One of my personal joys of visiting a mountain town is asking locals to tell me the latest and greatest tale of bear crime.

During a recent trip to Glenwood Springs, Colorado, a guy told me about a mischievous black bear that snuck into a parked Subaru to steal a box of Honey Nut Cheerios. Alas, the car was parked on slanted driveway, so the door slammed shut after the critter lumbered inside. The stunned bear proceeded to take a massive poop on the driver’s seat before shredding the interior and shattering a window. As an armchair legal scholar, my guess is that constitutes burglary, property damage, and perhaps public indecency.

Not to be outdone, another person told me of a bear that opened the sliding glass door to a condominium and proceeded to raid the refrigerator. The condo owner was getting ready for a barbecue, and the bear ate all of his steaks, baked beans, and potato salad before slipping into the woods. That’s probably home invasion and grand larceny.

Bears , , and steal . In mountain towns, they are blue-collar criminals that pursue misdemeanors whenever the opportunity presents itself.

So even I was astonished to read about a bear in California that stands accused of a white-collar felony. Yep, I’m talking about Insurance-Fraud Bear.

By now you’ve likely or seen a about this whimsical bear story. Last week, the California Department of Insurance about four residents of Lake Arrowhead who in January claimed that a bear had broken into their Rolls Royce and caused a ton of damage. Seeking a payout, they submitted a hefty claim to their insurance company alongside surveillance video of the alleged bear break-in.

, which was included in the release, is laugh-out-loud hilarious, and I suggest that everyone reading this post watch it on a loop. The “bear” fumbles around in the passenger’s seat like a seven-beers-deep frat boy, and the bear’s fuzzy “skin” droops on its arms and legs like a size XXL sweatsuit would on your teenaged nephew. After about ten seconds it’s obvious that the car invader is not a bear, but rather a human in a bear suit. I’ve seen Kindergarteners聽do better animal impersonations.

Another red flag: the damage done by the supposed bear amounted to some light scratching to the interior. To me, these scrapes look like they were done with a hairbrush and not sharp two-inch-long claws.

The cops got a search warrant and paid a visit to the four, and of course they called the mission “.” Lo and behold, they found a Spirit Halloween-grade bear costume in the residence. The four individuals were arrested and face charges of insurance fraud. As it turns out, this was not the first bear-centric scheme that they had allegedly pulled off. According to the release, the four had filed two previous auto insurance claims for bear break-ins, with the total amount claimed hitting $141,839,

Press releases published by government agencies have a way of describing thrilling or terrifying or even hilarious scenes with the most anodyne prose, and the statement published by the California Department of Insurance follows this tone in describing the “aha” moment to a tee.

“To further ensure it was not actually a bear in the video, the Department had a biologist from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife review the three alleged bear videos and they also opined it was clearly a human in a bear suit,” it reads. Oh, what I would give to have attended that viewing party.

The saga of Insurance-Fraud Bear made the rounds in national media for obvious reasons (it’s bizarre and funny). Shout out to our friends at TMZ who did the . They had a stuntman named Glenn Ennis, who performed the motion-capture motions of the grizzly in The Revenant, watch the surveillance tape and critique the acting. “They were obviously lazy,” Ennis said. “If they put a little bit of thought and research into it like I did, they’d see that bears don’t walk on their hands and knees, they walk on their feet鈥攖hat was a dead giveaway.”

I’d argue that the ill-fitting bear suit was the dead giveaway, but hey, we’re splitting fur at this point.

The busy news cycle will quickly move on from Insurance-Fraud Bear, and soon this whole ordeal will fade from our collective memory, much like the many silly bear stories of yesteryear. But I for one will always remember Insurance Fraud Bear, as it has forever changed my perspective on mountain-town bear crime.

The next time I hear a tale of a brazen bear raiding someone’s pantry, or taking a dip in a condo swimming pool, or munching down some tasty trash, I will now wonder: Did a bear really do it?

The post California鈥檚 Insurance-Fraud Bear Is My New Favorite Bear appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Muhammad Ali, Dale Earnhardt, Florence Griffith Joyner: Even the most high-flying heroes eventually fall to Earth, weighed down by time, accident, and the vagaries of biology. To that pantheon, add the King of Fat Bear Week, 480 Otis.

Otis, a roughly 28-year-old Alaskan brown bear who made his home in Katmai National Park and Preserve, drew the kind of lasting fandom that few Internet-famous animals enjoy. In 2014, he won the inaugural Fat Bear Tuesday contest put on by the park and Explore.org. He would go on to capture a record three more titles, most recently in 2021, in the process becoming an unofficial symbol for as it went from a park service in-joke to an online phenomenon that now counts more than a million votes every year.

Anthropomorphizing wild animals can be a dangerous game, but if viewers on Explore.org saw a little bit of their aspirational selves in the aging bear, it鈥檚 hard to blame them. Even as his teeth wore down to stubs and , 480 Otis would return to his habitual fishing grounds on the Brooks River year after year. He was a model of mature patience, sometimes dozing off in the river as he methodically scooped out a winter鈥檚 worth of salmon. In recent years, his late arrivals to the river had occasionally left fans worried that Otis had passed away; sooner or later, though, he would show up, perhaps emaciated, but alive and ready to eat.

But even the greatest eventually give in. With Fat Bear Week just days away and Otis nowhere to be seen, it doesn鈥檛 seem like the GOAT is coming back. We鈥檒l likely never know Otis鈥檚 ultimate fate; as Explore.org noted in a video, Katmai is a big place. It鈥檚 possible he decided to switch up his feeding grounds after more than two decades; maybe he just wanted to live out his remaining days far from the cameras. But wild bears live hard lives, and it鈥檚 probable that he succumbed to age (at nearly 30 years old, he was pushing the limits of a brown bear鈥檚 typical lifespan), injury, or starvation somewhere in the park鈥檚 vast forests or tundra.

Every year we ask where Otis is, but this year he hasn鈥檛 answered that call. We can鈥檛 say for sure where he鈥檚 gone, but either way we hope it鈥檚 close Music by @S Y M L

Wherever he鈥檚 gone, Otis, the Fattest of the Fat Bears, will continue to be a super-size inspiration to his fans, us included. So goodnight, sweet prince. We鈥檒l go have a snack and take a nap by the river somewhere in your honor.

Read our 2021 tribute:

The post Farewell to Otis, the King of Fat Bear Week appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

On a recent trip to Revelstoke, British Columbia, my husband and I popped into a hardware store to purchase bear spray. Aside from our shock at the $51 (USD) price tag for an 8-ounce can, we were taken aback by the security measures required to purchase it.

Bear spray in Canada is not a grab-and-go purchase: The cashier pulled out a form that required name, address, the amount purchased, and a signed Notice to Purchase Agreement that contained a liability warning. The serial number from the spray鈥攌ept under lock and key鈥攚as included on the form, and we needed to show an ID prior to making the purchase.

If someone were to use the spray against a human, we learned, the serial number could be traced back to us. As a result, visitors are discouraged from passing on their canisters of bear spray to other users.

In the United States, purchasing bear spray does not require the same level of scrutiny鈥攊t鈥檚 as easy to buy as a box of granola bars. This makes passing on the canister to another hiker less onerous. However, other obstacles to safe disposal are as present in the U.S. as they are in Canada.

contains both a propellant and capsaicin, a concentrated form of the substance that makes chili peppers spicy. Considered hazardous waste, bear spray canisters can鈥檛 just be chucked in the trash, but require special disposal. The spray contributes to an ever-growing waste stream and poses a safety concern to landfill workers who could be injured from the toxic fumes.

At the end of our trip, as we drove to the Calgary airport in our rented car, the canister still lay on the floor next to my feet. I had done a quick Google search hoping to find a place to safely dispose of the toxic bear spray, but had been unsuccessful. And for obvious reasons, it couldn鈥檛 come home with us on the flight. I was at a loss.

An Increase in Use

While both the U.S. National Park Service and Parks Canada recommend doing everything possible to avoid bear encounters in the first place, they also recommend carrying spray when recreating in grizzly country to use as a final line of defense in the event of an attack. Grizzly bears are more likely to attack humans during an encounter than black bears, so carrying a deterrent in states where they live鈥擨daho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Alaska鈥攊s particularly important. The spray protects both humans and bears, many of which are euthanized following an encounter.

Over time, the issue of properly disposing of bear spray waste is likely to grow. During the past five years, the number of American hiking enthusiasts increased 5.3 percent, while those camping increased 7.5 percent, said Kelly Davis, director of research at the Outdoor Industry Association. As interest in outdoor pursuits rises and the population continues to encroach on bear habitats, human-bear encounters may also increase. Likewise, the bear spray market is expected to expand, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Bear Spray Rentals

Bear spray is expensive, especially for a traveler who may not be able to bring it home for reuse. At an REI in Jackson, Wyoming, an 8.1-ounce canister (about 10 seconds worth of spray) costs $49.95 while a 10.2-ounce canister costs $54.95.

Most people who purchase bear spray will never actually use it, which spurred Montana resident Sally Vering to found in 2011. The company provides bear spray rentals in some U.S. National Parks beginning at $16 for one or two days.

Rentals do more than just saving travelers a few bucks. The service decreases the need for visitors to buy bear spray, keeping canisters out of circulation and landfills, said Patrick Collins, current owner of Bear Aware. The program runs over a dozen pick-up and drop-off locations around , Grand Teton National Park, and Jackson Hole.

Some parks in Canada also rent bear spray. At Canada鈥檚 Glacier National Park, visitors can rent a canister and holster for $15 (CAD) at two different locations. However, while visitors at a U.S. National Park can return used canisters, the same isn鈥檛 true with Parks Canada, according to Sierra Stinson, public relations and communications officer for Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks. Visitors who deploy their rented spray will need to find an alternative way to dispose of the canister.

Bear Spray Recycling

A group in Idaho鈥檚 grizzly country has focused on safe and environmentally friendly disposal. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Wildlife Department, with the help of Idaho Fish and Game and the Idaho Panhandle National Forests/USDA Forest Service, have established drop-off sites for bear spray disposal in Northern Idaho.

A waste facility in Eastern Washington accepts the recycled canisters from the Kootenai Tribe. At the center, workers puncture the cans and extract the spray. They filter out the active ingredient, which can then be reused. Some of it is added to paint and used on boats to repel barnacles. The plastic and aluminum from the can itself is also recycled.

A handful of collection sites are available in Montana as well. This includes the REI in Bozeman and most of Montana鈥檚 Fish, Wildlife and Parks regional offices. In addition, several National Parks including Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Glacier offer collection bins for the convenience of park visitors.

Plan Ahead

Back in Calgary, we ended up taking our chances and handing off the bear spray to the owner of our rental car, who was glad to have it. I later learned that the region does offer free, year-round disposal of hazardous material, including bear spray. However, this information was not easy to find, and the location was not convenient.

At best, bear spray rental and recycling programs keep toxic material out of landfills, more money in the wallets of outdoor enthusiasts, and humans and bears safe. However, the availability of these programs is not widespread and sometimes poorly promoted.

If traveling to bear country for an outdoor adventure, research local recycling centers and drop-off locations before you go. Armed with a little information, you can keep yourself, the bears, and the environment protected all at the same time.

The post How to Properly Dispose of Bear Spray Canisters appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The night of August 22 began like any other in the Pine City Campground near Mammoth Lakes, California. After an idyllic summer day spent in and around Lake Mary, an alpine lake located a ten-minute drive from town, visitors had returned to their campsites, and were starting on dinner. We can only assume it was also a normal night for the biggest bear in the area, but one that would unfortunately culminate in his death at the hands of wildlife officials, and the unceremonious dumping of his body at a local landfill.

