Comments on Ms. Noyes remind me of my own opinions many years ago, before I began professionally studying bears and their behavior.
I too once believed that anyone feeding bears created problems for themselves and everyone else. By luring bears to their homes for treats, these people taught bears that ANY human home is a good place to find a meal and that humans can be treated with contempt.
Indeed, I once had to dispatch two bears which had previously been lured to a cabin by handouts and garbage. When the supply of treats dried up, one of the bears broke into the cabin and threatened the people inside (and later outside). After shouts and other threats failed to drive the bruins away permanently, killing was the only other way I knew of terminating their depredations and threats towards humans.
I too believed that the safest bears are those that fear people and flee from us.
I too believed that any bear that didn’t avoid people was dangerously bold – i.e., contemptuously disrespectful and likely to attack.
I too believed that black bears are almost as dangerous as grizzly bears.
I believed all those things then, and within limits, I believe them now. “Within limits,” means of course, that what is true in some circumstances is not true in all circumstances; there are exceptions to each “rule.” More importantly, I have come to understand why exceptions occur and to learn ways of making them the norm.
Which brings us to Karen Noyes. Has her case followed the alleged rule that feeding bears making them more likely to raid other people’s homes and possibly to endanger the people? Or has Karen’s case been one of several known exceptions where feeding bears actually reduces depredation and danger to humans? Likewise, is it one of the many known exceptions where bears losing their fear of people actually reduces risk to people? To answer these questions, let’s look at the facts of Karen’s case as objectively as possible.
Fact 1: Last year, natural foods for bears were extremely scarce in much of Oregon.
Fact 2: Bruins are no fonder of starvation than are people. Throughout North America, shortages of natural foods send bears far and wide seeking alternative nutrition. Without scientific evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the same thing happens in Oregon.
Fact 3: Famine often leads to a major increase in nuisance behavior by bears. This relationship between natural food shortages and increased nuisance activity by bears was first documented by David Hatler in Alaska following a failure of the blueberry crop (around 1968 as I recall). It has also been documented by Dr. Lynn Rogers (a witness for Ms. Noyes) and several other biologists. Spikes in bear depredations have also followed shortages of berries or other fruit, nuts (e..g., beech nuts), or salmon from the east coast to Minnesota, to Montana to California to British Columbia and Alaska. Without scientific evidence to the contrary, we must expect that the same thing happens in Oregon
Fact 4: Indeed, last year’s famine in Oregon was accompanied by a record level of bear depredations across the state. Without scientific evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the same thing would have happened in the Yachats region of Oregon, where Ms. Noyes lives, whether or not she (or anyone else) fed the bears.
Fact 5: The only way one could reasonably penalize Ms. Noyes is if her actions aggravated the famine’s impact – i.e., if by feeding and befriending bears, she cause a higher level of nuisance behavior and aggression towards people than could be explained solely by the famine and other influences beyond her control.
So far as I know, the State of Oregon has provided no such proof. Instead, it is relying on speculation – on assuming that this case follows what the public believes to be a general rule, without actually researching the factors that separate out normal scenarios where feeding has led to problems from exceptional scenarios where feeding has just the opposite effect. This lack of due diligence is irresponsible –- reminiscent not of democracy and rule of law, but of political power plays by bureaucrats too lazy to do their homework or too narrow-minded to think critically outside the box of their preconceptions.
Fact 6: The three traditional ways of minimizing bear depredations are to
(a) minimize availability of garbage, pet food, bird food, fruit, and other artificial food sources.
(b) Scare away or haul away any bear that ventures near people or communities.
(c) Kill any bear that cannot be scared away or hauled away permanently.
Those methods work sometimes; but not always. For the bears remain hungry and our homes and communities continue to reek of food. Put simply, bears go where the food is – much as you would do if you were famished or starving.
That’s why a fourth option can be highly effective: provide an alternative food source that lures bears away from people and communities. Bears drawn to a feeding site are diverted away from the homes of people who don’t want visits by the bruins. Food provided by Ms. Noyes likely diverted bears away from the homes of her neighbors, reducing any problems bears might have posed for them. They owe her thanks, not complaints.
Fact 7: One neighbor apparently accused Ms. Noyes of addicting bears to handouts, then leaving the area for an extended period, forcing “her” bears to seek food at other people’s homes. In fact, she never leaves home for more than a day during the season bears visit for food.
However, even if she had taken a brief vacation from feeding bears, this would raise a critical question. Once Ms. Noyes began diverting bears away from her neighbors, was she somehow obligated to keeping doing so? This would be like saying that if a soup kitchen feeds homeless people for several days until it runs out of food, then the soup kitchen is responsible if one of the homeless people later steals food from a grocery store. Wouldn’t it be truer to conclude that the theft would have occurred sooner but for the soup kitchen – and that keeping the soup kitchen supplied with food is one of the best ways of minimizing grocery theft?
