A Century of Bear-Human Conflict in Alaska

Here's an interesting study:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/br..._conflicts.htm

Not surprisingly, the conflicts haven't been as frequent in the very
sparsely populated Bethel/Bristol Bay area as in the more populated
regions. If the probability of a bear attack were normalized to account
for population density, however (i.e., attacks per person-hour), I think
you might see a different story.

One striking trend is that the frequency of conflicts has been rising
steeply in recent years.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:09:53 GMT, rw
wrote:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/br..._conflicts.htm

You will notice that there are few encounters in the Bristol Bay and
Bethel areas. These are areas where the primary food for the bears is
salmon. In the interior, without salmon to feed on, the bears are
probably more predatory.

Notice the "Reason for Contfrontation" with "Surprise, Curiosity,
Invaded personal Space" the main causes for attacks. The very first
thing we were told was to talk to the bear when you see one. "Hey
bear" repeated over and over is the most used phrase. When you are in
the bush, be noisy by talking or singing so you don't suprise a bear.
And, if he wants your fish, give it to him. Don't invade his space.

wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:09:53 GMT, rw
wrote:


http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/br..._conflicts.htm


You will notice that there are few encounters in the Bristol Bay and
Bethel areas.

I wrote that in my post. Are you ****ing illiterate?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:14:06 GMT, rw
wrote:

I wrote that in my post. Are you ****ing illiterate?

Just emphasizing it, Putz. And again, there are few encounters within
the Bristol Bay/Bethel areas. I wonder why. Could it be that the
bears are more interested in eating salmon than phony cowboys with big
bad guns and bear spray strapped to their vests, hats, belts,
underwear. And, we forget there are wolves in the area too. Whatya
gonna do about the wolves?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:14:06 GMT, rw
wrote:

I wrote that in my post. Are you ****ing illiterate?

Just emphasizing it, Putz. And again, there are few encounters within
the Bristol Bay/Bethel areas. I wonder why. Could it be that the
bears are more interested in eating salmon than phony cowboys with big
bad guns and bear spray strapped to their vests, hats, belts,
underwear. And, we forget there are wolves in the area too. Whatya
gonna do about the wolves?



I was raised just north of Anchorage and grew up fishing areas populated
with bears/wolves. I have been fishing during the spawns when bears are
actively feeding in streams. Several times myself and friends found
ourselves well within 50 yards of feeding bears and have only had one bad
experience. I agree with the assessment that availability of their natural
foodstuffs is an important factor.

In almost 30 years of fishing the one time where I even felt threatened was
when a buddy brought his dog. The dog was darting in and out of the creek
and spooked a sleeping sow in the alders along the bank. Mad bear....shotgun
blast into the air...situation over.

There are two precautions I believe in when backcountry fishing/hiking. Make
noise, i.e., I have a bell attached to my pack/vest.(Some refer to it as a
dinner bell.)

Carry a shotgun loaded with slugs. I use a Mossberg 12 gauge and have never
had to point it at an animal. (Although I did want to shoot that damn dog.)
A pistol is worthless with Alaskan bears. There is an old adage that says if
you carry a .357 or .44 you really only need to load one round....for
yourself.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:01:52 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:

A pistol is worthless with Alaskan bears. There is an old adage that says if
you carry a .357 or .44 you really only need to load one round....for
yourself.

Shhhhhhh. Don't tell Barnard.....

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:01:52 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:

In almost 30 years of fishing the one time where I even felt threatened was
when a buddy brought his dog.

Every camp I know of in the Bristol Bay area has a camp dog. His
duties are the same as the Kamchatka camp dogs I encountered: bark
when a bear is near. Taking a dog on a fishing trip in the states can
be a wonderful experience. Taking one into the wilds of Katmai or
Kenai or just about anyplace in Alaska is pure folly.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:01:52 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:

In almost 30 years of fishing the one time where I even felt threatened
was
when a buddy brought his dog.

Every camp I know of in the Bristol Bay area has a camp dog. His
duties are the same as the Kamchatka camp dogs I encountered: bark
when a bear is near. Taking a dog on a fishing trip in the states can
be a wonderful experience. Taking one into the wilds of Katmai or
Kenai or just about anyplace in Alaska is pure folly.


Agreed. The dog was never allowed on a trip again. At least the ones I was
involved with.
--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

rw wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:09:53 GMT, rw
wrote:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/br..._conflicts.htm
You will notice that there are few encounters in the Bristol
Bay and
Bethel areas.

I wrote that in my post. Are you ****ing illiterate?

The actual reasons though, also includes fewer bears and much
greater visibility. Simple as that. Around Bethel, for
example, there are very few brown bears and there is a lot of
tundra and few trees other than willows. That is even more true
as one heads down river towards the Bering Sea.

Go 50 miles or so up river, and it is a whole different story.
Hence the "Bethel area" includes some very serious bear country
and also some vast areas where few bears are ever seen.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)