The campers at site one knew what to expect when the bear in question, a large chocolate-colored bear male named Victor wandered up to their picnic table. They were regulars in the area, and Victor was easy to tell apart from other bears not only due to his size, but by the distinctive white fur 鈥淰鈥� on his chest that gave him his name.

Delaney Prince, the campground host at Pine City describes Victor as calm, and totally habituated to the presence of humans and their food. 鈥淚t took a lot to spook Victor,鈥� she told me over the phone.

Prince was responsible for the campground that evening, but was off-site when Victor started making his rounds. She says the regulars at site one knew what to do, and immediately picked up their food, moved back to a safe distance, and alerted other campers to his presence.

But Victor didn鈥檛 stay interested in site one for long. Over between sites nine and ten campers were grilling steaks. The smell attracted Victor鈥檚 attention.

Victor lumbered through the entire campground, following his nose to find the sizzling beef. As he did, other campers raised the alarm. But when they heard him coming, the people in sites nine and ten didn鈥檛 put their food away, or move to a safe distance. Instead, they picked up their phones and started to shoot videos. One of them climbed a short stump, fatefully located right between the picnic table and the bear-proof storage container, the door of which had been propped open.

鈥淚f I had been there, it would have gone different,鈥� Prince told me.

Victor approached the table, and began eating the steaks, heedless of the humans shouting and banging pots. When he finished, he decided to peruse the rest of the campers鈥� groceries, sitting there right at nose level in the open bear box. That鈥檚 when he noticed the woman on the stump, too close for his comfort. Victor swiped at her鈥攁n action that would have consequences later.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

鈥淚f no one was there, he never would have reacted like that,鈥� explained Prince. She says she鈥檚 seen visitors hit Victor over the head with a 2×4, and stand between him and a bear box.

鈥�20 minutes later, somebody showed me the video. I knew what the outcome would be,鈥� she said.

State wildlife officials were called, they tracked Victor to where he was resting at a nearby creek, and tranquilized him. They loaded his sleeping body into a pickup truck, and drove him 40 miles to their office in Bishop. When they confirmed that Victor was the bear responsible for causing minor injuries to the camper, . in the aftermath show his body lying in the open, blood pooling in the dirt, right in front of his white 鈥淰.鈥�

鈥淚 was honestly devastated,鈥� Prince said. It鈥檚 her third summer working on Lake Mary鈥擵ictor kept drawing her back.

鈥淢y dog is named after that bear,鈥� she said. 鈥淗e鈥檚 been the wallpaper on my phone for three years now. I鈥檝e watched him scratch his back on trees and swim across the lake. My heart is broken that he is gone.鈥�

Prince says that while Victor was her favorite part of camp hosting, he was also the hardest.

Prince and her husband decided to become campground hosts after spending a few summers in the area. Hosting gives them a free place to park their RV, and Prince an hourly wage for cleaning toilets, doing paperwork, and helping guests enjoy their stay. She says that educating campers about bears ends up being the biggest part of her job, but it鈥檚 only something the Forest Service concessionaire that manages the campground gives hosts 鈥渢wo to three hours of training on,鈥� as part of the two-day training they receive for 鈥渆verything.鈥�

According to the host, most campers arriving at Lake Mary are unaware that bears are in the area. But read online reviews of the campground, and bears are frequently mentioned.

鈥淎s soon as we got there, there was a mama bear looking for snacks and found someone鈥檚 food,鈥� for the campground on the government鈥檚 official booking site, Recreation.Gov.

鈥淭he Forest Service doesn鈥檛 work with us at all,鈥� Prince complained. 鈥淔ish and game doesn鈥檛 work with us at all. Camp hosts are the first line of defense to talk about people and educate people.鈥� Prince told me that educating visitors about bear safety has become her personal calling鈥攂ecause no one else will provide the resources.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not just campers. The lake up here sees so much day use,鈥� she said. 鈥淚f I see a bear, I鈥檝e got an e-bike. My goal is to get ahead of the bear, get between it and the campers, and get food put away. I move them up to the road, and the bears just walk on by. I tell campers my rule is to stay at least 30-40 feet away鈥攖he length of a school bus.

I asked Prince what she wishes campers knew before they showed up. 鈥淏ears don鈥檛 need to be feared, they just need a lot of respect,鈥� she tells me. 鈥淭hey have no desire to hurt somebody.鈥�

鈥淭reat the bear box like a fridge,鈥� the campground host continues. “Open and close it as you need it and keep the door closed. Sometimes a bear comes when your food is out. Take your plate and walk away. At the end of the day we are the guests in their home and we need to treat it like that.鈥�

Prince said there鈥檚 no need to bring bear spray. There are no grizzly bears in California. Black bears, like Victor, pose little risk to humans.

鈥淚鈥檝e seen bear spray used, and every time it鈥檚 used it鈥檚 because humans have gotten too close,鈥� she says. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 always all over everyone within 20 feet. It鈥檚 not necessary up here.鈥�

Immediately upon learning of Victor鈥檚 death, the Bishop Paiute Tribe recovered his body, and arranged a ceremony to honor, 鈥渢he loss of one of their sacred relatives, Victor the Pahabichi (bear).鈥�

鈥淭he ceremony was a powerful and emotional tribute, featuring prayers, songs, and offerings made in Victor鈥檚 honor,鈥� reads issued by the Bishop Paiute. 鈥淭he Tribe is grateful for the opportunity to provide Victor with a proper burial, recognizing the Pahabichi is sacred to their community and acknowledging their role as visitors on Pahabichi homelands.鈥�

鈥淚 am so grateful the tribe gave him a proper burial,鈥� said Prince.

