Intensive hunts will school bears to stay out of city

Having listened to and read about Anchorage's bear issue for many years, I have written to the ADN recently to point out a solution that has not been tried in Game Management Unit 14C (the Anchorage Bowl) — intensive management. The following is my response to Rick Sinnott's  Dec. 26 commentary addressing my suggestion.

1) Sinnott expresses his concern about the higher than average 2017 black bear kill in the Anchorage area.

Sinnott notes that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has bear management plans (that include harvest objectives) for GMU 14C that focus on maintaining bear populations at approximately current estimated levels, by balancing mortality with productivity. Sinnott says that Fish and Game recently indicated concern that the current level of GMU 14C black bear kill exceeds the harvest objective, and the population could decline if harvest levels similar to 2017 continue. Sinnott obviously raises this point to support his position that instead of killing more bears, fewer bears should be killed. No matter how many bears were killed in Game Management Unit 14C in 2017, or over the past decade, if people are still having a problem with bears, if people are still being injured or killed by bears, there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

2) Sinnott blames the presence of urban bears in Anchorage on people's garbage habits.

One thing that both Sinnott and I can agree on is that black bears are not to blame for doing what comes natural when encountering humans and human food. Most often people are to blame.

For many years, we've heard Sinnott lecture folks about their poor garbage habits. After many educational efforts, plus bear proof cans and free cans, the problem seems to still exist.

But even if the garbage problem were  somehow  resolved, there still would be all the residences  within a mile or so of the west boundary of Chugach State Park from Eklutna to Girdwood, day in and day out giving off the odors of cooked and uncooked food, pet food  and bird seed. Uneducated bears are still going to come.

The other Sinnott recommendation is to leave the bear problem to Fish and Game professionals who can shoot any bear that exhibits dangerous behavior. This approach must be so comforting to those injured by a bear or the families of those who have been killed by a bear. If only a very small percentage of bears exhibited aggression when in close contact with humans, this might be a somewhat acceptable approach. But many bears, if not educated through hunting, will respond aggressively to close encounters with humans.

3) Sinnott opposes implementing an intensive management program to deal with this issue.

As Sinnott knows, there are few if any resident urban bears. Bears naturally live in undeveloped areas, but can be food-attracted into urban areas. What Sinnott does not seem to recognize is that bears seldom venture into urban areas, plus bears avoid humans in natural bear habitat, when properly conditioned through regular hunting.

[Nearly four times more bears were shot dead this year in Anchorage than in 2016]

There are currently bear hunts in portions of non-urban GMU 14C, but "methods and means" plus a conservative harvest quota are not adequate to accomplish the goal that Sinnott seems to recognize only "a little:" "… to make surviving bears a little more wary of people."  Sinnott claims that I was proposing hunting within the city of Anchorage proper — not even close. An intensive management plan could successfully accomplish its goal with spring and fall hunts on that portion of GMU 14C's 2,170 square miles outside of the the city,  plus outside of the Hillside, Eagle River, Chugiak and all other Anchorage Bowl urban areas. An intensive management program for bears would allow various methods and means, possibly including bait stations, extended seasons, an annual bag limit, and yes, even the shooting of sows and cubs. The primary goal here would not be sport hunting, but population reduction and bear education. Such a program would probably take three to four seasons to reduce the black and brown bear population levels down to 25 percent to 30 percent of current levels.

One political hurdle is that  Fish and Game (and the Board of Game) would most likely consider changing the current GMU 14C's bear management plan only if the Municipality of Anchorage (the Assembly?) proposed or supported such a change. Support from local Fish and Game advisory committees alone probably would be insufficient. The only other alternative might involve getting a positive response to this question on a municipal election ballot.

Sinnott  claims that surveys show that most residents of Anchorage like meeting up with bears in town, and on the Chugach State Park trails. If this is true, then of course my suggestion here is moot. But you have to wonder — if Sinnott's claim is correct, why does he seem so upset about a suggestion that supposedly has no support in Anchorage?

[Bear-kill article underestimates Anchorage-area toll]

Sinnott states that "Fish and Game's mission is typically to maintain or enhance wildlife populations in natural areas." Most Alaskans would agree — when and where reasonable to do so. There are many examples throughout the state of Alaska of exceptions to this rule, of wildlife populations being deliberately reduced and maintained at lower populations levels, because of habitat problems, because of adverse interactions between species, etc. The exception in this case would be "adverse interactions between bears and humans."

I found it interesting that right on the back side of Sinnott's commentary was an article titled "A coyote on your block?" The article describes the growing problem of coyotes in urban areas in the Lower 48, and how it is being dealt with. One police chief in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, who moonlights hunting and harvesting urban coyotes, explained his avocation: "Coyotes are a formidable predator, moving into the places where we take our kids to school and walk our pets."

Interesting how some of the rest of the country is dealing with a wildlife problem in urban areas.  But wait, THIS IS ALASKA … where we do things differently. You can't seem to get through a week or two of ADN letters-to-the-editor without someone being told to "Head south if you don't like the way things are done in Alaska!"

As a wildlife biologist, I am in awe of practically all of Alaska's native wildlife, including bears, and their amazing adaptations to their boreal environments. What I'm not always in awe of is some of the ways Alaska deals with their wildlife and wildlife habitat. There is always room for improvement.

Jim Lieb is a wildlife biologist who worked for more than 25 years with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and who also worked in California, Nevada, Montana and as a University of Alaska instructor. He continues to write both research reports and popular wildlife-related articles. A 37-year Alaskan, he lives in Palmer.  

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser.