Ruminations on the Dark Side

After posting the link to the Night of the Grizzlies documentary, I had an online conversation with someone who did not believe that two bears were responsible for both of the deaths in Glacier that night. It is their opinion that the Trout Lake bear, which exhibited some signs of possible mental illness, traversed the distance from Trout Lake to Granite Park Chalet and then back to the lake, killing both girls. Truth be told, this is not completely out of the question. The distance from one site to the other is roughly nine miles and, considering that bears can travel great distances in short time periods, the four hours between attacks actually fits that theory nicely, but I don't believe it to be true for several reasons.

WARNING: The following contains graphic descriptions of the attacks that are unfortunately necessary to put this puzzle together.

First, the attack on Julie Helgeson at Granite Park Chalet seemed to fit the pattern of defensive behavior. Julie was severely wounded but left alive. The fact that the bear did not return for her in the two hours before she was found indicates that the attack was not predatory. While the bear may have had that idea at one point, it clearly lost interest and broke off the attack, either because Julie lost consciousness or played dead after being drug from the camp. The death of Michele Koons at Trout Lake was mercifully swift and her body was partially consumed, indicating clear predatory intention. It doesn't make sense to me that the bear would attack one girl, leave her, and traverse nine miles to kill and eat another. On top of that, the Trout Lake bear seemed to stay in the immediate vicinity of Trout and McDonald Lakes, harassing whomever he could find, and a bear matching the same description and aggressiveness as that one entered the campsite earlier in the night, as Michele and her friends were going to bed, and took some food.

That said, the fact that the bear responsible for Julie's death was never conclusively identified is still a mystery. A sow with cubs was shot and believed to be the killer, though there is no clear evidence proving it. Personally, I think this bear is the more likely culprit. Considering the defensive nature of the attack, the presence of cubs would be a clear instigator. It's strange, though, that the bear saw a threat in this situation. Julie and her boyfriend were in a designated camping area that people often frequent and were lying still and quiet when the bear entered camp, doing nothing to provoke it. After the sow was killed, it was found that a pad on one of her paws was partially cut off and hanging by a flap of skin, an injury that would have caused tremendous pain, provoking not only a bad attitude but possibly a mental derangement of its own. The presence of cubs coupled with the short-fuse mentality of a mother bear, egged on by dull, enraging pain could have easily created a very unstable animal. The fact that no human remains were found in the bear's stomach is not proof of the bear's innocence, just that it never fully switched over to predatory mode.

What this person I was conversing with could not accept was that two separate bears turned killer in the same night, an event that is beyond improbable. I think of the story of Mary Pat Mahoney, a 22 year-old girl killed and preyed upon by two grizzlies working together in Glacier Park in 1976. These same two predators had been raiding campsites and behaving very aggressively towards people for some time. If the night of the grizzlies was improbable, this one is off the charts. All of this led me to ponder the attitude that many bear advocates have about the dark side of the animal they love. With the increase in Yellowstone bear attacks, I've heard many of them respond with confusion and denial. Some have been quick to put all the blame on the victims while others believe that bear attacks are somehow all "propaganda". Truthfully, I understand where a lot of them are coming from. I remember the days when I was a bear attack apologist, when human lives were nothing more than statistics on a piece of paper, but those days are long in the past. After reading four dozen books, talking to almost as many people, and following this path for so long, the dark side of the bear has been unavoidable. To me, authors like Doug Peacock paint the most accurate picture of the bear and its mentality. It's a picture of an animal that's much like human beings: complex, intelligent, emotional, shaped by their sum total of life experiences, a creature entrenched firmly in a very gray area with some individuals leaning more towards the light gray and some leaning more towards the dark gray.