The campground host hopes the incident highlights the need for better bear safety education. 鈥淢ost of the people up here are excited for those bear interactions, that is something Mammoth prides itself on,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut then they do not go through with the education that is needed, or teaching people how to recreate with bears. And that led to what happened with Victor.鈥�

That鈥檚 something she鈥檚 prepared to take the lead on. 鈥淚鈥檓 trying really hard to meet with the Forest Service to try and work with them next summer educating campers and day use people on how to be bear aware,鈥� she texted me soon after our conversation. 鈥淚鈥檇 love to work in the campgrounds doing programs to educate and really build a presence for the Forest Service in the area.鈥�

鈥淲e should do better,鈥� the campground host concluded. 鈥淲e are the humans, they are the animals.鈥�

The post This Campground Host鈥檚 Favorite Bear Was Killed. Here鈥檚 What She Wishes Campers Knew. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Last week, California charter school teacher Elaine Salmon left her classroom for a few minutes to make some copies. When she returned, there was a pupil behind one of the desks that she hadn鈥檛 counted on: A young black bear. Worse, the bear had located the kids鈥� earthquake crisis kits, which contained snacks. When Salmon discovered the bear, it was midway through one of the emergency granola bars.

Salmon quickly called her husband, Ian Sawrey, who happens to be a bear removal expert. (The charter school is located in Pine Mountain Club, a rural part of the state north of Los Angeles where bear encounters are common.) Sawrey was able to escort the bear out of the building without issue. No one鈥攊ncluding the bear鈥攚as harmed in the incident.

Over the last year, Sawrey has responded to hundreds of bear-related incidents and break-ins, he told news outlet . In some cases, the bears have broken into homes in broad daylight while the occupants were home. Some of these nuisance bears are so desensitized that they don鈥檛 respond to shouting, loud noises, or any other common bear-deterrent methods. Some bears are even repeat offenders. In Lake Tahoe California, one bear, dubbed for his rotund figure and 500-pound frame, was linked to nearly two-dozen break-ins. In Lake Tahoe, Pine Mountain Club, and other mountain towns, residents have gone so far as to lock doors and windows, carry airhorns, and place alarms and spiked bear 鈥渦nwelcome mats鈥� near entryways to help .

鈥淵es, we do live with nature. Yes, we do live with bears, but the bears have crossed a line,鈥� Sawrey told KGET.

However, it鈥檚 likely that the bears aren鈥檛 consciously aware of such lines. Instead, they鈥檝e become trained over months or years of experience to (After all, it鈥檚 much more energy-efficient to obtain a meal by eating some trash than wandering for miles in search of a berry patch or carcass). Over time, these bears have also been trained to associate human beings with minor nuisance鈥攏ot real danger鈥攚hich is why they learn to ignore noises and waving arms.

The result is dangerous for humans. It鈥檚 also dangerous for bears. Bears who get into trash sometimes ingest non-food items, which can result in intestinal blockages. In severe cases, such blockages can cause a bear to . The other issue is that just one good trash meal (or, say, delicious emergency granola bar) is enough for a bear to begin associating human homes with food rewards. If the bear becomes overly habituated, it has to be euthanized.

If you live in bear country, Kara Van Hoose, public information officer for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, recommends doing as the residents of Pine Mountain Club are: Making town as inhospitable for bears as possible.

鈥淏ears are really resourceful and know how to open cars. They can open doors into your home. The best way to keep them out is to keep those doors locked,鈥� she told 叠补肠办辫补肠办别谤听in a recent interview about bear safety. She also recommends carrying bear spray, even if you鈥檙e in your own yard, if you live in the heart of bear country. That sends a strong physical message that bears aren鈥檛 welcome.

鈥淲e want bears to stay wild,鈥� Van Hoose says. The secret, she emphasizes, is constant vigilance. 鈥淲hen you leave out bird feeders or your trash, you鈥檙e contributing to the habituation of that bear, and when bears become comfortable around humans, that leads to conflicts.鈥�

The post Bear Breaks into California Classroom and Eats Students鈥� Snacks appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Wildlife biologist and wilderness guide Brad Josephs shared an epic battle between two male grizzly bears with 国产吃瓜黑料 in 2023. This year, he captured an equally intense skirmish between grizzlies while guiding at Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska.

For this round, a much smaller mother bear fiercely defends her two cubs from an aggressive male brute. In this spellbinding video, the female stands up to the male and fends him off. In the melee, her two cubs dramatically topple off opposite sides of the slope. The footage is breathtaking. At one point, the male is inches from snatching up one of the cubs, only to be rebuffed by the determined female.

Momma Bear Fights Invading Male

In a , Josephs explains that the fate of the mom and cubs remains unknown but that the male was seen again wandering in an open field. While a somewhat rare occurrence, males will occasionally hunt cubs for the simple reason that they present an easy meal鈥攊n theory. Momma bears don’t take kindly to their cubs being threatened. This video shows just how courageous a female grizzly bear can be when protecting her young.

Brad generously shared images of the belligerent male and the female bear family with 国产吃瓜黑料.

The female and her cubs were on high alert before the male intruder made his move.

The post Momma Bear Fiercely Defends Cubs Against Giant Grizzly in Alaska appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

It鈥檚 been nearly 30 years since the last time anyone spotted a grizzly bear in Washington State’s North Cascades National Park. Though grizzlies roamed the region’s聽forests for thousands of years, they were hunted to the brink of extinction in the lower 48 states throughout the 19th and 20th centuries by mostly white, European settlers.

But grizzlies are about to make a comeback.

In April, the National Park Service聽alongside聽the U.S. Fish and Wildlife revealed a dramatic new plan to reintroduce grizzly bears into the North Cascades National Park. 鈥淯nder the decision, grizzly bears in the North Cascades will be designated as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act,鈥� the .

