Today we are going to have a conversation about a topic that many people don’t seem to want to have, and that’s black bear management in Arizona.
The management of black bears has always been a controversial one. Since the early 1900’s, hunters were payed to kill predators, including lions, coyotes, and bears. Arizona, in particular, was home to a subspecies of grizzly bear, the Mexican grizzly bear (the derivation of this species into a subspecies is highly debatable), which was present in the 1920’s or 30’s. The last grizzly bear was killed somewhere in northern Arizona, either on Escudilla mountain or in oak creek canyon. The last possible Mexican grizzly bear was killed in 1976 in Sonora, Mexico, and is now presumed to be extinct.
Since this era of predator eradication, bears have entered the ideal of “charismatic megafauna”, an ideal of anthropomorphization of animals that has occurred as humans place human characteristics to animals, of which do not/cannot mentally comprehend these ideas the same as humans. This has created problems, because people have tried to “care” for not only bears, but all large mammals.
This has led to increased human/wildlife contact, which creates dangerous situations for both animal and human. People feed the wildlife, desensitizing the animals to humans and increasing the likelihood of wildlife approaching humans and urban areas. The bears continue to forage trash in urban areas, and it becomes only a matter of time before the bears determine that a human may be a food source.
This article in particular is in regards to bears, but this wildlife conflict occurs throughout the animal kingdom.
In a year like 2018, precipitation has been scarce; the winter leading into 2018 was one of the driest winters in recorded history. Oak fruiting ( though not directly affected by precipitation amounts) will decrease with the small rainfall value, and acorns are one of a bears’ main food sources. Along with this, other mast (nuts and berries) production will be lessened, and edible grasses/forbes/browse materials will be less. This will force bears to lower elevations where they will forage for prickly pears, not only a source of valuable calories, but also a minor source of water for them.
Upon this, young bears will be forced to disperse amongst the landscape. These young, less-than-intelligent bears move long distances to uninhabited regions. They will often find urban areas where food in the form of trash can be found quite easily.
In addition, this year in particular, fires force bears to disperse often times to, once again, urban areas. When I say “urban areas”, I don’t just mean urban areas in the high country of Arizona. These bears will move into lower elevations, and have been seen in Scottsdale, Mesa, Anthem, and other Phoenix suburbs.
We’ve discussed the “why” as to the reason bears move into urban areas, but what’s the reason for the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s actions regarding bear management? In 2018 alone, the Department has euthanized at least 6 bears, all of which I believe to be young bears. One homeowner had a bear break into his house near Payson, and another in Munds Park. Another bear was relocated from Pinetop to Hannagan Meadow, only to travel over 55 miles back to the same neighborhood. One more bear was captured killing chickens in Prescott and relocated, only to travel more than 40 miles to an Anthem neighborhood. Finally, another bear was found roaming neighborhoods in northeast Mesa.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department cannot undergo a possible liability by allowing a nuisance bear to live. The bear’s lack of fear for humans is dangerous, and the possibility for an attack on a human is too great for the Department to risk. In the instance that the Department made the decision to relocate a bear, rather than euthanize it, and that bear returned and committed harm to someone, than the Department could (and probably would) be considered liable. With that being said, the Department still considers each situation as to whether the bear will be euthanized or relocated, though nuisance adult male bears are euthanized, as about 85% of human attacks are done by adult male bears. The Department cannot risk a lawsuit in the event of a mauling, or even a death, as the Department’s funding is limited.
I should mention that scare tactics are used in attempt to prevent the bear from returning to its previous removed location. Gunshots, fireworks, and dogs are examples of what may be used to scare the bear. However, this has been shown to be mostly ineffective. The majority of the time, bears will be scared during the experience, but thereafter they are unaffected.
There also comes other issues with relocating a bear, though. Bears are highly territorial, and in the event that one bear is moved into another bears territory, those bears could have a lethal fight. Upon this, especially with an older bruin, infanticide will occur, where the male bear will kill any and all younger bears it finds, so as to force the female bear in the area back into heat.
At the end of the day, I believe that the Arizona Game and Fish Department does a good job with nuisance bear management. I want to clarify that my statements here are not those of the Department, nor do I have any affiliation with the Department. Nuisance black bear management, and all predator management, will always be highly controversial and public outcry will always occur. What can we do to fix this? Communities with neighboring high bear densities need to be sure that food sources are not present for bears to take advantage of – this is the main cause for habituated bears. Remember, nuisance bears are killed due to human influence, and feeding wildlife is against the law.
The Game and Fish Human-Wildlife Policy can be found HERE:
Disagree with something I said or would like to make a correction? Feel free to comment or shoot me an email.