At least 7 grizzly bears spotted near Sayward

[halimark]

Well, certainly management is influenced by politics. No argument there. And the focus applied to science can be politicized, as well. But the science is the science. It has it's caveats as to assumptions and statistical power no matter which "side" is quoting it. All of those are caveats are declared and debated as to the accuracy and applicability of that science past it's assumptions.

So I disagree that one should necessarily dismiss opposing views w/o discussing & debating the science that any "side" is using to promote their narrative out of hand because one disagrees with that narrative. I think both sides can learn something from that debate. In structured decision-making like environmental assessments - it is critical to that process.

As far as the science that I quoted on the Grizzly numbers is admittedly somewhat dated - but is the most current I could find.It is also non-NGO data - it's both industry & government data. In that methodology of extrapolating densities by habitat - there are declarations about the large variability that precludes not only accurate estimates but noticing even fine-scale trends. That has been the critique of the NGOs about those estimates who say they are too high.

Yet even with those "higher" estimates - CDC and COSEWIC (not the NGOs) still listed certain populations of near-coastal & interior grizzlies. So those "higher" numbers might be seen as a "best-case" scenario.

And I don't think I need to convince most posters on this forum that our fish resources have taken quite a hit in the past number of years.

So... I can't see what support or scientific vigour the theory that the habitat is saturated and the extras grizzlies are forced on the Island has. Similar to your other theory that whiteish naïve black bears who have no instinct of danger, Anytime I see a black bear traveling fast - often I see a grizzly about 10min behind it. I think they know the danger. And I am not understanding how that assertion helps the argument for the theories you presented.

It's also been my experience that you see males more in the estuaries - especially early in the season before fish show-up; while the females (especially if they have cubs) try to stay out of the males way and are more interior and upslope. So.. one would expect that males would be closer and more attracted to long swims while the female would chance losing cubs on a long swim and especially when being in male territory. I've got many years - not days - in both black bear and grizzly territory to share.

So - there's some alternative theories to offer for the discussion...

I am unsure of the science in todays world. I never said to dispute opposing views, I dispute "science" that has a motive, situated outcome or skips, chooses, picks facts to strengthen a directed outcome. Lots on here lately, just read the pages of Covid stuff. Seams even what one would expect from professionals is incorrect today. There are alternative theories to most discussions now. Hence the reason for the BC grizzly study in the first place. I did and still believe the BC grizzly study you referenced was true, reflective and valid at the time, my days listed were directly looking for the very G Bear we see crossing Johnston Straight, not in bear territory. I also know I removed or helped remove 5 large male grizzly from the mainland 2.5-100km across Johnston straight from Kelsey Bay over a 5 year period, and another few were removed by others I know about. There were 2-3 spring tags and another 2-3 fall tags available annually. Did that reduce males and territory saturation in that specific location they seam to be crossing to Van Isle, I say yes may have, now that we have had years with no male G-Bear removal and lower fish in rivers I do see more bears spreading their range, for food sources or room to be bears. Or maybe it coincidence???

The same thing is happening in northern BC, on a month long hunt we saw few G-Bears years ago, they kept to themselves, now every camp worries, is worried and they are far more plentiful and brazen then they ever were. Nuisance bear reports in BC support a growing population.

HM

 

[agentaqua]

Well to agree w you on a point, HM - yes - I also have experiences that lead me to believe that nuisance bears are on the rise - and I believe that by not taking them out of the gene pool (hunting, shooting) aggressiveness in bears seems to be be increasing.

However, it's politics not science that has a motive, IMHO. And I don't think we should be afraid of those difficult conversations debating the science, neither. Thanks for being open to that.

 

[Cuba Libre]

The first time I saw the "Spirit Bear" in its natural habitat was at the Terrace dump !

