arrogant, or full of himself, I've never known a bear to commit any act of dishonesty or meanness. I've never met a bear that thought it was better then me. I've never known a bear that was a bully, or that envied me. I've never met a bear that tried to kill me, or steal from me or harm me in any way. I've never been insulted by a bear. Bears didn't kill my ancestors or steal my land.

It's not something that I've arbitrarily decided, it's based on my experiences with bears and with humans.

I don't dislike humans.....well Ok, I do dislike a lot of humans....... I like bears better. Maybe I've just been fortunate to have met all good bears and a lot of bad humans.

In fact I've never met a bear that I didn't like.

Thats me, and that's how I feel.

randomscooter

08-07-2006, 06:37 AM

I have more respect bears then I do for humans in general.
I've never had a bear lie to me, I've never met a bear that pretended to be anything but what he was. I've never met a bear that was arrogant, or full of himself, I've never known a bear to commit any act of dishonesty or meanness. I've never met a bear that thought it was better then me. I've never known a bear that was a bully, or that envied me. I've never met a bear that tried to kill me, or steal from me or harm me in any way. I've never been insulted by a bear. Bears didn't kill my ancestors or steal my land.

...I've never met a bear that would lend a helping hand to a stranger, I've never met a bear who would shed a tear when misfortune befalls an unfortunate soul, I've never met a bear who was capable of pondering the good and the bad things around him and who chose to make a difference...

I am a human, and although I sometimes stumble I stand myself back up and continue to strive to act like one, to be different, more, than the rest of God's creatures, because that is a gift He has bestowed upon me and intends for me to appreciate and use responsibly.

ken

08-07-2006, 07:15 AM

I don't have a separate scale for animals. if it wasn't a family member or a friend, the human is on his/her own.

Sounds like a seperate scale to me.

I also find it interesting that you can't understand why people will not apply survival of the fittest to the human race, yet you constantly reference the white man's taking of the native americans land in a negative way. Wasn't that a form of survival of the fittest?

Mavs00

08-07-2006, 07:49 AM

Don't make put on the "Moderator hat" :rolleyes:

Lets keep the discussion to the bears, canisters, etc. It you feel like discussing evolutionary dominance, or white man injustices, please take it private. It will only get ugle in an open forum.

This is a good discussion, lets keep it civil and pleasant :tup: . Thanks guys (gals to).

Nessmuk

08-07-2006, 09:04 AM

randomscooter

08-07-2006, 09:27 AM

Ok that's it. Let's just shoot all the bears and no more worries.
I think you've missed my point.
If you think that the DEC's job of protecting wildlife is "romantic", just sit down with a ranger or CO for an hour (if he can spare the time from being "romantic" in his job). He will tell you many stories of why such an imminent threat to human beings, as you say, has evolved.
For the record, I shared a bedroom with a future CO for eighteen years (until he went away to college and became a wildlife biologist and conservation law enforcement officer in Colorado), have shared untold hours of time in the woods with him, and have heard countless accounts of the trials and tribulations of his profession. Although my positions on certain issues seem harsh to many, that is most often because I have arrived at those positions through reasoned examination of the facts backed by a lifetime of experiences, a degree in biological science with emphasis on wildlife management, and frequent conversations with my brother about the specific topics rather than the romanticized notions that have poisoned the minds of many.

Finally, I don't see in any of my responses where I claimed the DEC's job was romantic. I don't envy the DEC having to deal with those to whom I WAS referring.

randomscooter

08-07-2006, 10:32 AM

When I decided to engage in this discussion my purpose was to get beyond the understandable emotional level of feeling bad for the bear and being angry at the stupid ignorant campers. I hope I'm not the only one interested in moving the discussion beyond that level. I wanted to start looking at whether this incident could be used to illustrate whether the DEC regulations were beginning to show an affect, and to perhaps even dig a little deeper and discuss whether it was really the regulation directly (i.e., we keep the food from the bears --> the bears decide to go away and eat nuts and berries --> the problem is gone) or perhaps only indirectly (i.e., we keep the food from the bears --> the bears get aggressive -->we shoot the bears --> the problem is gone). Somewhere along the way somebody suggested a model which seems to fit the reality (so far at least) - in the short term the conditioned bears may have to be "dealt with" and in the long term the odds of new bears becoming conditioned are reduced.

I personally have long been skeptical of the canister regulation, primarily because I believed that the problem could have been dealt with long ago without imposing new restrictions on campers if the DEC had simply eliminated the problem bears from the start. It wasn't clear to me why that wasn't happening. Was it because sound wildlife management science had determined that killing problem bears was ineffective? Was it based on public image concern? Something else? Then again we can always ask...so what? Who cares? As long as the bears and the humans aren't eating out of the same trough and neither bears nor humans are getting injured or killed what difference does it make? For better or for worse, I'm more curious than that. Ultimately my personal goal is to satisfy myself whether my skepticism over the canister regulation was or was not justified. Whatever conclusion I do reach, it will no doubt take some time to achieve closure.

One thing is certain. Our outlook is clearly affected by how we view the relationship between ourselves and the other creatures with whom we share this world. On the one extreme we could choose to eliminate all the bears. Certainly this would eliminate the potential threat of bear maulings, etc. It wasn't so long ago that this is precisely how we "managed" certain wildlife problems (eg, bounties). No doubt we could look far and wide and actually find somebody who actually supports this extreme. Or we could take the other extreme and eliminate the humans...okay, at least eliminate the humans from bear inhabited regions. That would clearly protect the bears from the humans. We don't have to look so far and wide to find those who actually support this extreme. The overwhelming majority of us (at least I believe so) fall somewhere in between, and moreover most of us fall very far from either of the extremes.

Perhaps this discussion has run its course and we need to sit back and wait for more data to roll in. That's fine. But if there's more to discuss I hope we can keep the focus and get additional meaningful contributions. Or, if nobody else cares just say so and I'll shut up :D

Mavs00

08-07-2006, 10:46 AM

A conditioned bear is not out to harm humans, he is only hungry and has discovered an easy source of food. Humans behaving ignorantly or stupidly have caused the problem to escalate, sometimes necessitating removal of otherwise ordinary bears.

Ummmmmm, with all due respect, I'm not so sure about that. -THIS BEAR- (http://www.adn.com/outdoors/story/3493292p-3524537c.html), -AND THIS ONE- (http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_4627423,00.html), -AND THIS ONE- (http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2001/06/03/bear_attack010603), -AND STILL ANOTHER- (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012207) certainly demonstrated that they were decidedly "out to harm humans", since everyone of them was involved in an UNPROVOKED PREDATORY attack on a human that resulted in serious injury or DEATH. And that was after a 10 minute google search for "predacious black bear attack". There is dozens more examples.

