HikeArizona.COM

Tucson paper stating Tucson Center for Biological Diversity filed an act with Game and Fish for an updated Grizzly Bear Recovery plan.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/spec ... ition_.pdf

chumley wrote:Can you believe what you read on Wiki?

Ha! Yeah, about as much as you can really trust a GPS in a car!

We have a pretty good population of black bears in Georgia. Concentrated mostly in the Mountains in the northeast, but also quite abundant near my home close to the Okefenokee and Satilla River Basin. I can find no mention of any bear attack on humans in GA, even though encounters are quite common in the mountains and somewhat heard of in the swamps and river basins. Are black bears dangerous? Yeah, they are wildlife! Are browns more dangerous? Stats say so.

Either way, I think a reintroduction of a top predator in an area that is not ready (people wise), is a BIG mistake. Maybe not as severe, but I am reminded of Jurassic Park! HA

Browns were never here in GA that I know of, but reintro in AZ would be like turning a few out in the Blue Ridge area here. NOT GOOD. The human populous as well as an ecosystem that has adapted to getting along without them would be in turmoil.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see wildlife in its natural element. Nothing better than seeing them doing what they do outside of a cage. I know... they were there first. But the sad fact is, they are gone from many places now.

chumley wrote: There have been 10 bear attacks (non-fatal) since 1990. All black bears. Three of the 10 occurred in 2012 near Payson. Is this because there are more bears, or more people in Arizona?

No doubt there are more people in AZ, and every other state for that matter. I think the greatest majority of attacks by black bears (probably browns too, I am sure) is due to stupid people. There is no fix for that. People see a black bear, maybe 200 lbs or so, and say, "Awe, a cute little bear. How close can I get? Can I pet it or feed it from my hand? Oh, and look it has a little bitty baby....awwwweeee....."

Also, I wonder if there is some sort of other element causing that many bear attacks in AZ, whether fatal or not. According to the black bear society, the population of them in GA is 5000, (right in line with the GADNR estimates of 5100) compared to the estimated 3000 in AZ. (AND 200,000 IN ALASKA!! WOAH!!!) And according to the 2014 World Pop. Review, GA has nearly 3.5 million more people. Could it be the time of year the encounters occurred, "tourists", pop density of the areas the attacks occurred, etc.? That is certainly interesting.

wallyfrack wrote:The Gilbert, AZ woman who was attacked by a black bear in Pinetop (June 28, 2011) later (July 26?) died from her injuries. She was walking her dog by a dumpster at the Pinetop Country Club so it was not a hiking incident.

In other words, don't be near a food source or be the food source. ;)

SuperstitionGuy wrote:or be the food source.

I know, I constantly worry about being bear bait as I'm always the slowest one on the trail . Maybe I should always carry my bear spray ;) .

for what it's worth, I do think a re-intro is NOT a good idea for many of the reasons folks have expressed so eloquently.

The two bears that attacked two girls at two different camps in the Catalina Mountains during the summer of 1996 were both "fed bears." They had been fed by humans, in particular a woman who owned a cabin in Carter Canyon, who used to buy those big ice cream containers and leave them on her porch. One of the bears caused permanent injury to a 16-year-old girl named Anna Knochel. A doctor friend of mine owned the cabin next door to the woman who was feeding the bears. My daughter was at the camp when Anna was attacked. So, this is really close to home for me. It could have been my daughter.

There are many parts of the US where people are used to having bears around and don't provide food for them.

All of this recent fear mongering on the forums this week has me pondering a poll question..

Which irrational fear scares you the most?

A Being shot by a bow hunter

B Being attacked by a grizzly that has yet to be reintroduced to the area

C Being shot by a black bear that has mastered archery and learned to shoot a bow

@chumley
wait did you say there has been one black bear fatality in Arizona? That's it I am out this weekend! not crazy about sharing the woods with man eating bears! Just going to get a motel in Payson instead...

The one in Pinetop was also a "fed bear." (I'm referencing the motto: "A fed bear is a dead bear.") The town of Pinetop and its residents had never been willing to spend the money to have dumpsters, trash cans, etc. be bear-proof. Its residents continued to put out dog and cat food even when warned by AZGFD and other agencies that they should not be doing so. The entire town is responsible because they live in a bear area, and they should have bear-proofed the whole place.

It does no good to remove bears from an area once they are habituated to breaking into garbage cans and cabins, eating dog food on porches, etc. etc. There are records of bears returning hundreds of miles to a place where they had lived before, once having been relocated. They have to euthanize them.

I knew some folks from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan who said they have far more bears than we do in Arizona, but far fewer problems. They don't provide human food for bears.