That's ultimately what fascinates me the most about grizzlies more than any other bear. At the moment, a whole new way of thinking about the black bear is sweeping the country but the grizzly remains a puzzling enigma. To me, the idea of peaceful co-existence with black bears is not that revolutionary. All one has to do is compare the number of black bears remaining in the lower 48 states of North America with the number of grizzlies to see which of the two is more docile and easier to get along with. The grizzly is a very volatile animal and - even though danger of attacks is exaggerated to an excessive degree - is partly responsible for giving itself the bad reputation its been stuck with. Here is an animal that has left a big question mark in the wake of almost all attempts that have been made to get along with it, a challenging animal that demands your respect and still makes no guarantees, a rogue that, in its arrogance and pride, refuses to conform to any whims our society seeks to place on it. That, to me, is the best thing about the grizzly. They make us look a little closer and work a little harder. They let us know that they're willing to get along but that they hold the cards and they will make the final call on their own fate. They are undeniably the ultimate symbol of true wilderness.

Alaska Legalizes Aerial Hunting of Bears

As part of a series of increasingly aggressive predator control methods, the Alaska Board of Game has authorized the aerial hunting and shooting of bears by wildlife officials, a move that has even met with criticism from big game hunters and that allows for the killing of not only mothers with cubs but bears lying defenseless in winter dens. The board is also debating a ruling that will allow for snaring of both black and grizzly bears at various locations. The reason for this? Significant losses of moose and caribou numbers along the Dalton Highway in the Gates of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Many hunters are arguing that there is no sense of fair play in these methods and the National Park Service is attempting to make a case that trapping and snaring are inhumane and often unsuccessful. So far, all please have fallen on deaf ears.

I'd actually be curious to know how they were able to come to the conclusion that bears and wolves are so heavily responsible for these losses. That would require a lot of man hours of observation and a large number of people on the ground to keep tabs on all of these animals in order to empirically determine that. I don't know, maybe they actually do have a fool-proof method. What I do know is that it's been a very harsh winter in Alaska and that has to contribute to the smaller numbers. I also know from spending time in Fairbanks that vehicle collisions are the number one cause of moose casualties in that area. Did whoever come up with these decreasing numbers factor that data into their equations? Again, I don't know. Maybe they did. Considering that Sarah Palin fought hard to put predator control methods like this into practice, I'm not too inclined to outright buy their reasoning for it. Right now the public outcry in Alaska against this is very high so we'll have to wait and see what effect that has.

Here are a couple of articles containing more information. First, further details on the new hunting expansion: www.bendbulletin.com/article/20120119/NEWS0107/201190343/

And finally an article by biologist Stephen Stringham refuting this new practice: www.alaskadispatch.com/article/what-cheats-alaska-hunters-more-moose-wolves-and-bears-or-insects-and-hares

Glacier Park's Night of the Grizzlies

Iowa Public Television has uploaded Montana PBS' documentary Glacier Park's Night of the Grizzlies to their website and I highly recommend that everyone watch this! It is a stirring, emotional look at the inexplicable incident that claimed the lives of Julie Helgeson and Michele Koons in 1967.

This was one of the first bear attacks I ever read about and I immediately felt a strong connection to both Julie and Michele, almost as if I knew them (Julie in particular - so much so that I named two characters in a recent short story of mine after them), and I've been researching it ever since. There are no easy answers about what happened that night and personally I'm not interested in asking those questions. The strong, almost spiritual, connection that I feel towards the victims (and I've heard a few other people admit to feeling the same) is what piques my curiosity about this event and it's what's compelled me to try to visit Glacier National Park this August for the anniversary.

Every day I check the stats on this blog. There I can see how many views I've received, what websites are sending traffic my way, and what search queries lead people to the blog. Every week I see at least a dozen or more search results relating to the night of the grizzlies and the names of the two girls so there is certainly a great interest in the incident and in the victims. If anyone reads this who feels the same or who knew Julie or Michele, please feel free to comment and let me know. I would love to hear from you.

Below is the link to watch the film online. While it's not quite as in-depth as Jack Olsen's book, it's still an informative and heart-wrenching piece that never fails to choke me up every time.
http://www.iptv.org/video/detail.cfm/16992/grzz_20110503_full_program

2012: The Year Ahead

Chaik eating deer scraps in the snow at Fortress of the Bear - November, 2011.

