Bear learns how to crack Garcia cans at Yosemite

I'm not sure that there's ever been a bear attack on a human in Yosemite. I could be wrong here. Or any in the Sierra that I've ever heard of.

Bear habituation is a huge problem around Lake Tahoe, where passions run high on how to deal with problem bears. But again, no bear attacks on humans, despite thousands of encounters.

"Problem bears" in Yosemite are not bears that maul people, they're bears that break into cars and steal unattended food from campsites.

so if you take "increased risk of death by bear attack" out of this discussion, does it change how people think about the issue? Now we're killing bears for stealing food, period.

And by the way I'm totally sympathetic with homeowners and others around Tahoe who want to eliminate problem bears. I'm not sure if push came to shove what I'd do in their situation.—Wait, if I had kids around, I know that I'd eliminate the bear.

But the orphan cubs are sad.

"The correct solution is to remove all vendors from the park and blow up Hwy 120."

Maybe easier to just let the Rim fire burn itself out? ;0)

No, Dena I place a higher value on animal life, rather than human recreation. I guess you don't.

This animal did nothing more than raid someones food, no injuries or deaths. As many here seem to think that that should result in this bears death, I disagree.

"The last word in ignorance is one who says of an animal or plant: What good is it?"

^quote by Aldo Leopold

If you don't know who Aldo Leopold was, then I guess we have little left to discuss.

So animal life is only validated by human appreciation? I think they exist for themselves. If it comes to their lives or my recreation,…well I guess you can "appreciate" my response.

Is it okay to kill and eat meat?

"Is it ok to kill and eat meat?"

That would be the next question, Jerry. I still have not fully figured that out yet…

"… many here seem to think that that should result in this bears death, I disagree."

Hypothetical Question?

You would rather spare this bear, even though it might result it the taking of an untold number of bears in the future, if this bear does indeed directly or indirectly "teach" other bears?

If it was 75+ years ago that bear would be dead already. What if Yosemite bears started to associate humans with guns instead of food? Rubber bullets and guns for all in the backcountry. Would you rather pack that or a more robust canister?

""You would rather spare this bear, even though it might result it the taking of an untold number of bears in the future, if this bear does indeed directly or indirectly "teach" other bears?"

Brings up an interesting philosophical question beyond wildlife management. Do you do something that you believe is bad (shoot a bear, kill a person, fight a war etc.) in order to prevent something worse (more bear problems, rape, genocide etc). One side of the argument is that is better to shoot one bear to save others or that its better to shoot criminal to stop a rape or to shoot a dictator to stop a genocide.

On the other hand you could say "I'm not responsible for what other people or bears do, that is beyond my control. I do draw the line at shooting bears, shooting criminals, fighting a war etc. I will behave morally in situations I can control and hope for the best."

Principled people have taken variations of both positions but few hold position with complete consistency. Some situations are so morally screwed up I'd prefer not to take part. For example whose side would would you have taken when Stalin and Hitler where fighting each other? How do you pick between genocidal dictators? On the other hand I do like having police I'm glad we defeated Nazism (even though that meant working with good ol Stalin).

How does this connect to bears, I lost track.

Edit – I meant Hitler and Stalin in World War II good catch Tom.

Dean L brought Leopold to this discussion If you don’t know who Aldo Leopold was, then I guess we have little left to discuss.

Those who don’t know but are curious could start with A Fierce Green Fire.

There is a documentary film with the same title but like most film adaptations it might have more emotional punch than the book but less meat.

Here is an interview with the author of that biography. That is part 1 of a three part interview and contains links to the other two parts. Part 2 includes questions about Leopold’s complex relationship with hunting. I find it interesting to speculate if we’d have the Leopold we know without him being a life long hunter (and I normally avoid speculation like the plague!).

After that introduction one could progress to Leopold’s writings

"I'd like to see steel storage boxes (discretely) positioned in all camping locations in problems areas of the Sierra."

One bear in Kings Canyon actually found a weekness in the steel storage boxes and amd managed to get food out of them. The park had to modify all the boxes. I have not heard of any other problems with them since.

As to bears dropping a canister over a cliff there are 3 sollutions other than killing or relocating the bear.

1 don't but the canister near a cliff. