More bear activity at Watauga Shelter

[Uncle Joe]

If you follow Highlander58 on Youtube you maybe be aware of another bear incident at the Watauga Shelter. This shelter was apparently closed a couple of years back due to bears getting into food. If you click on the link below and go to the 33min mark you can hear what happened. Apparently a couple of bears came into the shelter and managed to get at least one food bag despite it being hung. They also destroyed 2 tents looking for food. At the end he notes that rangers were made aware and are likely closing that shelter again. It sounds like these two have already associated humans with food beyond the foraging in dumpster stage. It would seem a convenient place for rangers to set up and deal with them directly, IMO.




https://youtu.be/BfbE1cGuNaM

[Miel]

Oh dear.

Could they be tranquilized and relocated to some kind of bear sanctuary instead?

[Venchka]

Oh dear.

Could they be tranquilized and relocated to some kind of bear sanctuary instead?

The folks using the shelter?
Wait. The bears?
Isn't that shelter used by walk in, non hikers? Said in my most PC voice.
Why isn't the shelter posted about food storage and bears? And/or provide proper hanging hardware?
Or move the shelter?
People make problem bears.

Wayne

[Traveler]

The folks using the shelter?
Wait. The bears?
Isn't that shelter used by walk in, non hikers? Said in my most PC voice.
Why isn't the shelter posted about food storage and bears? And/or provide proper hanging hardware?
Or move the shelter?
People make problem bears.

Wayne

We tried that here once, but people kept waking up and wandering into HoJo's for something to eat.

[Malto]

The shelter was closed when I went through on Thursday, signs everywhere. There was another snatch and grab just over the dam on a poorly hung food bag.

[Pedaling Fool]

This shelter (and surrounding area) is basically a party spot for all the locals; I wouldn't be surprised if people actively feed those bears and that activity makes for the worst case in habituated animals -- they become totally fearless to humans and not only associate humans with food, but they expect to be fed.

[misterfloyd]

when I went through last thanksgiving, I was told by a local that it was a local party spot.

Anyone with eyes could see it. There was garbage in the lake, surrounding areas, everywhere.

I realized it was closed. It was also closed for a long period.

This has been reoccurring for years.

It really would not surprise me if it was closed, deconstructed, and eliminated altogether.

I say that since area wise, there is not another place to put a shelter. at least one that would eliminate the problem.
Floyd

[Miel]

The folks using the shelter?
Wait. The bears?
Isn't that shelter used by walk in, non hikers? Said in my most PC voice.
Why isn't the shelter posted about food storage and bears? And/or provide proper hanging hardware?
Or move the shelter?
People make problem bears.

Wayne

I just don't see the need to kill things unless there is an absolute need.

To paraphrase the Passover seder, why is this shelter different than all other shelters? Why are the people who use this shelter different than all other hikers? (I'm not being sarcastic. I honestly don't know. I hope there is a way to keep both the people and the bears alive. Up here in Massachusetts, we've had couple of instances where the Staties were trigger happy when it came to bears in suburban backyards - kill first, tranquilize no.)

[Traveler]

I didn't see a post advocating killing anything or anyone.

[Pedaling Fool]

I just don't see the need to kill things unless there is an absolute need.

To paraphrase the Passover seder, why is this shelter different than all other shelters? Why are the people who use this shelter different than all other hikers? (I'm not being sarcastic. I honestly don't know. I hope there is a way to keep both the people and the bears alive. Up here in Massachusetts, we've had couple of instances where the Staties were trigger happy when it came to bears in suburban backyards - kill first, tranquilize no.)
Already answered above, it's a party spot for locals. These bears are inundated with things to eat. No different than giving people handouts, they not only become dependent on them, they come to expect them as if it's theirs.

[Gambit McCrae]

another great example of why shelters need to be built(if they are going to be built), at least a mile or 2 from a road. Drunks and weekend partiers aren't going to walk that far to party, and Hikers do a better job (for the most part), of protecting their food.

[Miel]

Already answered above, it's a party spot for locals. These bears are inundated with things to eat. No different than giving people handouts, they not only become dependent on them, they come to expect them as if it's theirs.

So sorry. Thanks to you and misterfloyd. I was writing my post while the two of you had posted yours.

Traveler - When the OP said the rangers should deal with it, that it what I assumed, killing. Catastrophic thinking on my part.

[Tipi Walter]

Bear encounters on the trail and in the woods---I've had my share of them and even stayed up late one night to protect my food. (Like a griz guards his kill?).

When a bear does something not "politically correct" it is usually murdered. Or the forest cops get it wrong and murder a couple bears hoping to get the right one.