When I was a kid we lived in Butedale on Princess Royal Island. At the time the Kermode was thought to be a myth ( even though the locals saw them). The expeditions from down south would show up from UBC etc. to track them down to no avail. Often within weeks of them beating the bush for them with no success they’d show up across the harbour in the beach shortly after the expedition packed it in. At the time it was quite the local joke.

 

[ziggy]

The first time I saw the "Spirit Bear" in its natural habitat was at the Terrace dump !

Funny in the late 50’s to early 60’s they were treated like an urban myth. Then they were finally confirmed to exist and it was thought they only inhabited Princess Royal. Now it appears they are pretty common and have a much larger range. Sad to see they’ve gone from a mystery to dump bears!

 

[agentaqua]

The argument about logging "reducing" bear habitat doesn't take into account that berries come up afterwards for a number of years - increasing bear food. A patchwork of different age clear-cuts would be the most beneficial.

Extensive, large-scale logging has serious impacts at the least to hydrological regimes - increasing droughts and floods that impact egg and fish survival in streams. In addition - if not deactivated properly - it can cause sediment inputs and mass wasting (debris torrents) into the creeks. The vast majority of the instream habitat impacts happened prior to the Forest Practices code. And while not defending logging impacts - the ocean survival rates are largely in the tank for most species/stocks in recent years which arguably has as much or even more impact that logging does. It's death by a thousand cuts - not one.

So.. I don't see that argument logging impacting bears as necessarily a black and white topic.

And the non-urban areas also have seen increases in aggressive, nuisance bears, as well - as HM has pointed-out. There are many factors in promoting aggressiveness - including starvation, desperation, territorial defensiveness, genetics, and even training.

Yes - bears can be trained to avoid humans if taught early - sort of like training dogs - but using bear bangers and the like. Because bears are creatures of habit - like the rest of us - good or bad. Any bear that is unafraid of humans more often ends up dead at some point.

So.. not a black and white topic there neither, for me.

 

[Admin]

Cleaned up this thread and the derogatory generalizations that came with it. This thread was started with an article about warning members of the public regarding Grizzlies spotted near Sayward. This is not about a cull or bringing back the bear hunt and it needs to stay that way, as that debate has been had here on many occasions with the inevitable result of it going sideways.

 

[cuttlefish]

Here’s an interesting searchable Provincial Wildlife tracking website; https://warp.wildsafebc.com/warp/.
You can filter queries. Note the grizzly Sighting at 9th and Alder in Campbell River on May 14!

 

[Toba]

Here’s an interesting searchable Provincial Wildlife tracking website; https://warp.wildsafebc.com/warp/.
You can filter queries. Note the grizzly Sighting at 9th and Alder in Campbell River on May 14!

I hightly doubt there was a grizzly downtown Campbell river?

 

[ziggy]

I hightly doubt there was a grizzly downtown Campbell river?

Canadian Geographic had an article about a young tagged female Grizzly. They found she came into Banff every night to bed down. In the mornings she would head off and follow a path parallel to a popular hiking trail out of town. In the evening she’d come back into town using a path parallel to a hiking trail and once again bed down next to a building in town. During this period people were blissfully aware of her presence.
The biologists studying her developed a theory that she was essentially using humans for a shield. She was a young female and therefore susceptible to being killed by a dominant bear. She seemed to have figured out the other bears would stay away from people and therefore provide her some safety.
Not saying this is the case in Campbell River, but you never know? Then again not all sightings are reliable.

 

[cuttlefish]

I hightly doubt there was a grizzly downtown Campbell river?

You’re probably right. I was just posting the link and noted the strange location. Maybe there is a carcass or one in confinement there? You could contact the COS to find out more.

 

[Toba]

You’re probably right. I was just posting the link and noted the strange location. Maybe there is a carcass or one in confinement there? You could contact the COS to find out more.

Could be. Cool site none the less!

 

[crab bait]

The argument about logging "reducing" bear habitat doesn't take into account that berries come up afterwards for a number of years - increasing bear food. A patchwork of different age clear-cuts would be the most beneficial.