So 2012 has arrived, marking the two-year anniversary of this blog's creation and the twists and turns of the incredible journey that I unknowingly set myself on. The unlikeliness of everything that's happened the past two years has not escaped me and I'm still amazed by it all. If it doesn't show what can be accomplished through simple marketing, then I don't know what does. But now the time has come to look forward to the year ahead and the various possibilities that await there.

I've been corresponding with biologist Stephen Stringham, who is working on what I think will be the most important series of books on bears ever written, and who is one of the few biologists working today who sees the great value captive bears offer in our understanding of their wild cousins. He has proposed doing a study at Fortress of the Bear to supplement work he has done with wild bears and asked me to assist him in the project. Despite my interest in bears being mostly "unscientific", the prospects of this are a big deal for all involved. It will help bring more attention and prestige to the Fortress and having my name attached to an official research project and (possibly) published paper will be quite beneficial for me as well. The Fortress is interested in participating and Steve is doing the application work for the grant money.

Speaking of bringing more attention and prestige to the Fortress, Les and Evy Kinnear, owners of the facility, proposed getting me back and having me work on their marketing/educational/fundraising projects. These would include pamphlets, educational materials for schools and visitors, community fundraisers, etc. My head is already swirling with a million ideas and I've dug up contact info for big-name people who could be in a position to offer, or help procure, donations. This will likely depend upon available income during the tourist season this summer and would be something that would have to start small and gradually build itself up, so I'm trying not to let my ideas get too far ahead of me. I have put together a rough draft 2012 calendar of the Fortress but I'm waiting to get a printed copy before I decide if I'm happy with the results or not. Digital pictures to prints can be iffy.

In the midst of all this, I hope to be able to make a personal trip to Glacier National Park in August for the anniversary of the Night of the Grizzlies. It's up in the air if I can work that one in or not but I certainly want to try. There's nothing critical to be gained from it, aside from the opportunity to see a place that's had some kind of strange meaning to me for a very long time, but being there at that specific time feels like a spiritual matter and I need to resolve it.

I've also long toyed with the idea of adapting this blog into book form. I doubt it would be anything really major or involved but the market for bear books is high and it's a critical time, so I want to throw my voice into the mix in a bigger way. I've been on the verge of slapping something together the last couple of months but now I'm inclined to wait in case the research project and the trip to Glacier pan out. Both of those, especially the latter, would be valuable to the text.

As for the blog, I have some book reviews coming soon, as I've recently added to my bear book library, and I've been trying to give some direction and substance to a post of late-night ramblings and musings that I slapped together. Maybe that one will be coming soon.

All in all, 2012 could be an exciting year and may take things to a much higher level than before. As always, anything new and interesting will be posted here. Until then, have a safe and happy new year!

Analyzing the Whitebark Pine Crisis

A recent article from OregonLive.com (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/12/bad_year_for_grizzlies_with_tw.html) addresses the inevitable increase of bear attacks in Yellowstone National Park. They report that two hikers were killed in two separate maulings and that a total of ten people were attacked across the West this year. A number of scientists seem to be baffled and apparently still have not made the connection between the conflict increases and the decline of the whitebark pines and the nutrient-rich cones that they produce, a favorite late-season meal for the bears. With very little info coming out about the whitebark situation (yet with plenty of articles reporting on the "baffling" nature of this heightened aggression in the bears), I decided to do a little digging. On the website for the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, I found some interesting numbers and the numbers pretty much tell the story.

On their site, the IGBST maintains a list of bear mortality records in Yellowstone and whitebark pine health data from 2009 through 2011 and the correlation between the two is undeniable. 2009 shows one of the strongest whitebark pine production years on record and the bear mortality reflects that. In going through the records, I tried to eliminate attacks that could have been in defense of cubs or carcasses and focus only on those that were abnormal or in which bears raided campsites and residential areas in search of food. In all, 9 of these incidents were recorded, with one labeled as "cause unknown" and "under investigation". That's actually not as high of a number as it sounds and is probably fairly average, maybe just slightly above.

