Mt. Rogers and area closings

[JPritch]

I've seen zero action to address what has now become a trouble bear problem (I'll give you that it was a people problem that started it). It's long past due to start menacing the problem bears like they do out West. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding this, but a moratorium on camping is supposed to cause the bears to unlearn their behavior? I'm no bear expert, but that doesn't seem likely. Neither does making the camping ban permanent. So what's gonna give?

Is the following part of the statement an indication that action against the bears is forthcoming?: "We expect additional measures to address the escalating bear activity will be announced and implemented soon."

[TNhiker]

Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding this, but a moratorium on camping is supposed to cause the bears to unlearn their behavior?

i think the idea is that the bear would move on and find a different food source.......

thats kinda what the GSMNP does-----shuts a site down for a little while, and hope the "problem" bear move on and finds another source...........the Park does put up a dummy tent and a trail camera and makes observations............then based on those observations, they determine how long a site will be closed.....

[SawnieRobertson]

i think the idea is that the bear would move on and find a different food source.......

thats kinda what the GSMNP does-----shuts a site down for a little while, and hope the "problem" bear move on and finds another source...........the Park does put up a dummy tent and a trail camera and makes observations............then based on those observations, they determine how long a site will be closed.....

That is very interesting. In Rocky Mountain NP a group of naturalists would arrive where the bears had ventured into human territory and follow them back to their own home grounds, blasting big guns into the air, not harming the bears. I do not know what happened with that practice because I moved away by the next season.

Bears an inquiry.

[bigcranky]

Talked with a USFS ranger today. He said they were looking at several options for the future, but nothing's been decided. (We talked about various ways other places with bear problems deal with it -- require canisters, food hanging systems like Georgia, permanent food storage boxes, etc. -- but this was general conversation, not a list of proposals. No idea what they will decide.)

One issue is that no one has seen the bear in three weeks, including people who have been camping up in that area. (Not clear if these are rangers/ridge runners, or people ignoring the camping ban.)

I've been backpacking up there for 25+ years and never even saw a bear. Never had an issue with food, mostly slept with it -- few places to do a good solid hang anyway. Since we mostly do weekend backpacking trips in the area, it's probably easiest for me to just buy a canister and use it. The extra couple of pounds is trivial on a weekend hike.

[Dogwood]

Your not including the bears.

Every time they get human food it brings them closer to being a junkie. Closer to death.

Its not about the people

It does involve people's behavior!

Im musing the strongly advised canister usage in that area to be upgraded to a mandatory status if bear human encounters and bears being habituated to human food doesnt improve. Beware being habituated to human food absolutely does involve placing responsibility on human behavior.

[soilman]

It does involve people's behavior!

Im musing the strongly advised canister usage in that area to be upgraded to a mandatory status if bear human encounters and bears being habituated to human food doesnt improve. Beware being habituated to human food absolutely does involve placing responsibility on human behavior.

I think you are right. There were similar types of problems with bears in Georgia before the bear canister became manditory.

[MuddyWaters]

the problem begins with a ridiculous # of people using the area. Bear problem or not, it is disheartening to encounter such high #s in backcountry sites anywhere .

Just like blood mtn, require a cannister, #s of campers will likely fall substantially. Enforce limits on group size. Busloads should be prohibited.

[EdP]

The U.S. Forest Service, Virginia State Parks, the Regional Wildlife Manager from the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and the Mt. Rogers A.T. Club are working together to address the situation.

This strikes me as political BS. VDGIF has a black bear management plan with strategies for dealing with problem bears. You can Google it. With a bit of research you will also see that previous VDGIF bear management plans included the relocation of problem bears to the Mt Rogers area. 210 bears have been introduced into Mt Rogers since the late 1980's, many or all of which had exhibited problematic behavior elsewhere. Given that VDGIF created the current problem by relocating problem bears to Mt Rogers, I look forward to an equally brilliant solution. Meanwhile, one of the gems of the southern Appalachians remains closed to overnight recreational use.

Something else you will see in the 2012-2021 Plan is that VDGIF recognizes that "Bears are very adaptable and will modify their behavior to take full advantage of their environment. Often, this trait can lead to bears becoming conditioned to human-related food through access to intentional or unintentional feeding and may lead to habituation (loss of wariness) to humans." and "Even infrequent rewards serve to perpetuate such behavior." These statements make it clear that when we read the postings about bears that say "Bears prefer natural food sources," that it is NOT true.

[wolfywolfy]

Actually they did. I was there in June and there were signs up everywhere. People were ignoring them. People were still camping and still attempting to bear hang and the bear was still getting their food.

[wolfywolfy]

Whoops, I mean to reply to this quote "Surprising they haven't tried the simple solution. Posting at each access point (with a copy of the map shown in the links to make it easier to see which area they describe and where you are in relation to it):

The section of the AT between x & y has had increased bear presence. If you plan to camp in this area make sure you have appropriate items to protect your food and gear from bears.

Then let everyone choose what to do - if they choose to ignore it and something happens that's their fault, not anyone else's."

[wolfywolfy]

Talked with a USFS ranger today. He said they were looking at several options for the future, but nothing's been decided. (We talked about various ways other places with bear problems deal with it -- require canisters, food hanging systems like Georgia, permanent food storage boxes, etc. -- but this was general conversation, not a list of proposals. No idea what they will decide.)

