| |
As with
any wildlife population, objectives and attitudes of landowners, land managers,
resource users, and the general public will determine if bears are considered an
asset or a liability. Human attitudes will ultimately determine whether or not
bears can survive.
Public perception of the Louisiana black bear will be
partially dependent on immediate and effective responses by wildlife
professionals to reported conflicts. Black bears may be killed by individuals
who are unaware of solutions to simple problems, who feel that no effective
solution for their particular conflict exists, or who think that no one cares.
Because the Louisiana black bear is listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act, killing bears within the historic range of the subspecies carries
federal and state penalties that can include heavy fines (e.g., up to $10,000 in
Louisiana), suspension of hunting privileges, and jail time. Informing the
public about potential conflicts and available solutions is an important
strategy in the overall restoration effort.
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
In general, conflicts between humans and wildlife can be addressed by either
managing the animals involved in the conflict, manipulating the resource being
damaged, or by placing a physical or psychological barrier between the
conflicting resource and wildlife species. These same principles can be applied
to management of human/bear conflicts.
Due to the legal status of the Louisiana
black bear, conflict resolution will rely heavily on non-lethal damage control
techniques, such as barriers, capture and aversive conditioning, and resource
management strategies. Destruction of offending animals will only be considered
if human health and safety is jeopardized and all other measures have failed.
Ideal management plans should emphasize conflict prevention and, when problems
arise, the implementation of practical solutions.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Hunting is often recommended as a damage control tool because it reduces
wildlife populations and associated problems to acceptable levels and elicits
human-avoiding behavior in the hunted species. Legal harvest may become part of
the overall management plan for the black bear in the future. Until the
subspecies is recovered, however, hunting is not considered a management option
for the Louisiana black bear. Biologists will need to determine that restoration
efforts have been successful, the harvestable surplus, and the maximum density
of bears that will be tolerated by the public before bear hunting will be
permitted.
Trapping nuisance bears and releasing them far from their capture site is called
relocation. Relocating nuisance bears can cause them to roam over large areas in
search of familiar surroundings. Bears have an excellent homing instinct, and
will attempt to find their way back to familiar territory. Bears have been
documented traveling up to 400 miles from relocation sites. This increases their
susceptibility to being killed by vehicles along roads or by humans who perceive
a threat to their own safety. Because of the stress and increased human
interaction, relocated bears have a reduced chance of survival. In addition,
moving a problem animal from one area to another can potentially bring a
nuisance to the new area. Consequently, bears involved in conflicts with humans
should be left in their established territory whenever possible.
Nuisance
behavior can be altered through live trapping, conditioning, and releasing bears
into the same general area. This can be accomplished by using the bear’s
intelligence and quick learning ability to “teach” bears to stop nuisance
behavior. This is referred to as aversive conditioning (see Aversive
Conditioning section).
Barriers preventing access by bears may totally eliminate some ongoing problems
and offer the greatest immediate relief from conflicts that arise. Barriers, in
most cases, are both economically and technically feasible to install and are
considered a viable option for controlling many types of bear-related damage.
Solar-powered electric fencing for bee yards, for example, is an extremely
effective bear deterrent.
Management of the resources being damaged or threatened is also applicable to
our goal of effectively managing bear/human conflicts. In some cases, conflicts
may be avoided by keeping susceptible resources away from bear habitat or by
removing attractants that lure bears to those resources.
Cooperative Management Approach
Most state wildlife agencies have the sole responsibility for addressing
bear/human conflicts when they occur. However, the Louisiana black bear is a
threatened subspecies under the Endangered Species Act, thus, a federal role for
managing the species exists. State and federal agencies have worked
cooperatively to develop protocols for addressing conflicts. Written plans
outline standard procedures that will be taken when bears create problems,
including preventive measures, aversive conditioning, and possible removal of
offending bears.
The responsibilities, relative to conflict management, of the various state and
federal agencies have also been identified.
In Louisiana, problems are addressed
by USDA Wildlife Services and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries, in consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.
In
Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks is the
lead agency with assistance from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department will provide assistance to citizens who report
bear problems in Texas.
The Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission takes the lead in bear problems in Arkansas.
A Conflict Management Team consisting of the USDA Wildlife Services, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the
BBCC staff has been working together successfully for the past several years in
Louisiana. Efficient and effective response to complaints is more feasible when
duties are shared among professional agency personnel. The responder is
determined by the location, time, and availability of participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|