September 23, 2020

Denying Obvious Bear Facts to Protect Bears

Below is a teaser and link to an article about a debate in Colorado as to whether a spring bear hunt would have any effect on the bear population. It’s more than just odd that a member of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife says that since the spring bear hunt was canceled in 1999, harvest numbers of bears hasn’t changed. He therefore concludes a spring bear hunt wouldn’t change the harvest numbers. Unfortunately it’s not that simple.

The article fails to inform readers as to what has happened to the bear population in Colorado. If the same number of hunters go after twice as many bears, one would assume the success rate would go up. Figures are thrown around about harvest numbers. About the only thing to go on is that the article states that success rates for bear harvests jumped from 5% to 7%, giving as examples data from only one year and both year’s data came from hunting seasons 10 years apart. I think this is nothing more than playing games with numbers.

Nothing provided here can conclude anything, particularly what Colorado officials are trying to claim.

Shouldn’t the real issue here be about managing bears scientifically and with consideration as to how methods and management effect public safety? Unfortunately for all, bear management is driven by social demands from ignorant people who have no understanding of the facts of bear behavior.

I’m not advocating for or against a spring bear hunt. I’m advocating for responsible, proven, scientific bear management. If facts on the ground show there are too many bears for the habitat or that are causing too many conflicts with humans, something needs to be done about it.”Will believes it is a coincidence that black bear populations have climbed in Colorado in the 22 years since the spring bear hunt was abolished. He said he doesn’t think there is a cause-and-effect relationship.”<<<Read More>>>

Share