I watched the latest "Yukon Men" on TV. Actually, it was mostly about Yukon Women at Tanana and bears coming into town. First, one of the main characters had unsecured garbage outside his cabin and a black bear had a free lunch and was looking for more. The guy shot it in the woods as it was leaving because "it will be back." Probably it will if he keeps putting out garbage.

Courtney, a native resident of Tanana has two little kids. Diviny was raised in Tanana but went outside and claims she was Alaska's first Playboy model--I believe her. She has the face and figure to qualify. She comes back to Tanana with her little daughter.

Courtney takes Diviny duck hunting at a nearby lake. All the way there she's telling Diviny to stay on high alert because there are bears in the woods, to keeping smelling for bears, that the grass is tall and bears could hide and quickly kill them, etc. When they find old bear scats poor Diviny is so freaked out she insists on turning back and they never make it to the lake.

The village has an unsecured dump. Black bears get free lunches there. A guy goes there to look for bears--one is at the edge of the dump and avoids getting shot only because it's departing.

A black bear sow and 2 cubs head toward town. Several guys try to herd them away and manage to separate a cub from the others. Did it re-join them?

A small bear passes by Courtney's cabin. She freaks, yells at her kid to get inside, races into the woods and shoots the bear. It appears to weigh about 80-90 pounds.

Poor Diviny is so traumatized by the thoughts of bears nearby that she decides to head back to the lower 48.

I did not see a single instance of a bear threatening anyone. They all seemed to be fleeing at the sight and sound of people. These folks did pretty much every thing wrong from how they handled garbage to how they managed the dump to shooting bears that did not need to die. I think Tanana is not alone in how the villages in general respond to bears.

One thing stated over and over on the TV show was how much danger little kids were in with bears around. I'm not aware of a single case of a black bear injuring a little kid in Alaska in the past 40 years. Does anyone know of any cases?

Much of this fear is due to our bear predator control programs in recent years. We have done a great job of convincing folks that bears are bad news for both moose and people, but a very poor job of educating anyone about the facts of living with bears. The only exception is in urban areas where there have been marginally successful programs in preventing people from putting out garbage the night before pickup and encouraging them to buy bear resistant garbage cans. But in the bush the ADF&G area biologists seldom try to give people good information on living with bears. Many in the bush think the only thing you have to know is to shoot them on sight and as a result a lot of bears die unnecessarily every year.

I didn't see the show, but I agreed with your sentiments until the last paragraph.

As an aside, I was quite disappointed to see you photographed not long ago alongside a fenced in bear down at Portage I think. I'd of hoped you'd no more condone fencing in wildlife in that Portage zoo than you would the Siegfried and Roy tigers. Alaskan wildlife doesn't belong in pens, Foster Farms chickens do.

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of the harmful Hollywood portrayal of wildlife. Of course we've seen here on AR the ignorant hysterics of those that salivate at the thought of being on high alert and smelling the bears in the tall grass. "Thank God for high capacity magazines!" "Do I take the .500 Super Duper revolver or the ported, 2" 460 Whiz Bang?" We can observe our fellow travelers at either end of the spectrum, Those that think all bears secretly want to be Vegan ala T. Treadwell, and those that try to smell the bears in the long grass, trembling hands white knuckle gripping the afore mentioned revolvers. Sadly, those travelers that see the prudence in taking reasonable precautions and enjoying their outdoor experiences regardless the flora or fauna present but possibly not seen,.... are in the minority. These dishonest tv shows actually do quite a disservice to our wildlife and wilderness in general.

In my opinion, predators generally and sometimes bears specifically can for periods of time depress game herds. You of course know that more or less ten years ago moose numbers were quite low in McGrath, but today seem very improved. All this despite or regardless of, maybe in conjunction with,PREDATOR CONTROL! Fine, sure, maybe relocating and hunting predators in the study area didn't help game numbers, but it didn't hurt 'em either, nor did it hurt predator populations. Waste of money? Maybe. Sanctioned Sportsman's Anarchy? Possibly. Dire consequences for predators? Nope. I'd whole heartedly agree that moose and other game animals can coexist quite well with predators, the problem is I plan on only being around here for 70 or 90 years, so the several generations it may well take for game species to re bound following the surge and cooresponding decline of predators due to low game numbers may well not fit my agenda. Simply put, if we want to eat moose this winter, the habitat is there to support the moose and the only plausible explanation is the negligible calf survival due to predation, lets mitigate the predation! I'm hungry! Wolf and bear numbers won't rebound after predator control due to healthy game numbers?