I'm not naive enough to think that these represent altogether frequent occurrences, but the fact remains, the AMERICAN BLACK BEAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Black_Bear) is a large carnivore that poses a very real potential physical threat to humans during human bear encounters in the wild.

Now we can feel all cuddly, wuddly with them and love them to death, but put that aside for a moment. The DEC has a responsibility to take the threat seriously. As much as I disagree with Nessmuk's first statement, I agree with parts the next one.

The DEC hopes to break that slippery slope with the canister regulation so no humans will be harmed and no bears will have to be killed. Work on the end of the problem that protects the bears first, and as a consequence humans will not need to be protected from them. That is how to protect bears and humans alike. No romance, no cuddly hugging, just the facts.

I agree that the goal is the balance of the two (park user and wildlife resources), but I don't think its a matter of protecting the BEARS first, humans second at all. Otherwise canisters would be a park-wide (if not statewide) mandate for camping or sections of the park would get closed. I think the canisters are ONE (of a multi-facited program) attempt to strike that elusive balance. The state wildlife management program has to deal with these issues equally in order to balance the two contradicting, but equally important mandates. Without, of course, taking the ABSOLUTE eyeball on the ultimate "romancless" concepts (i.e. CYA (http://www.tennesseehistory.com/archive/GSMNPbear.html)).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for canisters, as I think that, in time, they will have a positive effect. Also have no problems with HEAVY fines for those that don't follow the mandate (for whatever reason). But it ain't ultimately about protecting bears from humans as it is the reverse. I think that they do try to balance the the two, but ultimatly (like it or not) the humans are making the rules and chances are, that won't skew things too far away from their interests. One look at that the penalties for infractions on either side should put those romantic notions aside {i.e. Humans = $100-$250 fine / BEAR = death ;) }

Now, you can puff the chest out and say, I rather see stupid humans get the death penalty and the cuddly bear get the pass or that you'd stand idly by an watch a human get devoured by a 400 lb. carnivore. I'd respectfully submit that 1) your lying to yourself if you believe that, or 2) If not, you are no one that I would want to hike with :eek: .

May sound harsh, but its true (to me). Keep in mind, I've seen, and been awed by the majestic presence of these wonderful creatures, and feel blessed to have be so fortunate. But I also am grounded in the real world too.

**EDIT** I speak in absolutes here, but obviously these are just my thoughts. I don't have a degree in Wildlife Managment either or any insight into state plans for the area.

Neil

08-07-2006, 10:51 AM

I used to talk with rangers in Banff (we call them wardens up here) and a tricky part of their job is discerning whether they are are protecting the people from the park or the park from the people. (A little of both but I suspect deep down they prefer the park to the people.)

What they have out there is a 6 person rule in areas with well known grizzly bear activity. You have to hike in groups of 6 and all members must maintain a certain proximity with each other (5 meters maybe). When you hit the trail you encounter big, no-nonsense signs one after the other. I've heard the fines are very, very stiff for offenders. The idea is that grizzlies will not attack a group of people. My group of 6 encountered a grizzly high up on an avalanche slope and he simply eyeballed us before ambling off. We maintained a pretty tight formation after that.

Anyway, I think that without very intense, enforced management of human-ursine interaction it is inevitable that bears will become habituated and a few will be killed to protect the humans.

Education and enforcement protects the bears and subsequently the people. Without education the rangers end up resorting to killing bears to protect the people.

Mavs00

08-07-2006, 11:01 AM

What they have out there is a 6 person rule in areas with well known grizzly bear activity. You have to hike in groups of 6 and all members must maintain a certain proximity with each other (5 meters maybe). When you hit the trail you encounter big, no-nonsense signs one after the other. I've heard the fines are very, very stiff for offenders. The idea is that grizzlies will not attack a group of people. My group of 6 encountered a grizzly high up on an avalanche slope and he simply eyeballed us before ambling off. We maintained a pretty tight formation after that.

...snip...

Education and enforcement protects the bears and subsequently the people. Without education the rangers end up resorting to killing bears to protect the people.

Precisely, but ultimately the reverse may be true too. By taking advantage of a simple fact (that came from Herraro's landmark study) that there have been no documented attacks on groups of 5 or more ppl, you ultimately are protecting the humans from bears, not necessarily the reverse. The bear may benifit too, but that is secondary.

Make no mistake, If they document a bear that is beginning to show consistant unexplained, unprovoked aggression towards humans, it's DEATH for the bear without much debate. They may try to move the bear to a more remote area if possible, but in my estimation, anytime you remove one element from a situation over another, you've made the decision which one has the higher priority :)

Not saying it's right.... I'm just saying.

hawk

08-07-2006, 11:30 AM

...I've never met a bear that would lend a helping hand to a stranger, I've never met a bear who would shed a tear when misfortune befalls an unfortunate soul, I've never met a bear who was capable of pondering the good and the bad things around him and who chose to make a difference...

Obviously, You haven't met many bears.

hawk

08-07-2006, 11:35 AM

Sounds like a seperate scale to me.

I also find it interesting that you can't understand why people will not apply survival of the fittest to the human race, yet you constantly reference the white man's taking of the native americans land in a negative way. Wasn't that a form of survival of the fittest?

No that was avarice and using God as an excuse (Manifest Destiny). It was achieved by force of arms and numbers. Fitness had nothing to with it.

One on one, in a fair fight, the natives would have prevailed. they were fitter and better suited for the environment. and more familiar with their surroundings.

Using that for an argument is a bastardization of Darwins Theory.

I also never met a bear that twisted facts to justify his actions.

Mavs00

08-07-2006, 11:41 AM

Obviously, You haven't met many bears.

Or, maybe you haven't met enough people ;)

imarchant

08-07-2006, 12:00 PM

Over a year ago, as part of Ithe discussion of the upcomming regulations I posed the Question (http://www.viewsfromthetop.com/forums/showpost.php?p=68035&postcount=5) of the bears behavior changes. This incident partially answers the question. The answer is: "It depends". Every bear has its' own personallity and will react differently. It is regrettable that this bear had to be put down, but it was the right decision by the DEC.

I personally have long been skeptical of the canister regulation, primarily because I believed that the problem could have been dealt with long ago without imposing new restrictions on campers if the DEC had simply eliminated the problem bears from the start. It wasn't clear to me why that wasn't happening.

If this was done in the absense of new regulations a new set of problem bears would evolve. With the current approach only the very small number of habituated bears that do not adjust back to their natural food sources will need to be delt with. Hopefully it is only this one bear, or maybe one or two others.

Paul the Explorer

08-07-2006, 12:21 PM

Canisters alone will never solve the situation of problem bears completely.

It may work,eventually, in that a generation of bears wont learn "bad habits" from eating "junk food" (Gorp and granola!! junk food!!).