The鈥渘onessential鈥� designation means the reintroduced bears aren鈥檛 necessarily integral to the survival of the grizzly species across the United States,听but could promote the species鈥� growth.

North Cascades is one of the most remote and wild national parks in America. It鈥檚 an area roughly the size of New Jersey, and is home to some of the most scenic hiking trails in the country鈥攊ncluding some jaw-dropping sections of the Pacific Crest Trail. I live near the area and spend most of my summers hiking in my favorite destinations: Diablo Lake, Cascade Pass and Cutthroat Peak. Black bears are common to these areas, and I鈥檝e run into them before on the trails without incident. I’ve never seen a Grizzly, however, and their reintroduction made me worried.

Grizzly bears are dangerous predators. They can weigh up to 1,000 pounds and are one of the largest land carnivores on the planet.聽Last year, a woman named Amie Adamson was while hiking in West Yellowstone. A year before that, Craig Cloutare was reportedly mauled to death in the Six Mile Creek area of the Absaroka Mountains in Montana. A year before that Leah Davis Loken was attacked and killed near her campsite in Powell County, Montana.

I spoke with Andrew LaValle, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife who allayed some of my fears about grizzlies coming to Washington State.聽Federal authorities have very strict criteria about where the bears will be released, and how, he said. Areas of the park that typically attract crowds鈥攖he visitors center near Newhalem or the shores of Ross Lake鈥攚ill be excluded.

鈥淲e have very specific criteria where bears are going to be released,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat includes the Stephen Mather, Pasayten, and Glacier Peak wilderness areas. It has to have a suitable area for helicopter landing. We鈥檒l be looking for areas with grizzly bear foods in the vicinity, and also where they鈥檙e unlikely to encounter people for quite a while.鈥�

As the reintroduction process proceeds during the next two decades, the likelihood of running into a grizzly bear in the North Cascades will be extremely slim LaValle said. Enormous swaths of the 789-square-mile park are without any trails or roads.聽Just don’t go out of your way in the wilderness looking for grizzlies, and you won’t be likely to find any. As a tribal elder of the Upper Skagit people Scott Schuyler has spent years working with federal authorities and other groups to bring bears back to this region.

鈥淭here are bears in other parts of the country and there are sometimes where adverse interactions can occur,鈥� Schuyler said. 鈥淥ur goal through this process is to ensure the public is aware of how to behave and how to function in bear country.鈥�

Speaking to LaValle and Schuyler eased my fears of being attacked by a grizzly.

The federal government pinpointed North Cascades for reintroduction in 1997, the year after the last聽 grizzly was spotted in the park. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a significant undertaking,鈥� LaValle said. 鈥淭here were a lot of studies that had to take place. Habitat modeling. There were also a lot of concerns amongst parties, politically and otherwise about what this could mean. So, it took a long time to get here, but the science is sound.鈥�

Grizzly bears remain a vital but missing piece of the ecosystem throughout the American West. It鈥檚 a cruel irony that the state flag of California is adorned with an animal that hasn鈥檛 been spotted wandering its hills and valleys since a time before the Great Depression. Their absence is felt, even if it goes unseen.

The hope among proponents for grizzly bear restoration is that their presence will help restore the natural ecosystem of the North Cascades and bring balance to the regional flora and fauna. Bears disperse seeds, turn up soil, and keep other animal populations in check. The real-world benefits to the landscape are innumerable, especially at a time of extreme climate disruption.

For the indigenous tribes who鈥檝e resided in this area, there鈥檚 a special cultural resonance to the project as well. 鈥淕rizzly bears are part of history, part of our lore,鈥� Schuyler said. 鈥淥ur bears are a spirit power. We have other animal transformers of course, but they鈥檙e no less important.鈥�

Schuyler told me that the memory of the grizzly bear鈥檚 presence is written in the landscape of the North Cascades. 鈥淚n our language, there鈥檚 a river up in the Skagit tributary called the Stetattle. Stetattle is our word for grizzly bear,” he said. “There鈥檚 this affiliation that dates back thousands and thousands of years. 10,000 years prior to contact.鈥�

The timeline for reintroduction is tentative and the process itself is quite complex. Government officials are now focused on choosing the specific bears that can thrive in this vast outdoor wilderness teeming with other protected wildlife, like the steelhead and salmon that spawn in the Skagit River and its tributaries. They plan on drawing from a pool of animals whose current dietary habits can sustain them in North Cascades for years to come.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not just gonna pick up bears from the bear store,鈥� LaValle said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to be looking for younger bears that have been recently emancipated from Mom. Bears two to five years old without a history of conflict. And we鈥檇 be looking to weigh the population toward females. We have like, temporal and then demographic criteria. All that鈥檚 to say, it鈥檒l take a while to find the right 产别补谤蝉.鈥�

How do you deliver a bear into remote locations? The current plan involves flying sedated bears in via helicopter鈥攂etween three and seven individuals each year for a decade. The goal is to eventually reach 25 bears total in North Cascades National Park as an initial population. Within a 100 years, that number could reach as much as 200 bears if current habitat modeling holds.

The presence of 200 grizzly bears will change the character of North Cascades National Park in a multitude of ways. It will also alter the habits of the hikers and campers who traverse the park as the bears become more at home in this expansive habitat. While the experts I spoke to quelled my fears, they also told me that grizzly reintroduction does raise the risk for humans. Visitors need to be aware of the hazards and plan accordingly.