Extensive, large-scale logging has serious impacts at the least to hydrological regimes - increasing droughts and floods that impact egg and fish survival in streams. In addition - if not deactivated properly - it can cause sediment inputs and mass wasting (debris torrents) into the creeks. The vast majority of the instream habitat impacts happened prior to the Forest Practices code. And while not defending logging impacts - the ocean survival rates are largely in the tank for most species/stocks in recent years which arguably has as much or even more impact that logging does. It's death by a thousand cuts - not one.

So.. I don't see that argument logging impacting bears as necessarily a black and white topic.

And the non-urban areas also have seen increases in aggressive, nuisance bears, as well - as HM has pointed-out. There are many factors in promoting aggressiveness - including starvation, desperation, territorial defensiveness, genetics, and even training.

Yes - bears can be trained to avoid humans if taught early - sort of like training dogs - but using bear bangers and the like. Because bears are creatures of habit - like the rest of us - good or bad. Any bear that is unafraid of humans more often ends up dead at some point.

So.. not a black and white topic there neither, for me.

------------------------

As the crow flies, Glendale Cove and Knights Inlet Bear Lodge is 35kms from Kelsey Bay, with logging roads over all of the non water parts. The bears concentrate in the Glendale area for fish runs in the fall, and on the greenery of the estuary in the spring summer.

If a young grizzly sees people watching it (on foot, from towers and boats) for weeks every year, over multiple years, it knows that humans are not to be feared. People are annoying, smelly and loud, but pose no threat. Just like your dog and cat, the bear learns from every interaction.

The geography of the area is nasty to the East, and good (flatter, green, islands, beaches and seafood ) to the West.

When these bears are on the move (no fish, weather, sex, running from big bears, etc) they go West.

When Snuffy (all the bears get named) walks/swims to Hardwicke Island, Rock Bay, Kelsey Bay he comes upon logging camps, cabins and people. Snuffy has seen 100's of these things (people) and knows they are no threat, and walks right up to investigate the smells of bacon, fish and garbage.

Boom! (dead bear) and we trained it to behave this way.

 

[Hardy Guy]

As the crow flies, Glendale Cove and Knights Inlet Bear Lodge is 35kms from Kelsey Bay, with logging roads over all of the non water parts. The bears concentrate in the Glendale area for fish runs in the fall, and on the greenery of the estuary in the spring summer.

If a young grizzly sees people watching it (on foot, from towers and boats) for weeks every year, over multiple years, it knows that humans are not to be feared. People are annoying, smelly and loud, but pose no threat. Just like your dog and cat, the bear learns from every interaction.

The geography of the area is nasty to the East, and good (flatter, green, islands, beaches and seafood ) to the West.

When these bears are on the move (no fish, weather, sex, running from big bears, etc) they go West.

When Snuffy (all the bears get named) walks/swims to Hardwicke Island, Rock Bay, Kelsey Bay he comes upon logging camps, cabins and people. Snuffy has seen 100's of these things (people) and knows they are no threat, and walks right up to investigate the smells of bacon, fish and garbage.

Boom! (dead bear) and we trained it to behave this way.

No truer words have ever been spoken !! Funny how people are against hunting some but think that bear viewing is great and has no impact !! I have lived, hunted and fished in areas with G. bears and I want them to have a healthy respect and fear of people .......................... better for us and for them.

 

[searun]

I'm still more concerned about encountering a black bear than a Griz. Having interacted with a Griz up close and personal, it wasn't the least bit interested in me and not aggressive. They are simply not threatened by humans...black bears are a different much more unpredictable critter. They are like cats - curious - and it is that trait that scares me way more than any Griz because there is more risk of ending up in a very close encounter. Not saying I would ever wish to be in close quarters with a Griz, because as beautiful as they are, seeing one up close was enough to quickly learn that one swat of that paw and I was a goner - nothing good would come from messing with one - but they aren't as curious as Black Bears so less risk of a chance encounter.