100% effectiveness isnt attainable because canisters arent being used 100%, but could be effective in reducing the number of bears becoming a problem.

But, sooner or later a"smarter than the average bear" type bear will figger out how get into "bear-proof" canisters. Between that and other misbehaving bears, there will still always be the need to put down a bear now and then, but hopefully less and less.

And then there is always the hope that the current research in bear behavior could offer a 12 step program aimed at helping unfortunate Ursans cope with their pic-a-nic basket dependency.......Hi, my name is Yogi

Nessmuk

08-07-2006, 12:26 PM

...I agree that the goal is the balance of the two (park user and wildlife resources), but I don't think its a matter of protecting the BEARS first, humans second at all.Just to be clear, by using the term "first" here, I meant in terms of chronology, not priority. If work is directed first (as in yesterday) to not create conditioned bears, then second (as in a couple of bear generations from now) it follows we could have fewer problem bears. This use of "first" does not at all reflect on the relative value of bears vs. humans coming first or second.

To further clarify, I am not for protecting bears that the DEC has determined to be out of hand. I come from a strong hunting family and have taken my share of big and small game ever since I was 14, a very long time ago. So the cuddly factor is not high on my emotions.

Little Rickie

08-07-2006, 12:38 PM

If a bear is a threat to and can possible harm a person (even if it's someone I don't like) shoot the bear. The're not an endangered species.

This is a problem of people being in the bears home and it's not going away and we must learn to deal with this. Use restraint but shoot the bear, fine the dumb ass people.

It will take years to figure this out and make this work. People and bears have a lot of bad habbits to correct. There will be many mistakes, trials & errors. We can only do the best we can.

I feel bad for the bear but I'd feel worse for the person injured.

$.02

Little Rickie

Mavs00

08-07-2006, 01:04 PM

Just to be clear, by using the term "first" here, I meant in terms of chronology, not priority.

Then I agree with you fully on that point. :)

If a bear is a threat to and can possible harm a person (even if it's someone I don't like) shoot the bear. The're not an endangered species.

This is a problem of people being in the bears home and it's not going away and we must learn to deal with this. Use restraint but shoot the bear, fine the dumb ass people.

It will take years to figure this out and make this work. People and bears have a lot of bad habbits to correct. There will be many mistakes, trials & errors. We can only do the best we can.

I feel bad for the bear but I'd feel worse for the person injured.

$.02

Little Rickie

I think this sums up perfectly the feelings of many very reasonable and responsible backcountry users. Thanks

Little Rickie

08-07-2006, 01:12 PM

I think this sums up perfectly the feelings of many very reasonable and responsible backcountry users. Thanks

What can I say, great minds think alike. :D

Little Rickie

08-07-2006, 01:16 PM

If a bear is a threat to and can possible harm a person (even if it's someone I don't like) shoot the bear. The're not an endangered species.

I'D LIKE TO MODIFY THIS: If this was an endangered species...shoot the bear save the person!

Skyclimber

08-07-2006, 01:53 PM

Having to shoot the bear, is very unfortunate and actually rather disturbing. Like Little Rickie mentioned, "the woods are the bears home." We are the visitors. Of course, mankind has contributed to his behavior in the way that they haven't properly taken care of their food, when camping, throughout the years. Campers must take the responsibility of this misfortune. Hopefully they will learn from this incident, so that hopefully it doesn't happen again.

Wildlife is a beautiful part of our wilderness experiences. But if they are a threat to the human race, than they do need to be destroyed. I can't even imagine the fear, those hikers must of felt, to have a 350 pound bear, in their faces ! Especially the little boy ! :eek: I am grateful that no one was injured or killed. That would had been more of a tragedy than the death of the bear. Loved ones cannot be replaced but another black bear can ! (Why else do we have hunting season, each year?)

All hikers not only should respect the Mountains while hiking but also respect the wildlife that is within it. Respecting it, in a way of NOT contributing to leaving food behind for them. I must admit that I have even felt guilty of picking berries along the way, of a hike, knowing that I am taking away the food of the wildlife, in which, at times, I'm sure is scarce for them.

Paul the Explorer

08-07-2006, 01:58 PM

>>>This is a problem of people being in the bears home <<<<

not to put a fine point on it, but WE (humans) came from the forest too....and we do have a RIGHT to be there

Skyclimber

08-07-2006, 02:21 PM

>>>This is a problem of people being in the bears home <<<<

not to put a fine point on it, but WE (humans) came from the forest too....and we do have a RIGHT to be there

No one is saying, "that we don't have a right there." All we are saying is, "that we must respect and not contribute to the behavior of the wildlife within." If we humans aren't properly taking care of our food and/or disposing of it, while camping, making it easy access for the wildlife to get into it, we are contributing to the irrate behavior of the animals within. This is basically an ethic of, "leaving no trace."

Paul the Explorer

08-07-2006, 02:31 PM

I agree...else deal with the consequences

Eric

08-07-2006, 02:32 PM

100% effectiveness isnt attainable because canisters arent being used 100%, but could be effective in reducing the number of bears becoming a problem.

This statement is appearently obvious from the written report.
I remember having a conversation when the cannisters became mandatory. My feelings were that although the cannisters are a good idea, the only draw back initially will be all the bears that have been so used to sloppy hikers and campers the bears will certainly find another way to get food from campers and hikers and that is be more aggressive. I could see this being a problem for some time. I would suspect the only way this will work is if all be consistent with cannisters. I find what is even more difficult is training the individuals, groups, etc from outside the area the same thing, they may or may not be up to date with regulations. Although again it is in all hiking guides.
Just recently Rik and I were hiking off the Rabbit Trail towards Slide, we followed a family of 6 who were walking the trail and as we followed we picked up snack wrapers off the ground, wrapers we watched them throw to the ground as we walked behind them. People just really need to be educated on safety and have wilderness manners whether they are from here or elsewhere.

daLunartik

08-07-2006, 03:08 PM

I think the key, like many wilderness issues, is educating the humans involved. What always gets me, whether we are talking about a SAR situation, or a human/bear interaction is the unprepared people. Folks who go into the woods without doing the proper research, whether it's checking the weather forcast to see if the nor'easter is coming or checking where to camp and what the regulations are really annoy me. That is not to say I've always done the proper research, or arrived at a trailhead fully prepared for the conditions, because I have. In all those cases, I have at least done the proper amount of prep to accomodate for the missing research/gear.

The reason why I mention the gear component, is the issue of what to do with hikers who arrive sans canister, such as the folks who reported interactions with the now deceased Flowed Lands Bear. Assuming they entered via the Upper Works, the trail head had a big yellow sign,warning about the bear regulations, and a similar one at the Lean-to's (attached). What part of this sign, tells me it would be ok to hang my food in the lean to!
http://image53.webshots.com/453/8/89/71/2936889710090556846IvtmDa_ph.jpg
Note: this picture was taken at the Calamity Brook Lean To's on July 20, 2006.