鈥淲e will have a learning curve here in Washington,鈥� LaValle said. 鈥淲e have lived without grizzly bears in the landscape for a number of years now. We will have to relearn how to recreate in bear country. The good news is, we can take lessons from other ecosystems. We know that outdoor recreation is alive and well in Montana.鈥�

Fatal attacks happen, but they are extremely rare and can be prevented if hikers take the right precautions. 鈥淲e will still be able to enjoy our outdoor spaces to the fullest here in Washington,鈥� LaValle said. 鈥淲e鈥檒l have to be aware of our surroundings. Be careful not to approach wildlife. Travel in groups when possible. Make sure we鈥檙e bear aware, announcing our presence and carrying bear spray.鈥�

For Schuyler, this meaningful moment for both him and his tribe has been a very long time coming. 鈥淚 think there鈥檚 a moral and ethical obligation by our tribe, based on our history, that we鈥檙e going to defend these creatures. Whether it鈥檚 a bear, whether it鈥檚 a ground squirrel or a bird. That鈥檚 just our identity,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e gonna be their voice. Nobody was our voice. We鈥檙e gonna make sure that we still protect what we can.鈥�

The post Grizzly Bears Are Returning to North Cascades National Park appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Think your trusty dog is no match for a ferocious grizzly bear? Turns out the simple presence of a聽livestock guardian dog can reduce visits from grizzly bears by 87.8 percent, according to . That result should be encouraging to anyone who lives near expanding grizzly populations in the Northern Rockies or, according to the researcher responsible for the study, those of us recreating in grizzly habitat, too.

鈥淗umans have relied on dogs for protection from wild animals for thousands of years for a reason,鈥� says Julie Young, the Utah State University wildlife scientist who conducted the research alongside Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 鈥淭hey work.鈥�

Young鈥檚 study placed five livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) at four farmsteads in northern Montana with 鈥渁 chronic history of bears accessing grains and other attractants next to their homes,鈥� and kept dogs away from five similar farmsteads as a control.

When I talk about using my dogs to ward off or potentially fight a bear, I鈥檓 often met with skepticism. Surely even a 125-pound ancient livestock guardian dog like Teddy couldn鈥檛 take on a 500-pound-plus griz, right? So I also asked Young to explain that dynamic. 鈥淚t鈥檚 like watching two frat boys shout 鈥楬old me back, bro,鈥欌�� she illustrates. Both species avoid physical altercations through instinct. A dog鈥檚 scents, barking, and presence are enough to force most bears to turn tail.

Since grizzly populations in the lower 48 states gained Endangered Species Act protections in the seventies, their number has grown to Bear populations are largely split between the ecosystems surrounding Yellowstone and Glacier national parks. As the bears go looking for new habitat, they鈥檙e traveling east, onto the prairies where they historically thrived before the arrival of European settlers. That鈥檚 bringing the species into conflict with humans in new areas, threatening both their survival, and the safety of human families in places that, until a few years ago, never had to think about coexisting with large apex predators.

The result? 鈥淭here were 58-fold fewer camera-trap detections of bears visiting farmsteads with LGDs and an increase in behaviors suggesting bear discomfort compared to paired [control farmsteads],鈥� the study found. 鈥淎fter LGDs were deployed, there was an 87.8 percent聽reduction in GPS-collar locations of bears within 300聽meters of farmsteads relative to before.鈥�

Most importantly, no bears, humans, or dogs had to be harmed to achieve those results. 鈥淭he bears simply avoided the farms with dogs,鈥� Young explains.

Young believes this revelation could impact the safety of humans as well.聽She鈥檚 studied interactions between LGDs and large predators before. But that research focused on the ability of livestock guardian dogs to protect herds. To her, the big question here was whether or not the same behaviors and result could be applied to families and their physical property鈥攏ot just sheep and goats.

鈥淭he farmers were worried that the dogs might be aggressive toward their children,鈥� says Young.

Young selected the canine breed Kangals for the study. These dogs are a purebred line of the Anatolian Shepherd, an ancient livestock guardian breed from Turkey. Kangals are the most athletic of the giant breeds, and reportedly highly聽aggressive.

Young explains that she chose the Kangal because, it 鈥渋s an ancient breed specifically bred to guard against large predators.鈥� Great Pyrenees and Akbash, which are common on western farms, are not. The researcher says that contrasts the strengths of what she calls, 鈥渢he generic white dog,鈥� which is more commonly used to protect against smaller predators like coyotes.

This is where the study becomes relevant to me and my family. Six years ago, we adopted a rescue puppy that we thought was a mutt, but turned out to be a pure-bred Kangal. We split time between Bozeman, in southwest Montana, and a family cabin in northern Montana. Grizzly bears are an ever-present fact of life at that cabin. We frequently come across their tracks and signs elsewhere. In addition to a layered security protocol runs from limiting attractants to heavy-caliber firearms, we rely on our dogs to keep us safe.

I want to shoot a bear even less than I want to get my face torn off by one, and Teddy, our Kangal, is an important part of preventing either event from occurring.

鈥淲e know that Kangals can bond with shepherds,鈥� says Young. And now, with evidence from this new research, we also know that they not only bond with families, their farms, and children, but that those farmers like having the dogs around as well.

鈥淎ll four farms chose to keep the Kangals, and are recommending them, too,鈥� says Young. 鈥淔amers in the control group are also now seeking out the dogs.鈥�

The study鈥檚 results builds on the findings of other research. Young compared the effectiveness of Kangals to other livestock guardian dog breeds , while found the breed reduced livestock losses to big cats by 91 percent. indicated that Kangals bonded more strongly with humans than sheep.

I asked Young if these results could be applied聽to our cabin and our camping trips. 鈥淧aired with other measures, dogs can be a successful tool at deterring bears in any setting,鈥� she said. Young went on to explain that the study will give wildlife officials working in the field the evidence they need to bring dogs along with them for grizzly protection.

So there you have it: Scientific evidence that, unlike bear spray, a dog with significant guarding instincts is effective at deterring the largest land predator in the world. That should help reduce conflicts with humans as the species continues to expand into its historic habitat. If you do everything else right, a dog can be an additional tool for avoiding grizzly bears the next time you recreate in the places they call home.