When a person goes out in the forest he is subject to various types of accidents. ACCIDENTS. Falling, lightning strikes, falling trees, drowning, hypothermia, food poisoning, mouse attacks (yes, once had a mouse bite me on the finger as I slept), and Bear Attacks. It's all part of "wilderness" travel. You take away the bears and the chance for a bear attack and you take away wilderness.

When someone dies on a highway in a car wreck, do we permanently close the road? Point is, accidents are part of highway car travel. Negative bear encounters are accidents and are part of forest travel.

[Uncle Joe]

I don't have a particular problem with eliminating habituated bears if circumstances require it. Maybe someone can correct me but over time at Yosemite better food management eliminated the problem and habituated bears died off. I heard many years ago that nuisance bears from GSMNP would be relocated to the Cohuttas. Probably made sense back in that day when there were few tourists making their way into that wilderness. I guess my point is relocation would seem a better first option. Tag it, relocate, if that bear finds it's way out and back into trouble perhaps then take it down. I don't like that option but I understand it.

[JumpMaster Blaster]

The folks using the shelter?
Wait. The bears?
Isn't that shelter used by walk in, non hikers? Said in my most PC voice.
Why isn't the shelter posted about food storage and bears? And/or provide proper hanging hardware?
Or move the shelter?
People make problem bears.

Wayne

Agreed. Any shelter that becomes a party spot for locals more than hikers in itself becomes a "nuisance" and should be demolished. Tear it down, put in a water spigot or something and call it a day.

[JumpMaster Blaster]

Already answered above, it's a party spot for locals. These bears are inundated with things to eat. No different than giving people handouts, they not only become dependent on them, they come to expect them as if it's theirs.

Hmm, that's quite the statement about society. :-?

[Venchka]

I'm sticking to my original thought: Relocate the knuckleheads using the shelter and mistreating the wildlife.

Wayne


Sent from somewhere around here.

[Venchka]

Hmm, that's quite the statement about society. :-?

Totally factual if you ask me. But nobody asked.

Wayne

[rafe]

Already answered above, it's a party spot for locals. These bears are inundated with things to eat. No different than giving people handouts, they not only become dependent on them, they come to expect them as if it's theirs.

Nice little dog whistle. C'mon and say what you really mean. ;)

[martinb]

A trail shelter by a road? Never been to this particular one but if it's that close, it should have never been opened in the first place. Many wild areas in the east suffer from too much easy accessibility.

[Lone Wolf]

Oh dear.

Could they be tranquilized and relocated to some kind of bear sanctuary instead?

how about tearin' down the damn shelter and ban camping from 321 to wilbur dam rd. very simple

[Miel]

how about tearin' down the damn shelter and ban camping from 321 to wilbur dam rd. very simple

ITA. I didn't realize that was an option. Would much prefer that to killing or relocating bears.

[Miel]

While on the topic of bears ... please PM me if you are interested in helping a suffering polar bear in Argentina. His name is Arturo. No money requested to be involved, just letter-writing or Tweeting or signing legitimate petitions on his behalf, or joining a FB group to offer your ideas. He is dying from his environment there, a zoo that should be shut down. Even the hippos don't get enough water. There are better zoos in the north willing to take him, but this zoo won't release him. He was born in captivity, so rehab into the wild may or may not be feasible. (Animals taken from the wild into captivity then rehabbed, like cetaceans, tend to do great when they are returned home; one or two exceptions does not support the pro-cap position.)

Trail bears and zoo bears cannot speak for themselves (in human language). We must speak for them (like y'all's idea to tear down that shelter).

[Halfblind]

When I was thru hiking last year I met a couple who live in the area and they warned me to be alert for bears. I asked if bears were really that bad and if there were a lot of bears in the area? The local resident said "in the past few years the US Forest Service has been relocating bears to the area" so my guess is some of these "nuisance" bears may have already associated humans and bear bagging and shelters with food. How relocating a "nuisance" bear with a learned behavior to a new location with the same stimulus factors present and hoping for a different outcome is beyond my expertise. I agree with a lot of other posters MOVE THE SHELTERS further from the nearest road not the bears.






/

[peakbagger]

Moving problem bears doesn't work up north. It may work in areas where the bear population is less than optimal due to other issues but in NH and Maine, there are too many bears. Generally bears that raid shelters (or dumpsters) have decided that its easier to go after human food than the wild foods they should be eating and become human habituated. Generally when those bears get trapped and trucked they get dumped in areas with stable bear populations. Bears maintain territories and when a new bear is dumped in their territory, they will quickly get attacked until they leave. The nuisance bear generally has poor skills to find local food so it will get chased and slowly starved and eventually end up as road kill or back in civilization. Some have been known to travel in excess of 100 miles to return to their old territory. The F&G folks know the best way to deal with a nuisance bear is to kill it quickly but PR wise, most of the public think the relocated bear will live out it life in the woods so F&G traps and trucks.

