Editor’s note: Andrew Timmins is a bear biologist for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. A version of this article first appeared on the department’s website, wildnh.com.
By Andrew Timmins
People in New Hampshire may not be taking the old adage “a fed bear is a dead bear” seriously enough. Recent bear-feeding incidents reveal a trend with serious consequences for communities and bears.
In 2006, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department established a rule prohibiting people from feeding bears, either intentionally or inadvertently. Doing so causes nuisance situations, results in property damage and can become a human safety concern. Not directly mentioned in the rule, but of equal importance, is that feeding bears habituates them to humans and essentially eliminates, or severely alters, bears’ natural behavior and foraging patterns.
Since 2006, Fish and Game has addressed a number of intentional bear-feeding sites around the state, at some of which people had been feeding bears for more than 20 years. Staff members from the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Wildlife Services, Fish and Game wildlife biologists and conservation officers have worked hard to identify intentional feeding sites and help people understand the serious consequences of feeding bears.
Some have been cooperative; others, less so. People who feed bears are initially asked to stop via a formal warning. If they fail to stop, they are in violation of the state rule and may be issued a summons. In many instances, a formal warning, coupled with education, has been effective. In 2014, however, this sensible approach doesn’t seem to be working as well.
A troubling trend
During the first week of May, Fish and Game discovered four historical feeding sites where intentional bear feeding had resumed, despite formal warnings. In the Birch Hill area of North Conway, bears highly habituated to human food have been breaking into motor vehicles, garages and sheds and killing livestock. Fish and Game was forced to destroy two bears here in one week. A resident, who had been previously warned to cease feeding, had resumed feeding this spring.
The decision to kill these animals was not easy and not taken lightly. However, for a variety of reasons, there were few other options. The less-developed northern part of the state, where bears are typically released when relocated, was covered in snow, offering no natural food.
The behavior of these animals and the increasing severity of conflicts forced a response. Both bears were large, adult males, which tend to have strong fidelity to their home range and, therefore, would likely have returned quickly if moved. In my opinion, these bears had essentially been “ruined” by intentional feeding and human habituation. They had lost the ability to be wild bears.
Intentional backyard feeding is not the only problem. Every year, numerous bear/human conflicts occur in areas with open or plastic-topped Dumpsters (not bear-proof), unsecured household garbage, bird feeders or unprotected poultry and livestock.
Despite working with residents year after year, things never seem to change. Why is that? Why are bears so devalued by some people that they refuse to change their behavior? Why is there an expectation by some that Fish and Game should remove or kill a bear so people are not inconvenienced by changing their behavior?
‘A fed bear is a dead bear’
Without support and assistance from the public, Fish and Game lacks the ability to significantly change human behavior and reduce bear/human conflicts. We can’t force restaurant owners to use locking, steel-top Dumpsters. We can’t make people put an electric fence around their chickens. We can’t force people to stop feeding birds during spring and summer. We can’t mandate the appropriate storage of garbage and other food attractants by homeowners.
All of these are examples of relatively simple, effective, common sense solutions. We can’t convince people not to selfishly feed bears, despite the detriment to the animal, if we are not informed of the location. We can’t challenge people’s constitutional right to shoot bears that cause property damage, despite the refusal of the landowner to even attempt to mitigate conflicts. I find this very discouraging, because we are so fortunate to have this magnificent wild animal in our state. Isn’t it worth changing your behavior just a little so they can live here, too?
We have been trying to get this message out for many years. The “Something’s Bruin in New Hampshire – Learn to Live with Bears” campaign began in the mid-1990s to educate people about bear behavior and provide steps they can follow to avoid conflicts. One common message from this campaign is the slogan “a fed bear is a dead bear.”
By helping people understand bears, the campaign has reduced conflicts. But the recent incidents in which I’ve had to dispatch bears because of stubborn human behavior is making me lose faith. Is the public even listening anymore? Is our society that self-centered and callous toward wildlife?
Talk to your friends and neighbors and encourage them to be proactive in preventing conflicts with bears. Get active within your community and work for change. Change may be hard, but it is not impossible. Our behavior creates these conflicts, but we can make the choice to change our behavior.
Reach Andrew Timmins at andrew.timmins@wildlife.nh.gov.
Living with bears
To learn more about New Hampshire’s “Something’s Bruin in New Hampshire – Learn to Live with Bears” campaign, visit wildnh.com/Wildlife/Somethings_Bruin.htm.
Bear Smart Durango offers tips for living with bears locally. Visit bearsmartdurango.org.