I'm sorry the bear needed to be shot, but am afraid that until folks start obeying the rules, that we may lose a few more.

Willie

08-07-2006, 03:40 PM

I don’t know why, but as I read this thread, Newton’s third law comes to mind: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the bear scenario, people-conduct seems to be the “action” and bear-conduct the “reaction.” The reason the bear canister regulation was promulgated, I believe, was because people didn’t like the bears’ reaction.

More specifically, people-conduct (action) made people-food available for bears. The bear-conduct (reaction) was three-fold: the bears eat the people-food, the bears become dependent upon the people-food, and the bears act aggressively toward people. Unsatisfied with the bears’ “overreaction,” people promulgated the bear canister regulation to modify peoples’ conduct by making people-food unavailable, or less available, for bears. The intended (hoped for) lesser reaction is that: the bears will not eat (or eat less of) the people-food, the bears will no longer be dependent (or less dependent) upon the people-food, and the bears will not act aggressively (or less aggressively) toward people.
When I decided to engage in this discussion my purpose was to ... start looking at whether this incident could be used to illustrate whether the DEC regulations were beginning to show an affect, and ... whether it was really the regulation directly (i.e., we keep the food from the bears --> the bears decide to go away and eat nuts and berries --> the problem is gone) or perhaps only indirectly (i.e., we keep the food from the bears --> the bears get aggressive -->we shoot the bears --> the problem is gone).
Interesting! What if the intended result of the bear canister regulation is not realized? What if the bears’ reaction to bear canisters is that bears, rather than act less aggressively, act more aggressively?

I think public policy, as expressed in the purpose of the bear canister regulation, answers that question. Peoples’ safety comes first and the bears comes second. Let’s hope for the sake of all people and bears that the DEC got it right and that the bear canister regulation will result in the intended bear reaction and not some unintended (bad) reaction.

I suppose, only time will tell....

hillman1

08-07-2006, 03:41 PM

daLunartik

08-07-2006, 03:54 PM

Maybe it is time to get rid of the lean tos at flowed lands and Lake Colden. I have camped there and lost food(almost 10 years ago) to a bear, possibly the one in question. I now use a bearcan when camping in the high peaks.We stopped for lunch and flipped through the log book for Calimity Brook Lean To #2. I think it had been replaced in 2000. Nearly every entry referred to a bear encounter, namely the loss of their food to a bear.

Now that I have a canister, I'll be using it almost exlusivly, even in the Catskills where it is not required. The extra bulk and weight more than make up for the peace of mind.

AlpineSummit

08-07-2006, 04:35 PM

Yes, it's too bad the bear was destroyed. However, when matched against the safety of a person the bear's well-being is gonna lose - everytime. And people should not feel guilty for being the 'top of the food chain' or the 'masters of the planet' or however you want to look at us in our relation to 'lesser critters'. We are - deal with it and accept the responsibility.

Why cry for a bear when ya drive your car thru hundreds of bugs every week? They're splattered on your w'shield. Why don;t we care about them? Or driving over frogs on the road on a rainy nite? Why does a bear stir our emotions? They're no more at risk than the mosquitos I slap while I'm grilling!

Yes, it's true that years & years of bad camping habits have contributed to the problem and that people are the cause. Ok, fine - but what about that kid getting the snot scared outta him? Might have been his first trip, might be his last. Either way, HE didn't cause the problem that brought the bear into the lean-to. Those that preceeded him did. Some of these folks that created the very beginnings of the problem are those we consider heroes, in the Adirondack sense. pioneers anyway. Do you think Verplank Colvin or the Marshall's worried about dumping a little wash water from their dinner clean-up at Slant Rock? I sincerely doubt it. There was no problem then, so who knew to do any different?

Yep, I do feel bad about THAT BEAR but I feel much better about the BEAR POPULATION as a whole now that the DEC has implemented moves to keep everyone safer, including Yogi himself.

Hillman touched on something I have been saying & thinking for years: END CAMPING, at least at Lake C & Marcy Damaged. That'll slow the bears down and will be good for the area too.

We are not gonna stop going into the woods - why should we? We just have to be smart about it because there is a problem now. And, it's probably fixable after a dozen or so years go by.

randomscooter

08-07-2006, 04:38 PM

Maybe it is time to get rid of the lean tos at flowed lands and Lake Colden. I have camped there and lost food(almost 10 years ago) to a bear, possibly the one in question. I now use a bearcan when camping in the high peaks. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I put the blame on this unfortunate occurance on me, and everyone else that has camped in that area for the last 20 years. I would have gladly given up my "right" to hike that area than to see an animal destroyed for any persons safety. I think it's time to put the wilderness back into the wilderness ruling. Get rid of the ranger outpost also. I'm probably in the minority on this one. I think a dayhike rule for this area would help. No more camping there. Marcy dam is a mess too. They could do with alot less traffic.

I don't want to take this discussion off course, but please PLEASE think really REALLY hard before you just hand over more of your freedoms, and mine, in the name of "fixing" a problem. In nearly all cases there are genuine solutions that don't take us down that path. The "trail widening issue" is one of my favorites. We've all heard the authorities: "In the interest of preventing trail widening please walk through the mud. Thank you for your cooperation." Well you know what, screw that. Fix the frickin' trails you morons! Sigh. Sorry, I'll go away now (for awhile).

AlpineSummit

08-07-2006, 04:41 PM

randomscooter

08-07-2006, 04:46 PM

But how will the grass seed grow if you walk the edges while it is trying to become established? Bridging is not cheap and not easy and not too many volunteer to do trailwork.
Please walk thru the middle and carry extra socks.

I do, however, soundly agree with the 'losing freedom' argument.

I knew it was a bad idea to mention that pet peeve. But I'm gonna be strong and just shut up.
Oh, come on Random, just one little comment. What harm could possibly come of it?
No, stop tormenting me, I'm just gonna shut up and go away.
But...
ARGHHHHHHH!
Hah, I win :D

AlpineSummit

08-07-2006, 04:51 PM

Okay - you win.

Hands down tho - I DO AGREE with you about being very shy to hand over any freedom that hasn't already been lost. You are 100% on the money about that.

My take was simply: Do you want to solve the problem head-on and not just dance around the issue? Then close Marcy Dam and lake Colden to camping for 5 to 10 years.
-or-
ID the utterly clueless, walk them out to their cars and fine them.

Little Rickie

08-07-2006, 05:25 PM

How many bears are "harvested" in the Adirondacks every year?

How many bears die of accidents or natural causes?

How many bears are killed by rangers every year?