 

[steeler]

I spend every fall fishing around salmon spawning and have had many close encounters with black bears and the result is always the same regardless of how close they get, they always leave even with cubs. All bears are born with a healthy fear of humans its not something they learn from being the target of hunting. The number of bears I see has dropped in a huge way in the last few years and it is a result of there being few spawning salmon around for them to eat, the rivers no longer smell of salmon and there are next to no carcasses on the banks, none in a few of the rivers I fish. I would normally see at least one bear a trip on the trails or river sometimes 5 0r 6 and now I rarely see any and next to no sign they are around. fishing alone these encounters have never made me question going out or being afraid of them, show them respect and try to give them space and there is nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Charter Tofino]

No matter how comfortable you are with either species always pack bear spray and be aware of them. I’ve spent a lot of time in close quarters with both species and have had negative run ins but still haven’t had a predatory bear. They’re rare, especially on the coast but they do happen. Spray is surprisingly effective and has gotten a few people I know out of bad situations.

 

[agentaqua]

I have many years experience with black, grizzly and even polar bears. I know people like to assign attributes to bears dependent upon species. But I'd like to share my experiences and thoughts about that.

Certainly some important life history traits are directed by species and area - but it's been my experience when it comes to aggressiveness - it's less about species and more about the bear itself, and the development and training that that bear has gone through.

Bears aren't dumb - and as the past few posts have mentioned - also are creatures of habit. That dictates to a large extent how they behave, IMHO.

Really hungry or starving bears would be expected to be more desperate to eat and survive - and maybe take on prey that they normally wouldn't try. That includes humans. There have been cases of predatory staving/hungry black bears attempting to prey upon humans.

Size and stage of bear also has an impact. All bears make an assessment IMHO about risk verses reward. Big bears know they are big. So big bears are less concerned about getting hurt taking smaller prey. That's where the "species" average size plays a part - but it more about individual size verses species.

Grizzlies - especially large males - don't normally have to spend much time figuring out if they can take prey - including us humans. They can - and they know it. But if they are well fed and there is abundant other prey - why bother? (as long as we stay away from any claimed kill site where they often bury prey).

Black bears know they are generally matched size with us - so I find they more often spend time thinking about whether to flee or interact because they have a higher risk of not winning verses the reward. I find bears will often stand on their hind legs to have a better look around when that thinking is going on. If there is 2-3 people or more - they will almost always take off. The risk is too high. They know they won't win. If they don't do that - it's time to train them. Fire off a bear banger. 2-3 times being hit with a bear banger generally is more than enough training if the 1st doesn't do it. Always have at least 3 on you at a time - and at the ready.

Often females with cubs will move closer to villages and humans as males take over prime feeding areas in the spring - like the estuaries. Those males more like to avoid the human traffic and noise and dogs. The females/mothers know this and know their cubs are at risk around males. So those females and the cubs can get used to humans. And as everyone knows - don't get between mom and her cubs. If you see a cub - it is likely Mom is not far off. Stay away from the cubs. And they are all creatures of habit - mom and cubs - including those once cubs but now yearlings on their own. They come back to the places they know.

On the road to becoming a fully mature male - like human teenagers - often the developing male yearlings try their increasing size on - as they challenge animals like us humans - again it's time to train them. Ultimately, you'll be doing other humans and most importantly the bear a favour in the long term.

No point in running away neither. You won't outrun a bear. That may even trigger it to attack.

Instead come prepared with bangers. Bear spray is of limited use - and only works up close - when it is too late and the bear has already committed. And the wind has to be right - and you have to wait for a charging bear gets just close enough before releasing it even if you had it out of your pack in time and ready. It's a last resort hail-Mary pass w bad consequences if it fails. No thanks - I'll use bangers instead, and hit them as they are making their decision - making it for them. That way we all stay safe - me & the bears.

