Bears In The News

[AZLOT69]

Eight Foraging Bears Killed In Tahoe


Posted: 9:44 am PDT June 11, 2010
Updated: 10:02 am PDT June 11, 2010

INCLINE VILLAGE, Nev. -- The heavy snow and lingering winter conditions in the Sierra are forcing black bears into the valleys around Lake Tahoe, where an unusually large number of them have had to be put to death in recent weeks.

Nevada Department of Wildlife biologist Carl Lackey says officials already killed eight bears this spring, compared with a typical death toll of just one or two by this time.

"I attribute that to the late winter weather conditions," he said.

Unlocked food or trash lures the bears into trouble in cars and homes. Adding to the problem, Lackey said, is Washoe County has no ordinance requiring bear-proof trash receptacles.

Hot spots are centered near South Lake Tahoe, Tahoma and Highway 89 near the Squaw Valley and Alpine ski resorts.

Cristen Langner, a wildlife biologist for California Fish and Game, said the California side of the Tahoe basin has had three permitted bear deaths this year, which is not uncommon for this time. Each of the deaths was also a result of residents not locking up food trash or food, she said.

Langner echoed Lackey's words of caution and said residents should always be bear-aware and keep doors locked and food secure.

"The big thing is that every time these bears are successful (finding stored trash or food) it just reinforces that behavior," she said.

Ann Bryant, president of the Homewood-based BEAR League, said she's concerned about the death toll.

"I'm pretty shocked because it's only going to get worse as the season goes on," she said.

Bryant said based on calls, sightings and onsite observations, the BEAR League has observed more newborns this year than any other, as well as an increased number of sightings and conflicts.

Usually bears aren't spotted out of hibernation until May or June, Bryant said, but she's seen them as early as March and April this year.

[xsproutx]

Agree in general and sounds like they hung their food right/at least had bear spray (don't see any articles mentioning if they shot any off or if they were maybe surprised and didn't have a chance). I will say if I'm in grizzly country, I''d probably not bring a dog with me. I remember reading something where half the bear attacks in the last 10 years involved dogs which, when you factor in how many people hike without dogs vs with shows a pretty clear correlation that dogs aggravate the situation. Then again, only about 100 people have been attacked since 2010 so it's still a pretty minor risk.

[tibber]

However, there was the dog and I think that could have been a problem; altho the bear sounds like it had issues anyway. There is a reason Glacier Park doesn't allow dogs on trails.

[hikeaz]

40 times more people in the US die from being struck by lightning (about 20) annually than from a bear attack

And 5x THAT by swallowing pens. As RS says "It's a jungle out there".

[outdoor_lover]

Seems like a lot of these bear attacks that involve hikers/walkers, happen when there is a dog along. The Canadian incident is one. There were also 2 incidents in Montana that involved people with dogs. I think dogs can be very instrumental in provoking an actual attack.

[TooOld2Hike_EP]

I was thinking this too. I can see how a bear could be tripped into "Fight" (instead of "Flight") mode by a barking dog. Especially if the dog is snarling, showing teeth, as a pet dog might do to defend its owners.

There was a HAZ'r here who said that a Black Bear charged him after he blew a whistle.

So now I'm wondering if it's really best to be raising our arms and posturing around Bears? Unless they are attacking us as food, perhaps it would be better to not make a lot of noise and/or posture, in the hope of not provoking a Fight instinct?

[chumley]

@TooOld2HikeQ Depending on the source of your bear best practices, you may find that recommended strategies are different for black bears versus brown bears (the species, not the fur color.)

[LindaAnn]

@TooOld2HikeQ
The best way to never encounter a bear, or any other animal, is to always have your camera out and ready. Works like a charm.

[ShatteredArm]

@TooOld2HikeQ
Most of the literature I've read around bears is that brown and black bears are usually very cautious of humans, and outside of the rare predatory bears, they really just want to neutralize the threat. Black bears tend to do that by getting far away as fast as possible. Brown bears are much more likely to stand their ground, but they're generally still just trying to make sure you don't pose a threat to them. That why they say, "if it's brown lie down" - unless it's predatory, if they believe the threat has been neutralized, they may back off. So I could definitely see how dog acting aggressively could provoke a brown bear to attack.

Of course, like people, bears are individuals, and you can't really predict what a specific bear is going to do, and you might not know whether you've lucked out onto a predatory bear until it starts devouring you.

[hikeaz]

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-ne ... -relatives

[TooOld2Hike_EP]

@hikeaz

Thanks for the follow-up story.

Yikes. Being in your own tent minding your own business scuttles any of my previous questioning about what they might have done "wrong" that might have "provoked" an attack. (Except for the dog.)

From the part in the story about "the bear was intent on killing [the Response Team],” it seems like nothing they might have done different would have made any difference.

Sad.

[SuperstitionGuy]

@LindaAnn
Bingo!

[TooOld2Hike_EP]

I was thinking more about the "statistics" that compare attacks by bears to the chances of being killed by lightning.

Exactly how do 'they' calculate this? I mean, if 100 people in all the US population (say 300 million for easy math) are killed by lightning in one year, and, say, one person a year (out of the US population) is killed by a bear, that would be 100:1.

BUT, the population of ppl attacked by bears should be limited to the number of people who hike in the wilderness in bear country. If then, 1 person out of 100,000 is killed each year (and I think that at least one person is killed each year by bears), then the ratio changes to being 30 more times likely to be attacked by a bear.

(By the same token, the population of ppl struck by lightning should be limited to people who are outdoors in areas that have lightning, which also changes the calculation. E.g., if you golf in Florida in the summer, your chances of being struck by lightning are, say, 1 in 1000.)