Lets keep this in perspective.

Let this string rest in peace!

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

Mavs00

08-07-2006, 05:59 PM

Lets keep this in perspective.

Let this string rest in peace!

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

I agree, this thread is outlasting it's usefulness.

randomscooter

08-07-2006, 06:45 PM

I agree, this thread is outlasting it's usefulness.
Every party has a pooper...

Oh well, I guess the collective intellect of this forum could only keep us rolling for a little better than a day. How about free bearclaw necklaces for the next hundred new members? :D :twisted:

Neil

08-07-2006, 06:59 PM

Actually, a bear thread going 9 pages with barely a flame/rant/cynical toned post and not needing a padlock aint that bad at all.

Shall we move on to hunting, or perhaps armed self-defense while hiking, and see how that goes :twisted:

hawk

08-07-2006, 07:48 PM

I don't want to take this discussion off course, but please PLEASE think really REALLY hard before you just hand over more of your freedoms, and mine, in the name of "fixing" a problem. In nearly all cases there are genuine solutions that don't take us down that path. The "trail widening issue" is one of my favorites. We've all heard the authorities: "In the interest of preventing trail widening please walk through the mud. Thank you for your cooperation." Well you know what, screw that. Fix the frickin' trails you morons! Sigh. Sorry, I'll go away now (for awhile).

There we go....."More of YOUR" freedoms.ithout regard for the effect that is might have on other creatures or the environoment. This is the root cause of the problem.

Please understand that I am not trying to single YOU out here, but that statement is the prime example ow why we have the problem we have and why bears or animals in general have to be sacrificed as a result.

What if staying away from a particular area affected whether your housepet, Dog, cat, rabbit, hamster, gerbil, bird, etc lived or died? would you give up your "freedom" to save your pet? What then is the difference? only that the pet is a human plaything and the wild animal is not? That is the kind of logic that makes me prefer the company of animals over the company of humans.

Are humans the only life forms entitled to "freedom"? Don't "lesser" creatures that are unable to effect their own outcome as a result of human action entitled to "freedom" also?

Basically, your argument is that if for humans to be able to be free to enjoy themselves, it might ultimately alter the life style of animals, or cause their death, it's OK that the animal pay the price for that human freedom. On the other hand, if in the course of exercising their freedom, a human comes to harm at the hands of an animal, then it's not OK. My problem with that argument is that the human had a choice and should have know better, the animal didn't have a choice.

If any creature has to die as a result of an action, it should be the creature that caused the action. That's called accountability.

Neil

08-07-2006, 08:13 PM

hawk

08-07-2006, 10:32 PM

No offense intended at all Hawk but fuhgettaboutit. You will never be more than a voice in the wilderness suggesting that people restrict their freedom for the sake of wild animals (or erosion free trails for that matter). It aint never going to happen in the Dacks no matter how persuasive and well laid-out your arguments are. The human tide pressing against the Adirondack bubble will keep on pressing and pressing ...until gas hits 10 bucks a gallon.

In the meanwhile I'm going to climb Sentinel tomorrow. I know there's unhabituated bear up there.

I'd rather be an ineffective voice in the wilderness, then one who fails to speak out at all.

I prefer being principled to being popular, it's the way i was raised.

And one day it will happen in the dacks, when they have been destroyed beyond anyone's enjoyment as a result of all the voices that remained silent. Fortunately, I will be long gone but it will be my offspring and yours who will be deprived.

ken

08-07-2006, 10:57 PM

hawk

08-08-2006, 11:26 AM

Well, as I'm told, there was a LOT of internal discussion about the trip tickets accomplishing 2 things. Get the public used to the idea about applying for a permit to hike. Then go for restrictions. Great debate between the conservationists and recreationists. This time, the recreationists won.

I wouldn't be surprised if DEC decided to implement something of this nature in the not so distant future.

I have to wonder though...has the current high peaks bear population exceeded the actual carrying capacity fo the area? Without any natural predators and little to no hunting pressure, there could be more bears than food.

I think you are probably right. It is becoming more and more apparent that something needs to be done, especially in the High peaks Wilderness and not just because of the bear situation.

Actually a point could be made that the human population has exceeded the carrying capacity of the area. As far as the bear population, usually the natural process takes care of itself. there will be less births if the food, habitat and climate are unable to sustain it.

And if as some people claim, the bear is a predator, then wouldn't hunting them lead to overpopulation of whatever their prey is supposed to be? Doesn't removing predators and allowing prey populations to increase disproportionately result in starving animals and the diseases like CWD that areas of NY are currently experiencing in the whitetail population?

Mavs00

08-08-2006, 01:23 PM

And if as some people claim, the bear is a predator, then wouldn't hunting them lead to overpopulation of whatever their prey is supposed to be?

Don't taunt me on my own forum. What I said was, on occasion, black bears display predacious behavior towards humans, albeit on rare occasions. In particular, black bears that are food conditioned and/or habituated present a greater danger. Even more so than the much larger, more aggressive, and far more territorial Grizzly out west (which gets all the press). The DEC has to take this into account, and I'm sure at some level they do.

I beleive the documention to that effect is on MY SIDE. Feel free to BONE UP (http://www.mountainnature.com/Wildlife/Bears/BearEncounters.htm ) on the differences between the two and the different encounters you can expect. Obviously, you won't need to worry about the Grizzly back east here. it's still good info.

hawk

08-08-2006, 08:22 PM

Don't get drawers in a bunch. It wasn't you I was referring to.

There are some hunters who consider bears predators because they will often take deer or elk calves.

And it wasn't a taunt, it was a point that people can't have it both ways. The reason for the some, was to be sure that people understood that I wasn't talking about ALL people!

Mavs00

08-08-2006, 08:29 PM

OK, fair enough :D

ken

08-08-2006, 09:44 PM

Actually a point could be made that the human population has exceeded the carrying capacity of the area. As far as the bear population, usually the natural process takes care of itself. there will be less births if the food, habitat and climate are unable to sustain it.

Agreed on the human point.

I THINK the bears will spread out first when maximum carrying capacity of a certain area has been attained. This usually leads to increased encounters in urban areas. Take NJ for example...they nixed the bear hunting season a while back and created quite a bad situation for both bears and humans. Before natures intervention could happen the bears found easy food in every backyard or dumpster...then the numbers of triplets increased significantly. Usually bears only have one or two cubs...

And if as some people claim, the bear is a predator, then wouldn't hunting them lead to overpopulation of whatever their prey is supposed to be? Doesn't removing predators and allowing prey populations to increase disproportionately result in starving animals and the diseases like CWD that areas of NY are currently experiencing in the whitetail population?

Like you metioned before bears are Omnivours...USUALLY the only deer they get are the fawns...and they are documented as being one of the biggest influences on fawn mortality rates. Bobcats and coyotes also...