If they slowly walk away or even run - that's perfect. If their ears are back and they chomp their jaws - they are stating they don't intend to back down. You had better have lots of bangers or even more heavy artillery.

 

[Charter Tofino]

Bear bangers aren’t going to work in most serious scenarios. They’re great for pushing bears away from camps etc but you aren’t pulling one out, lighting it and shooting it in front of a surprised bear in heavy BC timber.

Half the point of the spray is you hold your ground, usually end up yelling and the burst of spray startles the bear. That alone will pull most up and if you get lucky with a clean hit the bears are surprisingly sensitive. They will start dragging their face in the dirt while you move out. I personally hate packing firearms, they can take a bit longer to draw if not prepped and find people are quick to pull the trigger.

I ran into this bear 40km from the central coast on a small island not known to have grizz. Met him in heavy timber at 10 yards (pics from the next day) surprised the crap out of both of us. It was my fault for not making noise. I had spray (on chest not in a pack) and had it out before he made up his fight/flight plan. Not a great scenario but easy to buy/pack spray could’ve made the difference.

 

[steeler]

I think it would be hard to prove one way or the other if bear bangers have the effect of future deterrence or future aggression. Bears are very smart and have strong memories but how they perceive being shot with a loud explosion is hard to gauge it may cause them to be more aggressive next time because it pissed them off or caused them to see humans as a threat, no real way to know. Bear spray is the best protection it knocks them on their asses very quickly and allows you to escape and is easy to get off in a hurry. Spray actually stops the bear as bangers may not if the bear isn't deterred by the first one I always pack a good knife that's the easiest of all to get out and the sudden encounters are the ones that turn bad.

 

[agentaqua]

Actually, Kelly - some years where the fires push bears out - I use sometimes 20-50 bangers a year - with a 100% success rate. Most years it's more like 10-20. Most years I have 3-5 close encounters a week during bear season - in the fall walking creeks some years - I would commonly have that many in a day. Sometimes - with the stubborn ones - it'll take 3 bangers - but they do move. Never yet had to use 4. The ones that get conditioned will move if the shock wave hits them - guaranteed. Most get trained early and remember and move. But I have dozens of encounters a year maybe hundreds all told. 100% success rate, again.

The key is not to let it get to the point where you have to use bear spray. No thanks. Too late by then. If you allow the bear to get within a few feet kinda of an effective response but only 1 chance to get it right - and get it out & ready. It's too close for comfort. And if it doesn't work you are screwed.

In contrast - the bangers go 50+ft and the noise a couple km. You generally have ample time to keep reloading. Much more safety & time for yourself & the bears.

Heavy cover does pose an issue for everyone - but if there are bears in the area - do you really want to be in heavy cover where you can't see them until too late and maybe you surprise one? Well - flash off a banger - they will hear it. Air horns can work too. I would recommend them also - to add to the arsenal.

Bear spray doesn't always work neither - and if it doesn't you are hooped. I have bear spray too - but save it as a last resort - and knock on wood - never had to. With bangers - you have a chance to deter before close quarters: https://www.timescolonist.com/news/...izzly-bear-attack-on-central-coast-1.12725493

Altho the news article doesn't explain everything - the forest worker who got mauled did use his bear spray w no effect on the grizzly - is what I heard from one of his coworkers.

and yes, Steeler - I have had the opportunity to follow several sets of cubs to yearlings to young adults over the years and to occasionally train esp. the young males with bangers as they get to ~150-200lbs is when they grow their nuts and their attitudes. You can follow them because there are slight variations in their fur colour (e.g. dark legs on one - light face on another, etc.) and they are creatures of habit - and they return to where they spent their cubhood for several years. I had them come @ me sideways and puffed-up like a cat. 1 or 2 bear bangers fixes that attitude. So - yes there is "proof" training works.

And the pen-type bangers are particularly easy to carry and quick to deploy. Highly recommended to carry @ all times in bear country/season with at least 3 charges/rockets.