The post Can Dogs Protect You From Grizzly Bears? Science Says Yes. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

As a hunter who has been shooting local elk and deer for subsistence for nearly 40 years, I find little to agree with in Wes Siler鈥檚 story for 国产吃瓜黑料 Online about trophy hunting. In it, he defends what I consider indefensible: a trip to Alaska where, with the help of an outfitter, he killed a large Alaskan brown bear to make a rug.

Siler鈥檚 argument hinges, primarily, on the belief that bear populations must be managed, that the decisions of wildlife management agencies are reliably science-backed and wildlife-focused, and that the money that hunters pay for the privilege of hunting earns them the right to kill predators. I argue that there is no scientific justification for hunting apex predators, that hunters鈥� disproportionate influence over state wildlife agencies leads to policies that favor hunters over wildlife, and that hunters鈥� contributions to overall wildlife conservation efforts are overblown.

I鈥檓 the former president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, the state鈥檚 largest and oldest hunting-based conservation organization. I hunt and kill elk and deer, prey species that evolved with predation. They reproduce quickly and produce surplus populations culled and eaten by predators, including us human hunters. Predators, whether they be bears, wolves, mountain lions or humans, are needed to control prey populations. This is not true with predator species like brown bears. They have different breeding and territorial behaviors than deer and elk, and are fairly self-regulating in population size. Killing them can disrupt social and territorial behaviors, negatively impact reproduction and rearing and result in overall negative consequences for bear populations.

Siler argues that some brown bear populations are isolated, cut off from other populations because of human activities such as logging and road construction. This results in a handful of mature, dominant bears doing most of the breeding, including with their offspring, limiting the genetic diversity of the populations. Killing a carefully chosen number of large males, he claims, can help improve genetic diversity by allowing younger, less dominant bears to breed. He also argues that this work should not be done by professionals, who would have to be paid, but by recreationalists, who will pay 鈥渓arge sums of money鈥� providing 鈥渁 net benefit to taxpayers.鈥� He then explains that of the three hunters on his trip, only two of them successfully killed animals, and one after shooting it nine times with the help of his guide, raising the question about whether precise population culling is actually the goal here. We don鈥檛 ask people to pay to do delicate wildlife management work like tranquilizing and relocating moose. We let the professionals do it.

Whether you believe recreationalists are the people for the job or not, it鈥檚 more important to note that not all scientists agree with Siler鈥檚 thinking about population management. Brown bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates of any North American mammal, and cubs will spend nearly three years with their mothers. They can be very territorial, and large males provide safety and stability within a territory. Studies conducted in British Columbia, Alberta, Alaska and parts of northern Europe show that the killing of large males often leads to increased competition for breeding among younger males, increased harassment of and stress for females, increased killing of cubs by younger males, and earlier abandonment of cubs by females.

鈥淎ny human-caused mortality that disproportionately targets adult brown bears will likely have evolutionary consequences that manifest in the surprisingly short span of decades,鈥� says Dr. David Mattson, a retired grizzly bear biologist and former member of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 鈥淗unting and other forms of human-caused mortality targeting adult brown bears distort evolutionary regimes that selected over many millennia for the benefits of a long life. Hunting throws the male-centric world into disarray and upheaval, thus disrupting the social realm of females. In other words, we would no longer have grizzly or brown bears as we know them now.鈥�

In a study titled 鈥淐haracteristics of a Naturally Regulated Grizzly Bear Population,鈥� conducted in Alaska鈥檚 Denali National Park and published in the , researchers compared populations of bears that are hunted with those that are protected. They kept track of births, deaths, and cub survival within the grizzly bear population in the park and compared those numbers to similar areas where bears are hunted. They found that the bears in the park naturally regulated their own population based on food availability. 鈥淏ears in the park were regulating the population in face of limited food resources,鈥� wrote the lead research scientist, Jeff Keay. The population had a high birth rate, but also a high rate of cub and yearling deaths. 鈥淲ith no humans hunting the Denali population, it appears bears regulate themselves by managing the number of bears that make it into adulthood.鈥�

So, if the science doesn’t support killing predators, why do these state governments allow it? Siler draws on the history of American conservation and argues that hunting is why 鈥渨e have such abundant populations of wild animals.鈥� It’s true that hunters have had a big, positive impact in conserving some species (mostly prey species). But they have arguably had a significant negative impact on other species (mostly predators).

Siler explains that hunters and hunting organizations have played important roles in conservation in North America: Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold were both avid hunters, and groups like the Boone and Crockett Club and the National Wildlife Federation do excellent work. But plenty of non-hunters have shaped American conservation too: John Muir, John J. Audubon, Rachel Carson, the Sierra Club. Yet hunters have disproportionate influence over state wildlife agencies and policies.

These agencies work closely with governor-appointed game or wildlife commissions primarily made up of hunters, outfitters, and ranchers, so state policies greatly favor species that hunters and anglers like to catch and kill鈥攐ften to the detriment of other species, particularly large carnivores such as wolves, mountain lions, and bears. Late last spring, for example, around Wood-Tikchik State Park in Southwest Alaska, state game and fish officials killed 94 brown bears, five black bears, and five wolves, shooting them from helicopters during a 17-day period. They were directed to do this by the Alaska Board of Game鈥攁 group of six men and one woman, all hunters, big game guides, or trappers, appointed by the governor to oversee the game and fish department. Their reason? To protect caribou from predators to boost hunting opportunity.

In the late 1990s, there was concern among hunters that bears were killing too many elk calves in the clearwater region of Idaho, reducing hunting opportunities. Hunters wanted state officials to kill more bears (as they do in Alaska, and as they do with wolves). The Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted a study and within the elk herds and low bull-to-cow ratios. But they found that this was not caused by bears鈥攔ather by humans overhunting bull elk, which negatively impacted breeding during the fall rut. That, in turn, affected the timing of spring calving. Calves were born later in the season, after the lush early spring forage had begun to die off. They were also born over a longer period of time. Under more natural conditions, calves are born all at once, overwhelming predators with what biologists call a 鈥渇looding strategy鈥� that allows most calves to grow quickly and evade predation. Biologists recommended that hunting regulations be changed to protect and restore large, mature bull elk and boost bull-to-cow ratios in the herd. But the state ended up .