The change recorded in 2010 is very dramatic. Whitebark pine production is shown to be alarmingly low - not the lowest on record, but a sharp turn nonetheless - with mortalities heavily increasing. Remember this is the year of the Soda Butte incident, which caused quite a stir in the bear communities. A grand total of 28 incidents occurred that summer, making the 9 of the previous year look infinitesimal by comparison and most were very abnormal. Five of these are classified as "cause unknown, under investigation" while some others are incredibly disturbing. On October 19, a bear stalked a hunter from the elk he had just killed (apparently ignoring the carcass) and twice approached to a very close range, leaving the hunter no choice but to shoot it after the second pass. On October 23, a man was threatened by a bear. After attempting to drive it away with warning shots, he blasted it with pepper spray. The bear refused to be deterred and was killed when it went after the man a second time. On October 24, a similar scenario played out. A man tried to deter an approaching bear with gunshots and ultimately bear spray but both proved ineffective and he had to shoot it at close range. It's very telling that these three incidents occurred in October when the bears were attempting to fatten up for hibernation. The cones of the whitebark pine are their primary source of fat and very few were available to them. The loss of winter-kill carcasses thanks to the wolf reintroduction program no doubt plays a heavy part in their food shortage crisis as well.

2011 shows some improvement in the health and production of the whitebark pines but still not quite where the numbers need to be and a large number of abnormal bear incidents were still reported, totaling 27, with ten of those being "unknown, under investigation". In one case, a bear who killed a hiker presumably in a surprise encounter in July was later found present at the site of another death in August.

This data presents a very clear picture, yet so many scientists are still studying the whitebark pine situation - or just pretending to - and wildly speculating on the cause of the increased conflicts, while many bear advocates and enthusiasts have been left feeling as if they're standing on very shaky ground by these attacks. No doubt the rising bear population in Yellowstone is playing a big part, as there aren't enough food resources to go around. If this trend continues, the bears will spread outside of the park boundaries, if they haven't already, and the intolerance they're going to run into, and are already being met with, will not be pretty.

For more info and a look at the data gathered by the IGBST, go here: http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm

Data vs. Dogma

In all the controversy surrounding bears, nothing gets people more riled up than the issue of feeding them. It's long been the idea that feeding bears will ultimately make them dangerous to people but, as with all things bear, a closer look should be taken and more consideration should be given to the complexities and varied personalities of the animals before one simple vague answer is provided. This line of thinking came about as a result of the infamous "night of the grizzlies", though strong evidence suggests that the bear responsible for Julie Helgeson's death was not a garbage feeder. The park service wanted the matter closed, though, and did not put much stock in said evidence. Thus was born the idea that bears exposed to human food would inexplicably become man-eaters. Yet Charlie Russell fed his bears without them becoming a threat to him or losing the ability to function as wild animals, as did Charlie Vandergaw, Benjamin Kilham, Lynn Rogers, Jack and Patti Becklund, etc., etc. So what's going on here? Why have these people not fallen prey to a vicious bloodbath or created a situation where someone else would?

Allen Piche has been feeding black bears in British Columbia for 25 years with no problems either. A total of 24 bears would often frequent his home for companionship and dog food, only 2 miles from Christina Lake, an urban populated area. During that time, no bears caused problems at the lake, but Allen was arrested and tried because of the possibility that something could happen. Shortly thereafter, a rash of bear problems broke out at the lake and 18 persistent black bears were shot and killed, in an area that usually only receives half a dozen bear visits per summer season. The obvious conclusion put forth by the Ministry of Environment is that Allen's bears had become so dependent on human food that they had essentially forgotten how to be wild and went to the nearest human community in search of hand-outs. A scarcity of natural foods that year just made the situation even more volatile. Remarkably, when Allen was allowed to return home, 20 of his 24 bears returned to greet him, alive and well. None of them had been responsible for the issues at Christina Lake! The missing four had departed earlier in the summer and had not returned. Speaking with his immediate neighbors, Allen was delighted to find that none of them had had any problems with bears and did not have any hanging around.

