|
|
|
approached, ignoring the intense man/dog smell in anticipation of the more compelling food/garbage smell. He paused briefly to investigate several thin wires that surrounded the barbecue grill and burn barrel. He pushed his tender nose forward to sniff the wire when WHAM!!… he leapt back in pain and surprise as his nose was viciously stung by the electric fence, much like the time when he pawed open a yellow jacket nest. Shaking his head violently, he failed to notice the door of the cabin open a crack as the muzzle of a shotgun was pushed through. Suddenly, something screamed over his head and exploded off to his left, scaring him terribly and injecting a rush of adrenaline into his system. Even as he jumped and spun about to flee, he heard the fierce barking of a dog as it leapt after him from the cabin’s interior. Galloping back toward the treeline for all he was worth with the dog close behind, the bear heard loud yelling and another explosion behind him, followed immediately by a sharp pain in his rear as a rubber slug bounced off his hide. He ran and ran and didn’t stop for a halfmile or more, long after the dog had given up the chase. His heart didn’t stop hammering for many minutes afterward as the young bear rubbed his sore nose and tried to soothe his stinging rear… |
|
This is one possible (and desirable) conclusion to this particular drama. Although bears are very enjoyable to watch, we do not want them to become habituated to humans. If they become too bold, and seem intent on investigating human garbage, compost, pet food, etc., they need to be educated, or “aversively conditioned.” Ideally, aversive conditioning would be applied on an escalating scale of unpleasantness for the bear, ranging from yelling, clapping, and banging pots and pans to the use of nonlethal shotgun rounds such as screamers (used above), cracker shells, bean bags, and rubber buckshot and slugs. In the example above, the bear learned a very valuable and poignant lesson regarding humans and their develop¬ments—that they lead to a very negative experiences and should be avoided in the future. It will likely think twice before approaching human areas again. Bears are very intelligent animals and are very good at nutritional costbenefit analyses. If the potential reward does not justify the risk and potential costs, then the bear will likely look elsewhere for foraging opportunities. If our fictional bear were to approach human areas again and receive a similar reception, the odds of it becoming a “problem” will be greatly diminished; consequently the bear’s odds of surviving will be greatly increased. For various reasons (to be discussed next issue), this is a much preferred alternative to the indiscriminate killing of bears in the Kennicott valley. |
|
First Bear Research in WrangellSt. Elias National Park |
|
From 19992002, I had the good fortune to conduct bear research in the Kennicott Valley of WrangellSt. Elias National Park & Preserve, the very first bear research ever conducted within the park boundaries. This study was funded by the National Park Service in order to address three major objectives: to obtain an estimate of the minimum population of brown and black bears in the valley, their sex ratios and spatial distribution; to examine the location and causes of bearhuman conflicts and to describe local bear ecology; and to infer management strategies for reducing the occurrence of bearhuman conflicts. I decided to use the relatively new technique of noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) to accomplish this task. In a nutshell, NGS involves collecting hair and tissue samples from barbwire “hair traps,” rub trees, bears killed in “defense of life or property” (DLP), and from conflict |