One issue is that no one has seen the bear in three weeks, including people who have been camping up in that area. (Not clear if these are rangers/ridge runners, or people ignoring the camping ban.)

I've been backpacking up there for 25+ years and never even saw a bear. Never had an issue with food, mostly slept with it -- few places to do a good solid hang anyway. Since we mostly do weekend backpacking trips in the area, it's probably easiest for me to just buy a canister and use it. The extra couple of pounds is trivial on a weekend hike.

Same here, since I like to frequent there I just went ahead and bought a bear can.

[EdP]

Last Friday an elk guide and hunter were attacked by two grizzlies while field dressing an elk in Wyoming. The hunter was injured and the guide was killed by one of the bears. As of yesterday, two days after the attack, the Wy Game & Fish Dept. had trapped the problem bears using foot snares and euthanized both bears. This was a different situation from what is going on in Mt Rogers but shows how swiftly effective action can be taken when wildlife managers take action instead of sitting around gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands. Unlike the grizzly population which is quite small in the lower 48, black bears are very populous and expanding rapidly. Removing a couple of problem bears is not going to hurt the population but may well save a hiker from getting mauled or killed in the future.


Of course I don't think removing the problem bears is the whole answer. If backpackers don't change their habits to prevent bears from accessing their food, there will just be a couple of new problem bears next year. Changes to hunting laws are also needed to allow methods that better maintain the bears aversion to man.

[Time Zone]

Whoops, I mean to reply to this quote "Surprising they haven't tried the simple solution. Posting at each access point (with a copy of the map shown in the links to make it easier to see which area they describe and where you are in relation to it):

The section of the AT between x & y has had increased bear presence. If you plan to camp in this area make sure you have appropriate items to protect your food and gear from bears.

Then let everyone choose what to do - if they choose to ignore it and something happens that's their fault, not anyone else's."

The shortcoming in that line of thinking is that you can do everything right, but end up paying the price for bad food storage habits of someone who passed through a day or two prior to you. That's likely what happened to the OH teen and his father who were backcountry hammocking in GSMNP in 2015. Rangers determined they had done everything right w/r/t food, but they were still attacked.

It would be nice if the conscientious among us weren't affected by the bad habits and carelessness of others. But like on the streets and highways, it's unfortunately not the case.

[TNhiker]

The shortcoming in that line of thinking is that you can do everything right, but end up paying the price for bad food storage habits of someone who passed through a day or two prior to you. That's likely what happened to the OH teen and his father who were backcountry hammocking in GSMNP in 2015. Rangers determined they had done everything right w/r/t food, but they were still attacked.

and thats likely the same reason for the spence field attack of 2016...

[TNhiker]

This was a different situation from what is going on in Mt Rogers but shows how swiftly effective action can be taken when wildlife managers take action instead of sitting around gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands

the trouble is the backlash that comes as a result....

its a "damned if you do...........damned if you dont" situation...

people here in the southeast hate and will be vocal about when a bear is put down..............for any reason.....



and just this last week, in GSMNP, they had to put a bear down......

they are unsure if the bear attacked and killed the guy, but they found human DNA on/in the bear.....

so it got killed...

and of course, the Park gets backlash as a result of it....

[EdP]

Yes, you are totally correct about the backlash from a certain quarter who think that bear lives are more important than human life. We just have to quietly listen to their opinion and then go do what needs to be done. I am in favor of ensuring a healthy black bear population in the wild, but that population has to be limited well within the carrying capacity of the environment AND kept respectful of humans. We designated the parks, wilderness areas, national recreation areas, etc. to set aside places for human recreational activities. What use is it if we then allow predatory wildlife that can threaten us to keep us from using those places? North Carolina has designated bear sanctuaries - areas in which bear hunting is prohibited - to help ensure recovery of black bear populations. The efforts at bear recovery have been successful to the extent that it is now a problem. What is happening in the east with bears is the same as what happened with the wolf reintroduction in the west. Before appropriate controls are implemented the population targets far exceed what is sustainable in harmony with humans and both species suffer as a result.



I would like to point out that we are repeatedly told that we have no predatory bears in the east, but this bear killed and fed on the man, so we know it is untrue.

[Uncle Joe]

GSMNP has a tenuous situation because they don't allow hunting in the park. And now Mt. Rogers appears to as well. What we're seeing is areas that don't have at least some limited hunting are dealing with problem bears.

[TNhiker]

We designated the parks, wilderness areas, national recreation areas, etc. to set aside places for human recreational activities

we also designate these areas for the conservation and what not of animals...............not just humans...

I would like to point out that we are repeatedly told that we have no predatory bears in the east, but this bear killed and fed on the man, so we know it is untrue.

are you talking about last week's bear in the GSMNP?

if so, the cause of death has not been determined....

it is true that the bear fed off of him but it has not yet as of monday afternoon, been determined if the bear killed him.....

[Venchka]

“What is happening in the east with bears is the same as what happened with the wolf reintroduction in the west.“
Some facts please. What problems have been associated with the wolf program in the GYES?
I was in Yellowstone in 1987, 1989 and May of 2018. I only heard and read praise for the wolf program in Yellowstone.
Is there another side to the story?
Wayne

[Hosh]

The pendulum has swung the other way. Wolves are increasing in population and are again killing livestock in larger and larger numbers.