Fact 8: Critics might argue, of course, that a soup kitchen could draw vagrants from far and wide. Diverting homeless people away from more affluent areas might reduce thefts in those areas, but only at the expense of bringing more potential thieves into the region of the soup kitchen, and thereby promoting theft in that region whenever the soup kitchen ran out of food. So too, even if Ms. Noyes did divert bears away from distant areas, perhaps she increased the number of bears in her own neighborhood and thereby actually increased local depredations.
Drawing an exceptionally high number of bears into her neighborhood is certainly a possibility. But possibilities are not proofs. What evidence does the State offer that the number of black bears within say a few miles of Noyes’ home was any higher than in similar neighborhoods where no one intentionally feeds bears?
And again, what evidence does the State have that famine alone cannot account for all nuisance behavior in the neighborhood where Noyes lives?
If and when Noyes is forced to quit feeding bears, will depredations rise or fall? If depredations fall, will the authorities claim this is proof that Noyes had caused a spike in depredations, which the authorities have now terminated?
Or if depredations rise, will authorities also blame that on Noyes, claiming that the culprits are bears which she addicted to handouts, and that the rise in depredations is a withdrawal symptom?
If the State can claim victory no matter what happens after feeding is terminated, isn’t Noyes equally entitled to claim success so long as feeding continues?
Fact 9: The State also assumes, of course, that all – or at least – some of the depredations in Noyes’ neighborhood were caused by bears which she fed. But where is the proof? Does the State have photos, video tapes, DNA samples, paw prints or any other evidence proving that these are the same animals? Or is the State once again assuming its conclusions, substituting circular reasoning for true scientific logic?
If someone steals a six-pack of beer or a bag of Fritos from a convenience store within a mile or few of a soup kitchen, does this prove that the thief had previously eaten at the kitchen?
Democratic rule of law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof, not speculation masquerading as fact, used to flim flam a jury. Never forget that prosecutors aren’t after justice; they aren’t trying to learn the limitations to their assumptions or gain new insights into the reality of bear behavior. Pure and simple, prosecutors are out to win. Truth be damned.
Fact 10: Anyone who thinks that befriending bears makes them more dangerous has never met a befriended bear, and does not understand what makes bears tick.
(a) Each year, tens of thousands of people watch wild bears at distances of 10-100 yards. Because this is usually done using proper safety precautions, viewers are almost ever hurt by the bruins. The few viewers who have been attacked, such as Tim Treadwell, were NOT using proper safety precautions. Jumping to conclusions that Ms. Noyes was equally careless is simply unwarranted. Fiction, not fact.
(b) On average, once every 2 years, one of North America’s 600,000 to 900,000 back bears tries to kill 1 of the millions of people these bears encounter. So the odds of Ms. Noyes or anyone else being attacked by a blackie is very tiny.
(c) Most serious or fatal attacks by black bears are predatory. Hence, we would expect them to be most common during famine years and in situations where the bears are famished. Diversionary feeding of bears, as Ms. Noyes has done, should reduce that risk, not increase it, contrary to claims by the State.
(d) Black bears occasionally defend themselves or “their” food by swatting or biting a person. Even this small risk can be minimized by winning the bears’ trust, as Ms. Noyes has done.
In short, were the Court and jury to decide Ms. Noyes’ fate on the basis of these well-established facts, they would find her not merely innocent, but something of a local heroine. Instead of trying to condemn Ms. Noyes, the State she be learning from her.
For additional authoritative information about effects of feeding or befriending bears, visit the website www.bear-viewing-in-alaska.info and read these books (sold through the website)
a) Beauty Within the Beast
b) Alaska Magnum Bear Safety Manual
c) When Bears Whisper, Do You Listen?
Also visit Dr. Rogers’ website www.bear.org/website
One or two bear attacks per year? We have at least two or three times that many in B.C. every year.
Freeper kanawa could tell you something about bear attacks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1670661/posts
I doubt I'll read (your) testimony in the trial of Mrs. Noyes but I imagine much of it will be word for word of parts of your post.
So the odds of Ms. Noyes or anyone else being attacked by a blackie is very tiny.
If you or Mrs. Noyes were to ask a relative of an adult or the parents of a child killed by a black bear about the tiny odds of being attacked by a blackie I believe they would say in the case of their loved one it was 100%.
You can put all the supposed facts out there you care to but the fact remains that bears are predators and they shouldn't be attracted purposefully to residential or rural inhabited areas, that just seems like common sense to me.
they would find her not merely innocent, but something of a local heroine.
Not to belittle you in any way but that statement is way over the top.