At any rate, I wouldn't think that bears have put a strain on the ADK deer heard as of yet, but their numbers are steadily rising...toss in a few bad winters, unlike the ones we have been having, and things could change.

The CWD in NY came from importing deer fromm out of state. To my knowledge no cases of CWD have been reported in the ADK's other than at Avery's deer enclosure.

Overall though the biggest single factor on the ADK deer heard is winter.

randomscooter

08-09-2006, 02:02 PM

There we go....."More of YOUR" freedoms.ithout regard for the effect that is might have on other creatures or the environoment. This is the root cause of the problem.

Please understand that I am not trying to single YOU out here, but that statement is the prime example ow why we have the problem we have and why bears or animals in general have to be sacrificed as a result.

What if staying away from a particular area affected whether your housepet, Dog, cat, rabbit, hamster, gerbil, bird, etc lived or died? would you give up your "freedom" to save your pet? What then is the difference? only that the pet is a human plaything and the wild animal is not? That is the kind of logic that makes me prefer the company of animals over the company of humans.

Are humans the only life forms entitled to "freedom"? Don't "lesser" creatures that are unable to effect their own outcome as a result of human action entitled to "freedom" also?

Basically, your argument is that if for humans to be able to be free to enjoy themselves, it might ultimately alter the life style of animals, or cause their death, it's OK that the animal pay the price for that human freedom. On the other hand, if in the course of exercising their freedom, a human comes to harm at the hands of an animal, then it's not OK. My problem with that argument is that the human had a choice and should have know better, the animal didn't have a choice.

If any creature has to die as a result of an action, it should be the creature that caused the action. That's called accountability.

I had initially thought it was a waste of time to respond to this, but since there is a fundamental misunderstanding in Hawk's interpretation of my previous post I eventually decided it would be better if I tried to clarify.

Let me first state that I am ALL IN FAVOR of

1. avoiding trail widening and other forms of erosion
2. avoiding human/critter interactions
3. avoiding postholing winter trails so that all can enjoy
4. revegetating/restoring overused areas
5. etc

What concerns me is when the "solution" is

1. DEC tells hikers to walk through the mud
2. DEC tells hikers they must use bear canisters
3. DEC tickets hikers who bareboot on rockhard trails
4. DEC bans the public from visiting certain areas
5. etc

To generalize, my use of the word "freedom" has to do with the relationship of the individual (me or any other human) to his/her government. It has nothing to do with the other critters, the environment, etc. I believe that human beings are capable of accomplishing great things, and furthermore believe that we can in almost all instances accomplish those great things WITHOUT the government imposing restrictions on our behaviors. I am ALL IN FAVOR of us all being responsible stewards of this planet, but I am NOT going to roll over every time the government tells me that I am the problem and I have to change MY behavior. That's the easy way out for them, it's the result of laziness and lack of creativity, and far too many of us just accept it. It boggles my mind how timid we all are.

Hawk, in your response you stated "Basically, your argument is ..." Have I clarified my use of the word freedom enough so that you can see that YOUR clarification of MY argument is a total misrepresentation?

Let me make it VERY clear that I am NOT singling out DEC. It's just that they happen to be the government agency which most often gets involved with topics of interest on this forum. And I am NOT pointing at ANY individuals within DEC. I would not want to have to do their job, and I applaud them for doing the best they can with their hands tied by the ineffective bureaucracies that exist in this state and elsewhere.

Willie

08-09-2006, 02:42 PM

Problems will always exist when humans encroach on the habitat of bears or other animals. There is another solution that would keep both humans and animals out of harms way. that is to stop the encroachment of humans into proximity with bears. But to the superior human mind, the correct solution is to remove or terminate the bear. That's the bottom line and no matter how you try to justify it, thats what it is, a justification for acts of human selfishness.

Regrettably, I agree with the human selfishness statement.

END CAMPING, at least at Lake C & Marcy Damaged. That'll slow the bears down and will be good for the area too.

I agree that the prophylactic solution would work, but humans are selfish and they want to camp in the High Peaks. Compromise (as one Forum member has stated repeatedly in other contexts), is how we got the current DEC regulations.

I am ALL IN FAVOR of us all being responsible stewards of this planet, but I am NOT going to roll over every time the government tells me that I am the problem and I have to change MY behavior. That's the easy way out for them, it's the result of laziness and lack of creativity, and far too many of us just accept it.

The bottom line is that the government tells us what to do because it can. Humans decide to encroach into bear habitat and kill “nuisance bears” because they can. Until us humans collectively decide that we want to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, and get the government to legislate such protections, we’ll continue to kill bears (figuratively and literally). Us humans can protect wildlife and wildlife habitat if we want to.

I'd rather be an ineffective voice in the wilderness, then one who fails to speak out at all.

I believe it will take this type of person to break the selfishness cycle and make the appropriate changes.

Louis

08-09-2006, 05:00 PM

I,M happy i am reading all those talks about bears and bear attacks after i spent two days camping by myself in the high peaks... thats why there was nobody else!!
(yes, I have my cannister, and it was in the camping area after the john brooks lodge)
and i did not see any bears (i did meet some very close in earlier trips)

hawk

08-09-2006, 05:11 PM

I had initially thought it was a waste of time to respond to this, but since there is a fundamental misunderstanding in Hawk's interpretation of my previous post I eventually decided it would be better if I tried to clarify.

Let me first state that I am ALL IN FAVOR of

1. avoiding trail widening and other forms of erosion
2. avoiding human/critter interactions
3. avoiding postholing winter trails so that all can enjoy
4. revegetating/restoring overused areas
5. etc

What concerns me is when the "solution" is

1. DEC tells hikers to walk through the mud
2. DEC tells hikers they must use bear canisters
3. DEC tickets hikers who bareboot on rockhard trails
4. DEC bans the public from visiting certain areas
5. etc

To generalize, my use of the word "freedom" has to do with the relationship of the individual (me or any other human) to his/her government. It has nothing to do with the other critters, the environment, etc. I believe that human beings are capable of accomplishing great things, and furthermore believe that we can in almost all instances accomplish those great things WITHOUT the government imposing restrictions on our behaviors. I am ALL IN FAVOR of us all being responsible stewards of this planet, but I am NOT going to roll over every time the government tells me that I am the problem and I have to change MY behavior. That's the easy way out for them, it's the result of laziness and lack of creativity, and far too many of us just accept it. It boggles my mind how timid we all are.

Hawk, in your response you stated "Basically, your argument is ..." Have I clarified my use of the word freedom enough so that you can see that YOUR clarification of MY argument is a total misrepresentation?

