On Feeding the
Bears
George H. Blackford (06/12/2015)
Article
from the
Yellowstone Park Foundation:
A Brief History of Bear
Management in Yellowstone
Early visitors to Yellowstone National
Park developed an interest in the area’s wildlife—especially the bears.
Garbage dumps that attracted bears quickly became a primary tourist
attraction. At the height of the bear-feeding era, hundreds of people
watched nightly as bears fed on garbage. By 1900, Yellowstone National
Park became well known as the place to see and interact with bears.
Over the following decades, the number of
bear/human conflicts increased, along with subsequent nuisance
bear-control actions. It became apparent that the Park’s bear management
policies were not conducive to conservation or safety, but they didn’t
change significantly until 1970.
The following is a brief
timeline of bear management in Yellowstone National Park.
Feeding the Bears
1889: Bears
gathered at night to feed on garbage behind Park hotels.
1902: Official
prohibition against hand-feeding bears.
1910: First
incidents of bears seeking human food along Park roads.
1916:
First confirmed bear-caused human fatality.
Early
Management
1931: Park
began keeping detailed records of bear-inflicted human injuries,
property damage, and bear control actions.
1931-1969:
average of 48 bear-inflicted human injuries and more than 100 incidents
of property damage occurred annually in Yellowstone.
Changes in
Management
1970:
Yellowstone implemented a new bear management program to restore bears
to subsistence on natural foods and to reduce property damage and human
injuries. The new program involved strictly enforced regulations
prohibiting the feeding of bears and requiring proper storage of human
food and garbage. In addition, all garbage cans in the Park were
converted to a bear-proof design, and garbage dumps were closed within
and adjacent to the Park.
Since these
changes were implemented, there has been a significant reduction in
bear-human conflicts:
Decrease in
human injuries from 45 injuries per year in the 1960s to 1 injury per
year in the 2000s.
Decrease in
property damage claims from 219 per year in the 1960s to an average of
14 per year in the 2000s.
Decrease in
the number of bears that must be killed or removed from the Park from
33 black bears and 4 grizzlies per year in the 1960s to an average of
0.4 black bear and 0.1 grizzly bear per year in the 2000s.
Decrease in
bear relocations away from the front country from more than 100 black
bears and 50 grizzlies per year in the 1960s to an average of 0.3
black bear and 0.3 grizzly bear per year in the 2000s.
Conservative
verses Liberal Logic
There are obviously lessons to be learned from the above analysis from
the
Yellowstone Park Foundation that liberals are too stupid to figure
out on their own.
The increase in the number of poor-people/human conflicts along with
subsequent nuisance poor-people control actions over the years have made
it clear that the liberal poor-people management policy of feeding the
poor is not conducive to conservation or safety.
Since humans’ feeding poor people has made poor people dependent on
handouts of human food, if we are to solve our poor-people problem and
reduce property damage and injuries that poor people cause to humans we
must implement a new poor-people management program to restore poor
people to subsistence on natural foods.
This will require strictly enforced laws prohibiting the feeding of poor
people, especially the feeding of poor children since the younger a poor
person becomes dependent on human food the harder it is to learn how to
subsist on natural foods. It will also require the proper storage of all
human food within and adjacent to poor neighborhoods. All garbage cans
within and adjacent to poor neighborhoods must be made poor-people
proof, and all garbage dumps within and adjacent to poor neighborhoods
must be closed as well.
This worked in Yellowstone to control the bears, and it can work in the
rest of the country to control poor people too. All that is needed to
make this happen is the will do so along with the rejection of liberal
logic and the acceptance of conservative logic.
See:
It
Makes Sense If You Don’t Think About It.