Allen continued to provide some food for the bears - though much less this time - and noted that they began to spend more and more time foraging in the nearby woods. Undercover officers posing as curious photographers caught Allen in the act and he was re-arrested.

Allen has been a friend of mine through Facebook for some time now, ever since his discovery of my blog. We spoke several times about diversionary feeding, as he was making a case to present to the Ministry, showing how that could be used to get the bears back into the wild, and he read my post Of Bears and Bureaucrats (February 2, 2011), which relates how John and Frank Craighead studied garbage bears in Yellowstone and found that not only did they not pose a greater threat to people, they were still fully functional as wild bears. When the Craigheads presented evidence that the dumps should be closed slowly so that the bears could be properly weaned off the garbage rather then be left hanging, park managers disregarded the data and created a near-catastrophe. Allen was inspired by what the Craigheads had discovered and intended to use it in his defense, in hopes of persuading the Ministry to think before they act.

Diversionary feeding is a very new idea, so new that many researchers balk at it because it involves humans feeding bears. When problem bears surface, feeding stations are placed deep in the woods as a means of drawing them back into the wild, and these stations are moved further and further each day until the bears have been removed to a comfortable distance. The few states that have put diversionary feeding plans into effect as a more peaceful solution than bullets have reported an almost 100% success rate at solving problem bear issues. When Allen presented this idea to the Ministry, they were livid at the thought of providing bears with food because of the chaos they were sure would occur, despite the fact that all of the data Allen had gathered supported his side of the argument and the Ministry had nothing but old ideologies to support theirs. Still, Allen is not a wildlife biologist and 25 years of hands-on, practical experience is apparently invalidated by that little detail, whereas the Ministry officers hold the degrees and the official titles and all the lack of facts and experience that go with that, so of course they won. Now Allen awaits sentencing for the feeding, while the Ministry concentrates its attention on shooting more bears at Christina Lake, convinced that Allen's bears are causing all the problems. What's ironic is that, considering the lack of natural foods at the time, Allen's feeding of the bears acted as a sort of diversionary feeding program in itself, keeping these specific bears OUT of trouble, stopping them from going down in search of scraps at Christina Lake, where they still have not set one foot! They did not grow to depend solely on human food, they merely used it as a necessary supplement whenever natural foods were unavailable. Unlikely that the Ministry will ever be willing to see this, though.

On the Lily the Black Bear Facebook page, Lynn Rogers posted his thoughts on this issue and summed it up brilliantly: "Education about the true nature of black bears and about what creates bear-human conflict and what can prevent it can save so many bears. The same principles undoubtedly apply to bears around the world. It is hard to get past the untested assumptions that have been the basis for professional bear management for so long. It is hard to get past the exaggerated fear that drives liability concerns and leads to so many bears being killed unnecessarily. It is hard for most people to see black bears for what they are - basically shy animals trying to make a living while staying out of trouble. Not demons. Not the angry beasts of magazine covers and TV programs. Just the bears that we have come to know and understand in our 45 years of research. If bears behaved the way many experts and the media say they do, we could not have done what we have done with them these several decades."

On the issue of the continual head-butting between new facts and old ideas, Rogers provided a link to this blog post that sums it all up extraordinarily well: http://www.jonathanfields.com/blog/judgment-be-damned/

For more info, you can check out Allen's website at: http://thebeardude.net/
His "Observations" page is of special note, a presentation of facts attained through real, practical research: http://thebeardude.net/?page_id=283

Are We Fighting a Losing Battle?

On the website for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (hereby referenced as ADF&G), it is stated that their mission is to protect and conserve as many natural habitats and wild species as possible, for the recreation and enjoyment of future generations. After spending so much time working with captive bears in Alaska and seeing firsthand how they execute their policies, I seriously have to wonder if they've even bothered to read their own mission statement. Certainly if you were unfortunate enough to be a bear in these parts, you would no doubt think the same thing, considering that you would be getting the shaft no matter what you tried to do.

Long-time readers no doubt remember my post "Fight For Life" (June 7, 2010) and the controversy that erupted in Sitka over the department's attempt to confiscate and euthanize Seek, the black bear cub, after putting him in our hands. As brutal as that confrontation was, it ultimately served to pave the way to what seemed an alliance between ADF&G and Fortress of the Bear, an alliance that saved the lives of Toby, Baloo, and Lucky last year and, in mid-2011, a grizzly cub named Pandora who now resides at the Montana Grizzly Encounter as Lucy. An incident that took place earlier this summer - one that I was not present for, but that I followed through second-hand info - makes me wonder if that alliance really means anything in the department's eyes.

A few months ago, three orphaned brown bear cubs were found on the shores of Bristol Bay on the western coast of the Alaskan Peninsula. As per the new agreement, ADF&G notified Fortress of the Bear of the cubs and, because the Fortress did not have room for them or the funds to construct new holding areas, the department gave them a short window of time in which to find a home for the three young grizzlies. It was tight but a home was located with Mike McIntosh and his Bear With Us sanctuary in Ontario, Canada. Unfortunately Fish and Game requires that potential homes meet an extensive number of specific, and often ludicrous, requirements before cubs will be transferred. That, coupled with the ridiculously short amount of time that the department allows for sanctuaries to meet these requirements, Mike was unable to complete the upgrades and the cubs were destroyed. This prompted quite a backlash against the department, including from Mike himself, about the impossibility of accomplishing such involved demands.

An example of just how ludicrous some of these demands can be. When Les and Evy Kinnear first started the Fortress, Fish and Game officials were sent to inspect the habitats and took issue with steel bolts jutting out one inch from the insides of the abandoned clarifier tanks, fourteen feet above ground. They insisted that the bolts be removed, otherwise the bears would crazily throw themselves against the wall and be impaled. Another official, this one an actual biologist for the department, insisted that the pool areas be drained because bears did not like water and would not go in. Well, I can personally attest to the fact that not only do the bears love the water, they spend eight hours a day in the water!

Even worse, two years ago a starving cub was found right outside the gates of the Fortress. The owners of the facility planned to take the cub in but when someone called to notify Fish and Game, they promptly showed up and shot the cub. The question of why is one that is still asked today and I wish there were some sensible way to answer it. As it stands, it seems that they merely find bullets to be the easiest response, ruling out the hassle of tracking and capturing the animal, the resulting piles of paperwork, and the tedious task of finding a home, a task made all the more tedious by Fish and Game's refusal to put the word out whenever new cubs are acquired. Instead, they wait for zoos and sanctuaries to contact them and ask if orphans are available. Not a very wise-move and not a move that a supposedly conservation-minded organization should approve of, especially considering how much bears contribute to an ecosystem as an umbrella species, but again it is the easiest route requiring the least amount of effort.

Several weeks ago, I heard second-hand that there were three more orphaned cubs somewhere in Alaska and the search was underway to find a home. I have heard no new info on this story since, so I fear that the outcome may have been inevitably grim, not just because of Fish and Game's overly involved requirements but because of the lack of facilities available to take the cubs. There are so few sanctuaries - and even fewer that deal primarily with bears - that facilities with sufficient space are very difficult to find. On top of that, many facilities are either not registered with ADF&G or are unwilling to endure the hundreds of pages of paperwork and requirements in order to get new cubs. Meanwhile, for that very reason, rescue efforts in Alaska are a continuously losing battle. I'm aware of half a dozen cubs that were killed this summer alone because homes could not be found, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were actually much higher. Considering the very large brown bear population on Baranof Island, where Sitka is located, this will no doubt be a recurring theme next summer and in years to come, at least as long as Fish and Game is calling the shots.

If you have a sanctuary or a license to privately own bears, I encourage you to get registered with ADF&G, get the paperwork out of the way, and let's start saving these cubs instead of losing them.