Frankly, I'm not aware of any wide scale shootings of bears by village residents. The majority of bears killed in any way out here seem to be taken by traveling sportsmen that I think are generally pleasant company. No doubt its popular to point the finger at Koliganek or Point Hope and illuminate their shortcomings, game management or otherwise, but you Urban Alaskans still run over more wildlife with your automobiles than anyone ever hunts, poaches or Predator Controls. How many bears were DLP'd in the Anchorage MatSu region in 2013 or so far in '14? You really think the number compares with bears shot in Holy Cross?

Scott,

There is a big, big difference between Siegfried and Roy's tigers and the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center at Portage.

If you think there is no value in having animals in captivity in semi-wild habitats for people to see, then you would not support the operation at Portage. I believe there is value in that, particularly in a state where the density of many species of large mammals is low and many people seldom get the chance to see them. Plus, some species (like Musk Ox) don't occur in many areas.

Then there is the AWCC Wood Bison project where they have been holding and breeding Wood Bison until the transplant into the wild occurs. They were the only facility in the state capable of doing this. ADF&G is a partner, of course, and Safari Club Int. is a donor and strong supporter.

Also, I have always supported AWCC's raising of orphan fawns, calves and cubs. They have the expertise to do it right. There is a need for that type of facility.

Regarding predator control, we could argue about the biology endlessly. All these years, my main point has been that when we do it, we should have strong science-based programs that are adequately justified with background studies to ensure predation is the problem, not something else. Then, we need well-designed monitoring programs so at the end we can evaluate the results to tell if control worked. And we need clear objectives and end points so control does not go on indefinitely. The wolf and bear control programs done between
2003 and 2010 lacked these features.

I'm glad you mentioned McGrath. During 1999-2002 it was a great example of the trouble that occurs when you don't do it right. The first moose census was done under poor conditions and estimated 850 moose-a crisis as 3000-3500 were needed for a sustained subsistence harvest of 150 per year. There was all this hub bub about what a disaster it was. Then, two years later the next census done under good conditions estimated 3500 moose. There never was a crisis. There were a lot of red faces at ADF&G.

The Game Board then said 3500 was not enough, we needed 7000. The locals and ADF&G said wolves were the problem, a few including me said it was more likely bears. So they transplanted a bunch of bears out of the moose calving areas for 2 years and calf survival doubled and the moose population began to increase. Wolves were not the problem after all. More red faces.

We have known how to do it right for many years. Trouble is, politics trumps biology and it gets done wrong.

I talked to a Unit 13 moose hunter last week. In 2 weeks of hunting over a broad area in GMU 13 he saw exactly 2 moose calves. The wolves have been heavily hammered every year there for 11 years. Yet another example of something other than wolf predation limiting moose? Many years of research in several different areas showed that wolves are very seldom the sole factor in keeping moose at low density. I have seen the severe impact of deep snow winters many times over the last 40 years.

And I'm not the one to argue biology. However it seems from what you've said there's been no coorelation between predator control and a disasterous decline in either predator numbers or game numbers. "No harm no foul"? You'd agree then that although State sponsored predator control may or may not be government silliness it really doesn't actually hurt the wildlife? Apparently after the bear program in McGrath the moose numbers increased?

You seemed to have walked away from your assertion regarding Hollywood Bearanoia and Villages slaughtering bears.

No, I don't care for zoo's and especially in the Anchorage region, McKinley Park is right up the road from the zoo and I understand that many Alaskan wildlife species are available for viewing right there. This is the problem as I see it; Many Americans or visitors in general want the easy way out. Circle the Walmart parking lot for a half hour waiting for the space to open up near the front door instead of parking in the back and stretching the legs for that 50yds. Take the short drive to Portage to see the bears and moose inside the cage rather than hike around McKinley a little to see wild animals. Man, why promote the docile, semi tame persona when you and both have seen bears catch salmon and caribou? The bear seen in the photo on the other side of the fence from you was meant to be, born to be fishing, hunting and grazing berries. ("Burp! oh man I'm too full, I need a nap.") And off he goes to lay down in the willows. There's no difference between the Vegas tigers and that poor bastard. As for the bison, I'm sure it was very convenient and correct to use the facility already in place to store the bison before the possible re introduction. Its very snide for me to say SCI does like to shoot the big ones behind the fence, so sorry about that, it was a cheap shot I couldn't resist but cheap none the less.