Let me make it VERY clear that I am NOT singling out DEC. It's just that they happen to be the government agency which most often gets involved with topics of interest on this forum. And I am NOT pointing at ANY individuals within DEC. I would not want to have to do their job, and I applaud them for doing the best they can with their hands tied by the ineffective bureaucracies that exist in this state and elsewhere.

To me, the solution is to do the right thing. It should not make any difference whether it's voluntary or mandated if it's right.

Believe me when i say that i am by nature a non-conformist, and while not "anti-government" I prefer that the government stay out of whatever it is not necessary for it to be involved in.

However, due to greed, dishonesty, selfishness, laziness and a myriad of other things, there are cases where the government needs to step in.

Lets take the bear canister issue. the DEC says that you "must" have one now if you overnight in the high peaks because for years it "suggested" or "reccommended" the proper way to store, use and dispose of food and it was ignored by a great many campers. As a result, we have "bear incidents" (or as i prefer to call them "human incidents"). in other words, people were unwilling to to the right thing voluntarily. So after years of putting it off the DEC had no choice but to make the canisters mandatory.
This also applies to everything else on your list, and a great many things that aren't on your list.

If people were capable and willing of being responsible then the regulations would not be necessary. None of the "rules" were in place when people first started going into the wilderness, they became necessary because of a general disregard of being concerned about surroundings and selfishness and laziness.

So, if the things that you feel are "right" happen to be mandated, then you should not be opposed because it's a rule.

We as a society need laws and rules. if they were not in place then a very few people would be dictating what everyone else does, based solely on wealth and power.

In ngeneral, laws and rules protect more then they harm.

LionRoar

08-10-2006, 01:58 AM

randomscooter

08-10-2006, 05:21 AM

Now that the bear canisters are "in", truly what purpose do they serve? Does one really believe that they will keep the food away from the bears?

No. Bears will simply show up at meal time, much like the red squirrels, chipmunks, jays and some hawks do in campgrounds.

Good Luck!!
Well, that does sound like a feasible hypothesis. But I would hope that if that were indeed a problem, it would have been documented in other areas of the country where the canisters are already in use, and that DEC would have opted NOT to require canisters in that case.

Also, when you consider the long term, which is to prevent new bears from becoming conditioned to taking human food, remember that a "new" bear essentially starts out as a wild bear and will be unlikely to come around human food when humans are present. My gut tells me that the current crop of problem bears probably started out by scrounging food scraps left behind in an abandoned (i.e., vacated) campsite (remember, many of these camping areas used to have dumps), then over time they became bolder and bolder.

hawk

08-10-2006, 12:26 PM

Now that the bear canisters are "in", truly what purpose do they serve? Does one really believe that they will keep the food away from the bears?

No. Bears will simply show up at meal time, much like the red squirrels, chipmunks, jays and some hawks do in campgrounds.

Good Luck!!

Actually, they have been proven to work, even better then expected in the western parts of the country where they have been implemented.

It takes a certain amount of time for the bears to become "deprogrammed". Luckily it takes a lot less time for the bears to become deprogrammed then it does for humans to be taught do the right thing.

So, yes, I for one, along with all the park rangers and backpackers in places where the canisters have been in use for a while believe that it will work as well here as it has everywhere else they have been implemented.

And as a POI,
the canisters if used properly also keep squirrels, chipmunks and jays away.

Hawks, well that's another matter!! :D

hawk

08-10-2006, 12:49 PM

Well, that does sound like a feasible hypothesis. But I would hope that if that were indeed a problem, it would have been documented in other areas of the country where the canisters are already in use, and that DEC would have opted NOT to require canisters in that case.

Also, when you consider the long term, which is to prevent new bears from becoming conditioned to taking human food, remember that a "new" bear essentially starts out as a wild bear and will be unlikely to come around human food when humans are present. My gut tells me that the current crop of problem bears probably started out by scrounging food scraps left behind in an abandoned (i.e., vacated) campsite (remember, many of these camping areas used to have dumps), then over time they became bolder and bolder.

You're partially right. But along with the garbage left behind, they also became used to food that was either not hung securely and properly, out of the way or not hung at all.

bears, like most other animals are opportunistic. They will eat whatever is available and most what is easiest available with the least risk. Young bears learn from old bears just as much as from instinct.

This is why there main source of food is berries and other plant life. They will take small animals if available, usually newborns or weakened ones and of course fish. They will avois population centers and people unless the reward outweighs the risk. It was humans making the food easily available to the bears over a long period of time that caused the current situation.

It will take time for the current situation to change, but not as long as some people seem to think (mostly those opposed to mandated canisters). As much as I have been accused of giving bears too much credit for intelligence, I also think that most humans do not give bears enough credit for intelligence. Once it becomes apparent to most bears that there is no 'reward" associated with humans and campsites, they will return to what normal avenues of food that are still left to them.

One other factor that people haven't thought about is that as a result of acid rain and other polution, many of the Adirondack Lakes no longer support fish. This is another part of the equation. While there is nothing that the DEC can do about this, it is something that can be addressed by demanding cleaner air and using the power of the ballot box to force gutless politicians to address the issue.

Educating new campers and hikers, and turning in violators (Yep, being a RAT!) will go a long way towards solving the problems, not just the bear problem but many others.

Anytime I run across anyone doing things that will cause damage to the wilderness or wildlife, I tell them. And if necessary I will inform the rangers.

I realize that I come across as sanctimonius, and I guess that I am, but someone has to be.

ken

08-11-2006, 12:26 AM

It takes a certain amount of time for the bears to become "deprogrammed". :D

Is this even possible? From what I gather it is damn near impossible to "deprogram" a bear.

bignslow

08-11-2006, 12:46 AM

Sorry that I haven't had a chance to read all 10 pages of this thread, but I figured that I would give some more information on the subject.

We hiked into the flowed lands leantos friday night and arrived at around 2am. We were a group of 7 with 3x2 person tents, So I was the odd man out. after setting up camp across the way from the leantos I found myself a spot to sleep in the dirt floored leanto. The group staying there was definitely not prepared for an ADK weekend as they were carying large rectangular sleeping bags, and were using a huge 4 person family camping dome tent as their ground cloth. I squeezed into the corner of the leanto and went to bed.

The next morning I woke up and tried to wake the rest of my party but they were lazy. When I returned to the leanto I saw the occupants going over their shredded backpack that they had decided to use as a bear bag by hanging it from the branch of a nearby tree. Apparently a few hours before we arrived the night before the bear in question (Green-Red) had become aggressive, knocked over a tree, and stole the food of the group in the other leanto. (obviously both of these groups are to blame by not having canisters, we had 2 for our group of 7)

We went out for our day hike (redfield & cliff) and returned that night, wet, exhausted, ready to eat and go to bed. I was hoping that the leanto would empty out so that the rest of my group could climb in and they wouldn't have to tent in the rain. To my surprise my leanto was completely empty, and the other one only had gear for 2 set up in it. Excitingly I started to spread out my gear. Since the other leanto had a floor in it I decided to go check that one out to see if there was any space. All that I saw was the 2 peoples gear, and their stove cooking 20-30 yards up the hill (I though it strange that their cooking was unattended).