Several years ago I read an article that claimed that the return of the black bear population down south was related to the penalties for selling bear organs being strengthened and made a federal crime. Back 25 years ago bear poaching was reportedly a major issue down south as apparently the cash was good and the penalties minimal. Once the penalties were ramped up, the poachers moved into other less risky cash trade.

Messy campers are the cause of bear issues and once a bear is human habituated from just a few free meals, that bear will be a problem for years as bears will return back to potential food source for years.

[Lugnut]

how about tearin' down the damn shelter and ban camping from 321 to wilbur dam rd. very simple

Ding, ding, ding ....... We have a winner!

[Traveler]

I'm not sure how easy it is to tear down or build new shelters on the AT. Thought its a protected footpath, some sections of it and its appurtenances may be more solidly protected than others. Certainly there is a case to be made for removing this shelter or moving it a few miles away. However, time and money would be serious obstacles if there are no statutory issues like national registry or national park inclusions.

Seems to me the ATC has a Ridge Runner who may be a perfect candidate for a transfer to THIS shelter that would put his talents and alleged behavior to much better use. Dissuading party types from staying long can be difficult, but from the sounds of this fellow, he is perfect for the challenge.

[Pedaling Fool]

It seems obvious here to me that the most egregious way to habituate an animal would be to actively feed it, i.e. not just leave out food, but to throw food at it. This seems to me as the quickest path to causing an animal to lose fear of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if many bears in this area haven't been fed by humans and not necessarily hikers.

However, there are other ways to habituate them, obviously. Granted those other ways take longer before the animal completely losses its fear of humans, but over time it does happen. Simple fact is, just being in their habitat, as we hikers are, and not providing any threat over time causes them to lose fear. Look at this video from Yellowstone, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4cp8zWMcnk

I don't think relocating will do anything, unless you relocate it far, far away, but that costs money and it's just passing off your problems to someone else. However, even if you relocate it to an area will there are no humans around, that bear is probably destined to die, since it has become so accustomed to living out of its natural way of life. (see below video).

As of now the only option is hunting, to re-instill fear. Check out this video on translocating bears https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QulZwPbw_58#at=40

The only other method I see as a way to manage bears, besides hunting, is come up with some non-fatal way to cause them extreme pain and fear when they exhibit behavior that shows little fear towards humans.

[Gambit McCrae]

how about tearin' down the damn shelter and ban camping from 321 to wilbur dam rd. very simple

I agree 100%. Remove people before disturbing the bears. More education, Enforce the rules in the area and tear the dam thing down, every single year it has this problem.

[WingedMonkey]

Put down your cameras.

Turn off your video capture for your vlogs.

Pick up the nearest rocks or logs or what ever and throw it at the bears near shelters.

Probably too late for this spot, at least for this year.

[Traveler]

Put down your cameras.

Turn off your video capture for your vlogs.

Pick up the nearest rocks or logs or what ever and throw it at the bears near shelters.

Probably too late for this spot, at least for this year.

Probably more passive dissuasion is the better way to shy bears away from shelters, like waving arms, shouting, banging sticks or rocks together. banging on pots, and that kind of thing. Throwing sticks or rocks at them (unless they are directly threatening you) can trigger the flight or fight reaction. The former is what we want, but the latter can happen incredibly fast if they feel they are being attacked.

[Traillium]

Moving problem bears doesn't work up north. It may work in areas where the bear population is less than optimal due to other issues but in NH and Maine, there are too many bears. Generally bears that raid shelters (or dumpsters) have decided that its easier to go after human food than the wild foods they should be eating and become human habituated. Generally when those bears get trapped and trucked they get dumped in areas with stable bear populations. Bears maintain territories and when a new bear is dumped in their territory, they will quickly get attacked until they leave. The nuisance bear generally has poor skills to find local food so it will get chased and slowly starved and eventually end up as road kill or back in civilization. Some have been known to travel in excess of 100 miles to return to their old territory. The F&G folks know the best way to deal with a nuisance bear is to kill it quickly but PR wise, most of the public think the relocated bear will live out it life in the woods so F&G traps and trucks.

Several years ago I read an article that claimed that the return of the black bear population down south was related to the penalties for selling bear organs being strengthened and made a federal crime. Back 25 years ago bear poaching was reportedly a major issue down south as apparently the cash was good and the penalties minimal. Once the penalties were ramped up, the poachers moved into other less risky cash trade.