[chumley]

@TooOld2HikeQ
Valid points, and all to be taken into account. Just as the number of fatal aviation accidents can't simply be compared to the number of fatal automobile accidents unless you also factor in the miles driven or hours flown and number of passengers carried over what distances. It reminds me of the old seatbelt campaigns that encouraged people to buckle up even if they're just going to the store around the corner "because 75% of accidents occur within 20 miles of home" or some statistic similar to that. It just didn't mention that 90% of miles driven ALSO occur within 20 miles of home. (I made up the numbers for this example, but it was something to that effect).

Nonetheless, even if you dig deep into the statistics, you'll find that the number of bear attacks per hiker-mile (or hiker-hours) traveled in bear country is statistically damn-near-zero (official scientific term endorsed by Bill Nye and Neal DeGrasse Tyson). And if you limit the number of humans struck by lightning to ONLY hikers traveling in bear country, I think it's probable that it's still higher than bear attacks -- statistically damn-near-zero.

Now how do these two infinitesimally minuscule risks compare to the probability of winning the 1.5 billion dollar Powerball?

I don't plan on "winning" any of the three, but I'm willing to risk $2 or a few hundred miles on a trail to participate.

[outdoor_lover]

@TooOld2HikeQ
The best way to never encounter a bear, or any other animal, is to always have your camera out and ready. Works like a charm.

I agree. I rarely encounter wildlife unless my camera is in it's case. Thankfully, my closest bear encounter lasted long enough for me to get the camera out. I believe that black bears are also less "predatory" than browns and thankfully I didn't have a dog with.

[ photo ]

[TooOld2Hike_EP]

@chumley
So that you know, I commented in agreement. But it appears that my Post was deleted. (For reasons unknown.)
Update: My bad. Apparently I never clicked "Submit." (My apologies to the Mod.)
---------
It took me a long time (40 years) before I finally realized the "fallacy" of that seat belt ad. As you said, "Yeah, most accidents occur within x miles of home simply because most ppl only drive x miles from home."

And you're right - the AOPA wrongly says that you're safer to fly in a small plane than drive. Anecdotally, I know more people who have died in small airplanes (five) than road accidents. (One.)

Another thing that makes it hard to know any truth is that we hear about the people killed by bears (the guy in Prescott). But we don't know the number of people who encounter bears but aren't killed. (My one experience so far.)

And even if we did, we don't know how many bears saw them, but they didn't see the bears. (Possibly one for me at Thicket Spring.)

Well, I still plan to backpack. But thinking of making some small "Pine Sol 'balloons'" on my 3d printer to wear around my neck, just in case.

[ShatteredArm]

@TooOld2HikeQ
It should be noted that the danger from black bears is considerably less than brown bears. If you're not in brown bear country, I would argue that there are a whole slew of wild animals and other things that pose a bigger threat than bears. If you are in brown bear country, bear safety should be your primary concern (although, as has been pointed out, the threat is still low, especially if you take the recommended precautions).

[TooOld2Hike_EP]

If you're not in brown bear country, I would argue that there are a whole slew of wild animals and other things that pose a bigger threat than bears.

Yikes. Well, I've yet to see a rattlesnake. (Nor looking forward to it.) But there are more photos of rattlesnakes on this site than bears.

[FOTG]

The article points out pretty clearly that this was an exceptional attack. They were reading in their tents, it wasn't an issue of food storage, they did not startle the bear, it was not with cubs, they emptied a can of spray on it and it still killed all three of them. As Chums pointed out, bear attacks are extraordinarily low in general and bear attacks such as this one, are microscopically low. I think to keep circling back to this being related to the fact they had a dog is pretty silly based on the evidence presented.

“In their words, the bear was intent on killing them.”

As with anything in the wild, a level of common sense needs to accompany one while in bear country with their dog(s). I have logged hundreds of miles now with dogs in grizzly country. I have camped in the backcountry of the Bob, Banff and the Winds overnight with dog(s) and have hiked as far north as Jasper with Blanco. To this date the only two grizzlys I have seen were without dogs in Glacier, FWIW. A grizzly sighting is a pretty chance encounter to begin with and like all scenarios there are precautions one can take to avoid conflict, if hiking with a dog, for example, train your pups, leash them, simply use extreme caution, etc.

To imply that taking a dog into grizzly country is an automatically more dangerous endeavor seems misguided. That being said, I will say that I leash my dogs more than any other moment when in grizzly country. I leash them in thick stretches of woods, near berry patches, loud streams, when their ears perk up, and I keep them tied up at camp etc.

I would still rather take a dog backpacking in grizzly country over tracking some wounded elk, or looking for a carcass in thick brush somewhere in the Bob, or anywhere else in Montana with grizzlys. And I will also say that moose are usually still my first concern when I am in those parts. My hiking guide up there had a statement to that effect of something on the lines of, "remember more people have spent a day stranded in a tree over an angry moose than a bear."

I did run across the statistic that 50 percent of grizzly attacks occurred when dogs were present, but without anymore context, I am not sure how much weight that statistic carries. I mean if the dog was killed in Banff because it ran outside the tent to protect its owner who was being mauled, are those death now related to the presence of the dog? Currently, in Arizona you can say that 50 percent of known black bear fatalities occur while drinking your morning coffee and working on your cabin.

[LindaAnn]

@FOTG
Agreed on the moose. I generally worry about them more than I do about brown/grizzly bears. I drill into the kids’ heads when we’re hiking in moose territory “get behind a thick tree, don’t move, don’t make noise.” I even turned around on a hike in Alaska because I was encountering way more moose (literally dozens of them) than I wanted to deal with, whereas the brown bear I encountered in Alaska (about 30’ away) did nothing more than glance at us before wandering away.

[FOTG]

@LindaAnn
Ya it seems there have been a few moose incidents in Colorado lately, those things make me nervous for sure.