BEAR BAITING

Somebody call the keepers, some of the inmates are loose again.

Governor Ventura says bear baiting (luring black bears to a feeding site where they may be shot) is “assassination”. The vice president of the Humane Society of the United States is backing Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) who has introduced legislation to ban bear baiting on Federal lands. He (Moran) then says with a straight face the he “tries not to tell rural areas how to make laws and regulations”.

We are told this isn’t “sporting” by people who are committed to eliminating “sport” hunting. Lady biologists tell us that it habituates bears to human scent. We are cautioned that this “extra” food somehow upsets either Mother Nature or the “ecological balance” or perhaps even both.

Just before I was forced from the US Fish & Wildlife Service a manager who found my advocacy of trapping to be a problem tried to embarrass me in a large meeting about trapping and the threatened European fur ban by asking me where I stood on bear baiting. He did this to not only embarrass me but to distract the attendees from the real issue. I will try to share my response to him as best I can recollect it.

The methods of taking bears are the sole domain of state governors. I would respect what methods they and their legislators allow bear hunters in their states to employ. That said if I were King and it was solely my responsibility to regulate bear hunting methods, bear baiting would probably be my preferred method of taking.

The purpose of bear hunting is to achieve or maintain a bear population or a given distribution of bears in that state. Why is bear baiting perhaps the best method to achieve this end? There are many reasons but let’s just name a few.

A.) Bear baiting is probably the most consistent way regardless of weather to harvest X numbers of bears. Year in year out, Y numbers of bear bait sites result in X numbers of taken (killed) bears per Z number of days. States can license and regulate the numbers and location of bait sites to achieve a given harvest.

B.) Unlike dogs, bait sites don’t violate private property. Unlike dogs, the investment in maintaining bait sites is far less financially and time-wise for hunters. Unlike dogpacks, almost anyone at anytime can get a license and try bear hunting to get some bear meat, a bearskin rug, and/or jewelry made from claws or teeth.

C.) When hunters merely have a season where they blunder about for bears, the harvest can be abysmal or too big very quickly due to snowstorms, rain, or other phenomena. Bait sites are if nothing else, consistent for given bear populations.

D.) Bear bait sites are effective in the thickest to the sparsest cover. They are effective anytime of the year.

The best reason for supporting bear baiting was the last one I mentioned. Remember I was giving this little soliloquy at a meeting about making trapping methods MORE HUMANE. Listen up Governor Ventura. Listen up Congressman Moran. Listen up Humane Society poohbahs. Since you all posture about the unfair treatment of the poor critter this one is for you!

E.) The best reason to support bear baiting is to treat the bear in the most humane manner. What, I ask, is more humane than luring a relaxed bear to a site where the hunter is relaxed and able to decide calmly whether he or she wants to take that particular bear? What, I ask is more humane than calmly and accurately shooting a nearby bear through the heart as it does whatever on the pile of old meat or old donuts? The bear dies instantly, the hide receives minimal damage, and the meat is as good as it can be from that particular bear. The likelihood of a crippled bear escaping to die of its wounds is as low as we can make it.

Now I know that some might be surprised that not only am I a caring and sensitive guy but that I presume to defend the poor bear from Governors, Congressmen, and their Humane chums. Well folks, that is the way it is. Like so many of these environmental/animal rights hobgoblins, things are not only different than portrayed but indeed quite the opposite. The ones posturing as environmental/ animal rights advocates have an agenda that has nothing to do with what they proclaim.

The real thing to remember is that, like so many other “feel good” laws, this is not the concern of the Federal government as defined in the Constitution.

It is encouraging the guys like Governor Ventura don’t get reelected. Congressman like Moran should be replaced by Congressmen who proclaim that bears are under state jurisdiction AND OF NO LEGAL CONCERN to the Federal government. We should only elect senators and Congressmen who understand and defend the principle that Federal public lands should comply with the plant and wildlife of the state wherein they exist.

The environmental/animal rights outfits will continue to manipulate such politicians as long as we put them in office. This continuing march of Federal jurisdiction expansion at the expense of state responsibilities established in the US Constitution harms all of us more every day.

Jim Beers

12-27-02

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service wildlife biologist, law enforcement officer, and refuge manager. His is concerned about the increasing accumulation of fish and wildlife responsibilities at the Federal level and it's deleterious effects on wildlife, resource users, and the American way of life.

*Distributed by Hunt4life.com with the permission of the author.