Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses.
Bear baiting is authorized in 12 states, 2 territories, and 8 provinces across North America. In Alaska, more than 70% of lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS) are open to some form of hunting including National Preserves where non-conflicting state wildlife hunting regulations apply. Ala...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312192 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850134237584293888 |
|---|---|
| author | Diana J R Lafferty Sarah M Trujillo Grant V Hilderbrand Andee Sears Peter Christian David Payer Mary Hake |
| author_facet | Diana J R Lafferty Sarah M Trujillo Grant V Hilderbrand Andee Sears Peter Christian David Payer Mary Hake |
| author_sort | Diana J R Lafferty |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Bear baiting is authorized in 12 states, 2 territories, and 8 provinces across North America. In Alaska, more than 70% of lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS) are open to some form of hunting including National Preserves where non-conflicting state wildlife hunting regulations apply. Alaska state regulations authorize bear baiting with few restrictions on the type or amount of bait that can be used to attract bears; although, restrictions related to bait station distance from roads and trails (¼ mile) and cabins/dwellings (1 mile) apply. However, National Preserves host diverse recreational activities in addition to hunting (e.g., hiking, camping, fishing). Because road and trail access to and within Alaska National Park and Preserve lands is limited, hunting and non-hunting-related activities often occur in the same areas-increasing potential for conflict between potentially non-compatible activities. We developed questionnaires about potential impacts on NPS lands, which were distributed to 14 NPS and 27 non-NPS bear research and management experts. We collated respondents' opinions regarding consistency of bear baiting practices with state and federal mandates for wildlife management. While minor differences in expert opinions were noted, findings from this study are unequivocal. Bear baiting is functionally equivalent to feeding bears, bears may defend a bait station similar to how they would defend a carcass, and bear baiting can lead to human food-conditioning in bears. Bear baiting also increases the likelihood bears will be killed in defense of life and property, and alters natural bear behaviors and ecological processes. Further, current mitigation strategies to minimize public safety risks and potential property damage are inadequate. For example, because bears are known to defend food resources, avoiding food conditioning of bears is central to the educational messaging of all entities that manage bears. In short, bear baiting is a harvest practice that challenges harmony between State mandates, which emphasize hunter opportunity, and NPS mandates that include public safety and natural processes. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-ca3255a60657474399280079e9d93fd4 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-ca3255a60657474399280079e9d93fd42025-08-20T02:31:45ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032024-01-011911e031219210.1371/journal.pone.0312192Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses.Diana J R LaffertySarah M TrujilloGrant V HilderbrandAndee SearsPeter ChristianDavid PayerMary HakeBear baiting is authorized in 12 states, 2 territories, and 8 provinces across North America. In Alaska, more than 70% of lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS) are open to some form of hunting including National Preserves where non-conflicting state wildlife hunting regulations apply. Alaska state regulations authorize bear baiting with few restrictions on the type or amount of bait that can be used to attract bears; although, restrictions related to bait station distance from roads and trails (¼ mile) and cabins/dwellings (1 mile) apply. However, National Preserves host diverse recreational activities in addition to hunting (e.g., hiking, camping, fishing). Because road and trail access to and within Alaska National Park and Preserve lands is limited, hunting and non-hunting-related activities often occur in the same areas-increasing potential for conflict between potentially non-compatible activities. We developed questionnaires about potential impacts on NPS lands, which were distributed to 14 NPS and 27 non-NPS bear research and management experts. We collated respondents' opinions regarding consistency of bear baiting practices with state and federal mandates for wildlife management. While minor differences in expert opinions were noted, findings from this study are unequivocal. Bear baiting is functionally equivalent to feeding bears, bears may defend a bait station similar to how they would defend a carcass, and bear baiting can lead to human food-conditioning in bears. Bear baiting also increases the likelihood bears will be killed in defense of life and property, and alters natural bear behaviors and ecological processes. Further, current mitigation strategies to minimize public safety risks and potential property damage are inadequate. For example, because bears are known to defend food resources, avoiding food conditioning of bears is central to the educational messaging of all entities that manage bears. In short, bear baiting is a harvest practice that challenges harmony between State mandates, which emphasize hunter opportunity, and NPS mandates that include public safety and natural processes.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312192 |
| spellingShingle | Diana J R Lafferty Sarah M Trujillo Grant V Hilderbrand Andee Sears Peter Christian David Payer Mary Hake Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. PLoS ONE |
| title | Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. |
| title_full | Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. |
| title_fullStr | Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. |
| title_short | Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. |
| title_sort | bear baiting risks and mitigations an assessment using expert opinion analyses |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312192 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dianajrlafferty bearbaitingrisksandmitigationsanassessmentusingexpertopinionanalyses AT sarahmtrujillo bearbaitingrisksandmitigationsanassessmentusingexpertopinionanalyses AT grantvhilderbrand bearbaitingrisksandmitigationsanassessmentusingexpertopinionanalyses AT andeesears bearbaitingrisksandmitigationsanassessmentusingexpertopinionanalyses AT peterchristian bearbaitingrisksandmitigationsanassessmentusingexpertopinionanalyses AT davidpayer bearbaitingrisksandmitigationsanassessmentusingexpertopinionanalyses AT maryhake bearbaitingrisksandmitigationsanassessmentusingexpertopinionanalyses |