Siler cites the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation as evidence that hunting, as it stands, is ethical and sustainable. The model was developed in the late 1990s by Canadian wildlife biologists Valerius Geist and Shane Mahoney, and John Organ of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They identified the core tenets that they believed had made conservation successful in North America up to that point and should continue guiding wildlife management in the future: that wildlife resources are a public trust and an international resource; that there will be no commercial market for wildlife; that wildlife can be killed for a legitimate purpose; that science-backed laws and regulations will direct policy and allocation of wildlife for hunting; and that hunting will be guided by a democratic process in which all citizens have a say and opportunity to participate.

In truth, wildlife management is rarely guided by the North American Model, and, in most states, the tenets are ignored or compromised to appease hunters and protect hunting opportunity. in every state except Hawaii, and trappers are allowed to sell furs and other animal parts for profit. Hunters have a disproportionate say in wildlife management policy, wildlife is commodified as a consumer good through tag and permit sales, and the laws and regulations are not reliably science-backed.

Finally, Siler leans heavily on the false but common claim that hunters and anglers disproportionately fund conservation. Specifically, he cites excise taxes generated from the sale of guns, ammunition, motor boat fuel, and fishing equipment under the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts. Last year alone, he writes, taxes levied on hunters and anglers paid $1.5 billion to state wildlife programs. But there are some problems with his numbers. Guns and ammunition sales generate about , and the majority of guns and ammunition are not purchased for hunting鈥攊n 2021, just of those sales were hunting-related. And only two-thirds of those who buy motor-boat fuel participate in fishing.

These funds account for around 53 percent of state wildlife agency budgets. The rest derives from general tax funds paid by all citizens, and all citizens pay for the state and federal lands where a lot of wildlife lives.

Since hunters make up less than 20 percent of the U.S. population and contribute over 50 percent of funding for these departments, it is true that they contribute more than the general public to these agencies. But state wildlife departments are not the only entities responsible for conservation, and I reject the idea that conservation is limited to their actions. Furthermore, not everything these departments do is conservation, and some of the things they do are likely detrimental to conservation.

Conservation, as defined by the , is 鈥渢he protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them. Conservation is generally held to include the management of human use of natural resources for current public benefit and sustainable social and economic utilization.鈥� This includes managing game populations, certainly. But this definition also includes the work done by other governmental agencies responsible for protecting the public lands these animals inhabit, including the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and more鈥攁ll of which are funded by the general taxpayer. Not to mention the hundreds of non-profits and organizations that work to protect wildlife and land across the country.

The best way to ensure the long-term genetic health and viability of brown bear populations is not through killing them. Instead, we must protect enough habitat for them to freely move and live as they evolved to, with room to adapt to future, changing conditions. In his 1953 book Round River Aldo Leopold wrote, 鈥淚f the land mechanism as a whole is good then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.鈥�

That includes keeping large male brown bears around; not killing them for rugs.

An avid hunter, angler and former Force Recon Marine, David Stalling is the Director of Communications for LargeCarnivoreFund.org , and also serves on the Advisory Committee for Wildlife For All, working to reform wildlife management. He lives in Missoula, Montana.

The post 国产吃瓜黑料鈥檚 Columnist Got It Wrong: Trophy Hunting Doesn鈥檛 Help Bears appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The National Park Service (NPS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) are seeking public comment on a plan for reintroducing grizzlies into the North Cascades.聽

In September, the agencies released an Environmental Impact Statement that evaluated the potential impacts of reviving the grizzly population. Since the original draft release, the NPS and USFS have held several meetings with local residents in advance of finalizing the plan.聽

If implemented, the plan would involve releasing 3 to 7 bears into the region every year for up to 10 years. Federal wildlife officials expect that it would take somewhere between 60 and 100 years for the region to reach its 200-bear goal.聽

Outlined in the EIS are three different potential management strategies. Plan A would reintroduce a grizzly population without establishing any new management tactics. Option B would re-introduce the bears and treat them as if they were threatened. And, option C, which is currently favored by officials, would treat the re-introduction as experimental, giving state and federal agencies more flexibility in the treatment and management of the population during the re-introduction process. Option C would likely leave room for officials to permit livestock owners to kill grizzlies under certain conditions as well.聽

Once native to the Pacific Northwest, Washington鈥檚 grizzly population dropped precipitously over decades of hunting, poisoning, and trapping. While remnant populations still exist in the Selkirk Mountains and along the Canadian border, the last known sighting of a grizzly in the North Cascades was in 1996, according to the NPS.

First introduced by the Obama administration, the concept of reintroducing grizzly bears to the North Cascades has proved contentious. A federal plan to reintroduce grizzly bears in the state of Washington fizzled out during the Trump era due to outcry from farmers and ranchers. The same re-introduction plan received largely positive responses from the public, with as many people supporting as opposing it.聽

Among those opponents is U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash, who responded to the EIS by pledging to fight it once again.聽

鈥淭ime and again, our communities have spoken to express staunch opposition to the introduction of these apex predators, which would be detrimental to our families, wildlife and livestock alike,鈥� . He called on federal officials to end the plan 鈥渋mmediately鈥�.

On the other side of the fence, many conservationists that grizzlies play an important part in the natural balance of the state, and that a re-introduction the ecological balance of the Cascades.聽

Those who are interested in attending a virtual public can do so on October 17. In-person meetings will take place from November 1 to 3 in Washington state. Virtual comments can be submitted anytime between now and November 13.聽

The post Should the North Cascades Get Their Grizzlies Back? Now鈥檚 Your Chance to Weigh In. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.