As I returned to the dirt floor leanto 2 DEC conservation officers appeared at the opening. I produced the trip ticket for my group assuming that they wanted to check for that and they explained the situation. The red-green bear had become aggressive and it was necesarry for them to "destroy" it. They definitely did not seem happy about doing this job, but according to them it was a severe enough situation that they were helicoptered in to the interior outpost earlier that day. The food that I had seen cooking was a pot of bacon they were cooking to try and bait the aggressive bear into the area. They promptly told me that the area wasn't safe and that I had to leave immediately. I told them that we were waiting for a few stragglers from our group and I would have to wait for them before we made any decisions regarding relocation. The DEC people were nice enough to inform me that the caretakers at lake colden had scouted out some leanto space for our party and that they could hold it for us, or they could check on the leanto near the dam of flowed lands.

The DEC people were very friendly and we had a lengthy conversation about how disappointed I was that they had to do that to the bear, and we both aggreed that it was more of a people problem and less of a bear problem. Eventually the rest of our group arrived and we began to move to the other flowed lands leanto. About 1/3 of the way there we were greeted by another armed DEC employee who informed us that he just had a bear sighting (yellow-yellow not red-green) in the area and it was safest if he escorted us to the leanto (nothing like getting an armed escort in the middle of the dacks)

Eventually we got to the leanto, and climbed in for the night. When we left in the morning we saw no evidence of what had happened that night. I didn't know how it ended until I saw this post today. I refered to all the people as "DEC people" because none of them were rangers, and they all got defensive when reffered to as such, I just can't remember all of their titles.

All in all I was extremely disappointed that a bear had to be "destroyed" because of the irresponsibility of people in the area. I was thankful that the DEC people we interacted with were very professional and compassionate about our situation and didn't just kick us out with nowhere to go. If anything it added yet another twist to our adirondack adventures. And for those that were curious about what they did with the bears body (we asked if we could take it :) ) they were going to take the head to use for research (something about the age of the bear, and its teeth/jaw) and the rest would be buried nearby.

Sorry if the storry is a little jumpy, there was a lot going on that night (and i'm pretty tired right now). If anyone has any questions I could try and answer them the best that I can.

Boreal Chickadee

08-11-2006, 12:56 AM

Thanks for the first hand account. That was quite a night you had there- a little bit of unplanned excitement :twisted: . Can't imagine what it would be like to get an armed escort and then be expected to just fall asleep.

Mavs00

08-11-2006, 02:09 AM

And for those that were curious about what they did with the bears body (we asked if we could take it :) ) they were going to take the head to use for research (something about the age of the bear, and its teeth/jaw) and the rest would be buried nearby.

First off, WOW. Sounds like quite the adventure. As for the body thing, I didn't think the "buried in the woods" story sounded right. I would think it important to try to find out if age/health of the "problem bears" that show aggression, do so because of external reasons.

For example, is an older bear that may have trouble competing for natural sources more likely to be a food stealer, etc... Something like that anyway. If you gotta resort to such a drastic step as killing the animal, might as well try to learn something instead of just dumping em' in the woods.

Sad, indeed. Great story though... Thanks

hawk

08-11-2006, 11:36 AM

Is this even possible? From what I gather it is damn near impossible to "deprogram" a bear.

Seems to me it shouldn't be any less possible for a bear to become deprogrammed then it was to become programmed.

The risk/reward factor is what guides it's actions. If human food is no longer easily available, the bear should revert back to instict and rely on it's natural food.

It seemed to work with Ursus Arctos, and Ursus Arctos Horribilis as far as the canisters went. Do you think that Ursus Americanus is any different?

You could say that a bear is programmed from the day it is born since most of it's actions are instinctive, with method taught by the parent. So I would think that it would be easier for a bear to revert back to instinct (DANGER! stay away from humans, no easy food) then to have started raiding humans in the first place. That is provided the humans are no longer leaving easy pickings around.

Is there fault in my logic? Especially since the success of the canisters in the west seems to indicate the bears will change their behavior?

Do you have some case studies that indicate otherwise?

ken

08-11-2006, 11:15 PM

hawk

08-11-2006, 11:48 PM

Hawk- I had my laptop puke a hard drive 2 weeks ago, so I don't have any links at the moment, but I do remeber reading a few articles from Wyo. where grizzly's kept coming back to into towns for garbage time after time. The bear "people" would capture and release these bears into prime bear habitat and they still would come back to humans.

BUT, was anything done to protect the food source? we had bears in the dump here in Wells. They put an electrical fence around the dumpsters, no more bears.

Just moving the bears a distance away and not containing the food source is not going to deprogram the bear. Knowing he can't get to the food there will deprogram the bear.

I also remember reading some reports from last years bear seminar in Old Forge (Gary and Dick I believe...) that indicated bears usually could not be reprogrammed.

I'll see what I can dig up for links.

As far as last years bear Seminar, it was Dick, Joanne, Gary and myself at the forum and nothing was said that remotely resembled that bears could not be deprogramed.

there was only one post as to the information at the seminar and that was buy Dick. here is the pertinent contents of that post......
"Redhawk, Joanne, and I drove to Forestport for the Bear Forum on Saturday. There were about 30 people present. Many of them appeared to know each other, either as locals or through the DEC. Presentations were either slide show or PowerPoint, and some discussion/questions. I'm sorry, I do not have or remember the presenters' names. A lot of useful topics were covered, including the nature of bears, their habitat, food, deterrents, canisters, interactions with humans, etc. Some displays, and lots of handouts on a variety of topics were available. $4 donation gets you all of this, plus a hot dog/potato chip/beans/lemonade lunch. The afternoon was devoted to deer and CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease), a topic of some interest, though geared toward the obvious hunting crowd in the audience. NYS Wildlife Pathologist Ward Stone was scheduled to speak last but wasn't able to make the event, so it ended early. If I had to cite one thing I came away with, it would be an increased awareness of bears' resourcefulness and intelligence."

Please note that the game people seem to be under the same "mistaken" impression that I am under (according to a few people), that bears are intelligent. (It also requires intelligence to be resourceful). If that is the case, then wouldn't a bear figure out that a food supply was no longer available and expend it's energy elsewhere?

If anyone expects the bear canisters to make a BIG difference this year, then their expectations are unrealistic. I figure it will take about five years for the problem to go way. that's provided it doesn't take 10 years to program humans into using the canisters!