Messy campers are the cause of bear issues and once a bear is human habituated from just a few free meals, that bear will be a problem for years as bears will return back to potential food source for years.

+100 for all of peakbagger's comments. Except that up here in Ontario, relocated bears often move further than 100 miles — and return to their learned dependence on human foolishness.

[Diamondlil]

another great example of why shelters need to be built(if they are going to be built), at least a mile or 2 from a road. Drunks and weekend partiers aren't going to walk that far to party, and Hikers do a better job (for the most part), of protecting their food.

Locals WILL hike in a mile or more from the road to party. Having grown up in the country, we had to walk miles into forested areas to get to a great lake or stream to group camp with friends in high school, or when older on long weekends, and there is no place else to go have fun, kick up your heels and be stupid, it will be done.
I am older now, I know better, but some people just can't be taught.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WingedMonkey]

Throwing sticks or rocks at them (unless they are directly threatening you) can trigger the flight or fight reaction. The former is what we want, but the latter can happen incredibly fast if they feel they are being attacked.

When have you seen that happen an the AT?

[mateozzz]

Moving problem bears doesn't work up north. It may work in areas where the bear population is less than optimal due to other issues but in NH and Maine, there are too many bears. Generally bears that raid shelters (or dumpsters) have decided that its easier to go after human food than the wild foods they should be eating and become human habituated. Generally when those bears get trapped and trucked they get dumped in areas with stable bear populations. Bears maintain territories and when a new bear is dumped in their territory, they will quickly get attacked until they leave. The nuisance bear generally has poor skills to find local food so it will get chased and slowly starved and eventually end up as road kill or back in civilization. Some have been known to travel in excess of 100 miles to return to their old territory. The F&G folks know the best way to deal with a nuisance bear is to kill it quickly but PR wise, most of the public think the relocated bear will live out it life in the woods so F&G traps and trucks.

Several years ago I read an article that claimed that the return of the black bear population down south was related to the penalties for selling bear organs being strengthened and made a federal crime. Back 25 years ago bear poaching was reportedly a major issue down south as apparently the cash was good and the penalties minimal. Once the penalties were ramped up, the poachers moved into other less risky cash trade.

Messy campers are the cause of bear issues and once a bear is human habituated from just a few free meals, that bear will be a problem for years as bears will return back to potential food source for years.

I remember a story about a bear near the Hartford, CT airport. They tagged it and took it away to New York. A few months later it was back.

[saltysack]

I agree 100%. Remove people before disturbing the bears. More education, Enforce the rules in the area and tear the dam thing down, every single year it has this problem.

Yep or simply require a bear can to camp in that section...this would cause 99% to pass on thru!!!!

[nsherry61]

Some years ago, while I was working in Denali National Park, the rangers had a regular bear behavior modification where they would address human food habituated bears by setting up fake camps and then shooting the bears with rubber bullets until they associated human food with pain. They had very high success rates. Has anyone considered that sort of intervention here?

[Traveler]

When have you seen that happen an the AT?

Personally, I've not. Anecdotally and video only. I've not experienced throwing rocks at hikers either, but I would presume that has the same possibilities.

[Pedaling Fool]

It seems obvious here to me that the most egregious way to habituate an animal would be to actively feed it, i.e. not just leave out food, but to throw food at it. This seems to me as the quickest path to causing an animal to lose fear of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if many bears in this area haven't been fed by humans and not necessarily hikers.

However, there are other ways to habituate them, obviously. Granted those other ways take longer before the animal completely losses its fear of humans, but over time it does happen. Simple fact is, just being in their habitat, as we hikers are, and not providing any threat over time causes them to lose fear. Look at this video from Yellowstone, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4cp8zWMcnk

I don't think relocating will do anything, unless you relocate it far, far away, but that costs money and it's just passing off your problems to someone else. However, even if you relocate it to an area will there are no humans around, that bear is probably destined to die, since it has become so accustomed to living out of its natural way of life. (see below video).

As of now the only option is hunting, to re-instill fear. Check out this video on translocating bears https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QulZwPbw_58#at=40

The only other method I see as a way to manage bears, besides hunting, is come up with some non-fatal way to cause them extreme pain and fear when they exhibit behavior that shows little fear towards humans.


Some years ago, while I was working in Denali National Park, the rangers had a regular bear behavior modification where they would address human food habituated bears by setting up fake camps and then shooting the bears with rubber bullets until they associated human food with pain. They had very high success rates. Has anyone considered that sort of intervention here?
That's what I alluded to above, look at the above video, posted here>>>>: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QulZwPbw_58#at=40