States on the attack against black bears, grizzly bears

By on June 9, 2017 with 3 Comments

Throughout the country, humans are crossing paths with bears, and in almost every case, the bears end up on the losing side.

This week, near the top of Togwotee Pass in Wyoming, a photographer snapped a picture of a grizzly bear with a Conibear-style furbearer trap clamped over one paw. Conibear traps are the biggest and most powerful of body-gripping traps,devised to break the necks or backs of beavers or muskrats who swim into the devices and trigger them.

The grizzly must have been foraging or exploring in streams, as bears do, but the person who set that trap just changed that bear’s odds for survival.

In Connecticut, state authorities killed a black bear after the animal took a swipe at a hiker on a trail with her dog; though the hiker was spooked and rattled, to be sure, she required no medical attention. The bear was probably as startled as the woman and her dog, and reacted quickly, but most certainly without lethal intent. The tragedy is compounded because she was a nursing mother, and the decision to kill her most certainly dooms her cubs. Bear cubs need their mother for 18 months before they go their own way.

We’ve seen it time and again. Stronger policies are needed to produce different outcomes. More states need to ban these indiscriminate and inhumane body-gripping traps (Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington severely restrict them). The suffering and death they cause to beavers and other targeted wildlife warrant remedial policies, but when you add in the non-target injuring and killing of wildlife, the case for action is made even stronger. Bears, eagles, pets, and other creatures stumble into these landmines, and then suffer the consequences.

In Connecticut, we need to think through policies that call for lethal responses to any kind of encounter. Bear attacks are exceedingly rare, and while The HSUS does support selective removal of bears who threaten people, there are incidents that can and should be excused. The Connecticut incident sounds like a case where leniency was warranted. Bears generally recognize people as a threat and stay away, but they make spot judgments like we do. I am quite sure that the experience with the hiker and the dog was frightening for the bear. It certainly would not have emboldened the bear to seek out other encounters with people.

Incidents with humans and bears produce very substantial annual mortality for the bears. They are hit by cars. Shot by poachers. Killed if there is a human encounter. Targeted if they menace livestock.

Yet despite dozens of bears dying because of incidental human interactions each year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is planning this summer to announce removing protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Yellowstone-area grizzly bears. It was under that act that The Fund for Animals, our sister organization, stopped Montana from opening up a trophy-hunting season on bears in the 1990s, invoking the protective language of the ESA.

Delisting will wipe away those protections, and throw full management authority to the states. That will put vastly larger numbers of bears at risk in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, on top of the array of risks that grizzlies already face.

We are particularly concerned about the latest plans by the states to open trophy-hunting seasons. Conservationists, local residents, and business owners whose livelihoods depend on the singular tourism opportunity that the grizzlies provide object to the plans, but their voices have not been adequately heard. Just this week, HSUS attorneys were in court in Montana asking to allow more citizen input before any hunting season takes place. In April, our attorneys were in a Wyoming court, making many of the same points regarding that state’s hunting plans.

It’s clear that these and other states are locked and loaded for trophy hunting, despite there being fewer than 700 grizzly bears in the Yellowstone region. We’re committed to fighting at the state and federal level for grizzlies to make sure that their recovery is not jeopardized by a hastily conceived open season. Bears have enough troubles, and allowing people to seek bears out to chase and kill them as a head-hunting exercise is the last thing they need.

Categories
Public Policy (Legal/Legislative), Wildlife/Marine Mammals

Subscribe to the Blog

Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.

3 Comments

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. marie white says:

    I just think it’s absolutely disgusting what these gun-happy killers are proposing to”hunt” protected animals and that they will likely be permitted to go into areas of sanctuary and disrupt, destroy and kill the natural environment of OUR world, without allowing us citizens to have an influence or any rights whatsoever to interject commonsense to this senseless atrocity. I thought we lived in a democratic society where “special interest groups” are monitored and regulated by the peoples standards, the majority of the people, not the money spent by “special interest groups…”. How can they have those rights? Or, how can we have No Rights and let them destroy and kill what so many people, and other “special interest groups,” and even U. S. Presidents have fought to preserve??

    • Evelyn Lennon says:

      Short and sweet Leave mother nature alone and get the hell out of their space, and let’s hunt the hunters and leave their families fatherless!

  2. Stephanie Henry says:

    We need our wildlife! The entire universe is based on checks and balances, and killing every living creature will set off imbalance. We have NO RIGHT to kill everything, especially for sport.

Share a Comment

The HSUS encourages open discussion, and we invite you to share your opinion on our issues. By participating on this page, you are agreeing to our commenting policy.
Please enter your name and email address below before commenting. Your email address will not be published.

Top