Of course, part of the problem is that during our drought seasons there may not be much for a bear to eat in the woods. Which of course doesn't mean we should be providing food for them in any way.

Great! A blackbear with a bow! That's just what I need!!!

@Rockadoodledude

Ah yes, Cochran... been through there many times. One of my former pastors is from there.
That is a town you don't expect to hear mentioned on a forum called HAZ!!!!

There are more black bear fatalities in Arizona history than grizzly fatalities in the grizzly-saturated Denali National Park's history (which is, specifically: 1. It was zero until the most recent incident involving a backpacker who broke the park's bear interaction rules.)

There's that saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics. I'm not calling anyone here a liar, of course, please don't misunderstand. But the statistics are not as relevant as bear behaviors. And based on the latter, I am much more intimidated by black bears than I am by grizzlies (speaking as someone who camped among grizzlies for months).

Frankly, an actual bear scientist would probably correct me in that belief too by pointing out that the main factors in bear-related human fatalities are all human factors, not grizzly vs. black factors.

I think we should be more inclusive and add polar bears to the discussion. After all, they're the most cute and cuddly of the animals that will tear you to pieces in just a few seconds. And I think they could be introduced to the upper slopes of Humphrey's in winter and do just fine.

How about pizzly bears?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2 ... ear_hybrid

Panda, anyone?

@friendofThundergod Humans concern me *waaaay* more than animals. Animals are rational, and are drunk much, much less often. And can only kill you up close & personal, which is a more honest way of doing it ...

Is it bad luck when a black bear crosses your path? Today's hike was briefly interrupted by a bear crossing 10 yards ahead of me. Fortunately, I was not predated. (Nor did I expire). No grizzlies yet, though.

Ask someone that lives in Idaho how they feel about the wolf re-introduction in 1995? See how well that went over.

@kevinweitzel75

I'm not a hunter, but had friends of mine that were. When I lived in Idaho hunters hated the wolves, once they hit an area they ate everything that wasn't nailed down. So friends would go into an area to hunt and there would be almost no living thing left. My experience is running into sheep herds while out hiking, because of the wolves they now have to breed sheep dogs that are aggressive enough to chase off wolves. Nothing scarier than having a 150 lb sheep dog charging at you.

SpiderLegs wrote:@kevinweitzel75

I'm not a hunter, but had friends of mine that were. When I lived in Idaho hunters hated the wolves, once they hit an area they ate everything that wasn't nailed down. So friends would go into an area to hunt and there would be almost no living thing left.

No offense to you, because you seem like a nice guy on here, but your hunter friends in Idaho are liars. Wolves don't kill everything in an area. People do that. Wolves are not gluttonous and their prey is hard to obtain. It'd be impossible and impractical for wolves to chase down and kill every animal in an area. If this were true, then Isle Royale National Park, a small isle off MI that wolves occupy, would have nothing living on it.

Not to sound trite, but wolves are part of the natural cycle and killing everything in site would not benefit wolves or anything in the long run. Also, wolves don't kill for sport and breed when there's food around and won't breed when food is scarce. The only animal that kills for sport and continues to breed when food is scarce is man. People who think that wolves kill everything that isn't nailed down need to go to Yellowstone, Glacier NP, Isle Royale, or any where wolves occupy and they would realize that this is BS.

neilends wrote: There's that saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics. I'm not calling anyone here a liar, of course, please don't misunderstand. But the statistics are not as relevant as bear behaviors.

I don't think think the stats can be so easily discounted that way. ( Some statistical data tends to be subjective, this one not so much.) The stats basically just say it happened and when. True they do not say whether it was caused by human encroachment etc. However, it does simply state the number of deaths by attacks for each species, and that with population estimates point to a pretty strong conclusion. May be a conclusion, but still a strong one.

There is no doubt that the most prevalent factor is human stupidity. I have seen how stupid people become around wildlife! I find it somewhat laughable at how many people think they are that "special one" that who has the special connection with an animal, or nature, that makes them immune to consequences of getting between a predator and its food or young, encroaching on its territory, or getting too close to the edge..........
Either way, they can be very dangerous, no matter what species of bear you deal with.

kevinweitzel75 wrote:Ask someone that lives in Idaho how they feel about the wolf re-introduction in 1995? See how well that went over.

My brother lives in Challis, and isn't fond of the wolves. But not for any of the stated reasons I have seen in this thread. There is a disease prevalent in the Idaho wolves which can be spread to dogs and humans. It is called Echinococcus granulosus, a type of tapeworm, also called "hydatid." It causes cysts in lungs, liver and brain, in animals and humans. Humans can be exposed to it numerous ways.

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wi ... Wolves.pdf