Chart showing bear/human conflicts by state, from DEEP data. Chart produced by author Dean WeingartenPosted on 08/22/2026 5:35:17 AM PDT by marktwain
Before 1976, it was assumed by wildlife managers that hunting bears made the bear population more cautious of humans and reduced human/bear conflicts.
In 1975, the Director of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the taking of grizzly bears should be of two types.
“In a seasonal sport hunt, bears are exposed to relatively large numbers of humans for a limited period of time, and so learn to avoid all areas where humans are encountered. It is this avoidance of man which will reduce numerous depredations and threats to human safety.”
Chart showing bear/human conflicts by state, from DEEP data. Chart produced by author Dean Weingarten
The assumption that hunting created a fear of man was common sense, backed up by millennia of hunting observations. When a species is hunted by man, the hunted species learns to avoid humans, at least where it is hunted. Individuals of the species which fail to learn to avoid humans are quickly eliminated from the gene pool.
Some academics who study bears have claimed there are no peer reviewed studies which show human/bear conflicts are reduced by hunting more than they would be reduced with the reduction in the population of bears created by hunting.
A New Jersey paper looking at both bear populations and human/bear conflicts shows conflicts are reduced by several times the proportional reduction in bear population. The recent publication by the Department of Environmental and Energy Protection (DEEP) in Connecticut reveals a startling chasm in the number
(Excerpt) Read more at thegunmag.com ...
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Pretty darned tight data, analysis, logic and history. Thanks, Dean!
It’s a tautological fact that the chance of encountering or being mauled by a successfully harvested bear is 0.00.
After careful perusal, I can confidently state none of this translates to the plight of the Chicago football team.
‘The State of Bears!’
.
Connecticut is off My ‘goto’ list.
‘The State of Bears!’
They won’t win the NFC North this year.
We’ve had at least 13 black bears captured in the Albuquerque metro area this year. If you look at the area on gaggle maps, you’d think most of the bears would be spotted near the foothills of the Sandia Mountains to the east of the city. At least half have been west of the Rio Grande, which splits Albuquerque running north to south and leaves about 3/4 of the city to the east of it. At least three of the bears were in Rio Rancho, a city that borders Albuquerque on the northwest side.
Most hang out near the airport and don’t cross the river.
Bears wander through my yard now and then. We keep out trash in the garage so they don’t linger.
No legal bear hunting is currently allowed in Connecticut. Black bear hunting is prohibited under state law.
You can always tell if bears are around by their pepper smelling scat and bells!
I just read a letter from our Idaho AG, Raul Labrador, about rules currently being reviewed regarding grizzly bears in the NW:
“Rulemaking to revise that 1975 listing is in progress right now. But in the meantime, we are stuck with a federal rule that governs what Idaho can and cannot do about the bears. The Trump Administration recently proposed a new version of that rule, with the stated goal of cutting needless federal bureaucracy and giving states more flexibility. I applaud that goal. However, this week I sent formal comments to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik explaining why the proposal does not yet get there.
“As currently written, the proposal makes the paperwork and bureaucracy worse instead of better, and it hands more opportunities to the activist litigation machine that has been suing Idaho over wildlife management for years. That machine is already well-funded at taxpayer expense. A rule full of vague standards and multi-step approval processes is a gift to the environmental activist lawyers filing continuous lawsuits.
“Here is one striking example: The proposal builds a new tier of restrictions around the idea that a grizzly bear might get caught in a trap set for another animal. The data says otherwise. Decades of year-round coyote trapping in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming produced no grizzly capture or injury. Neither did the expansion of Idaho’s regulated wolf trapping seasons since 2011. Not one documented grizzly capture in a lawfully set trap. Zero.”
As usual, the enviro-commies flood the comments on rules & we end up with bad ones. I hope the Trump administration is smarter than that, & fixes the rules they’re working on.
Is there a correlation between encounters and politics? All of New England, hmmm? Just askin’ for a friend.
I personally think for just this reason there should be a FEDERAL mandate that anyone who encounters wildlife on their own property that presents a threat to person, pets, livestock or property has the right to shoot them on sight, regardless of state laws or wildlife protected status. I know many people do this anyway, but you risk your life if you somehow do get reported, and that should not be the case.
If at all possible, “Shoot, shovel and shut-up” as they say!
Bears,I mean!
Naomi Wolf (who lives in the Hudson Valley and NYC) discusses an encounter with a local bear and allowing wildlife and other nations to move into and exert control over our "neighborhoods"
(She divorced her liberal ex-writer husband and is currently married to an Ex-military husband who was her bodyguard and presumably provides her with some protection. She appears to be doing a slow morph toward a more conservative viewpoint.)
Agreed but that scenario is far downstream from the cause.
Hold these states' feet to the fire. Have them prove the number of each type of wildlife by zip code, county, etc. "needed" to protect from "endangerment". Any number more than that is fair game, and fair game out of hunting season.
Letting animals, even such as deer and geese, overrun areas is unacceptable and the burden of proof for "endangerment" or "conservation" is on the agency, not on the victim. You'll find the acceptable number in many places is zero.
These victims shouldn't even be responsible for the cleanup. Leave it at the curb and call the state hotline. "I left some of your excess organic material at the curb at 123 Pine Street."
The only thing I know is that your daily posting of killing bears is nothing short of an unhealthy obsession.
Lets go hike the Connecticut state parks. 😆
I worked with a guy in Abq that had a bear in his yard. He lived way out off the west end of Southern Blvd. in RR. This was 25 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.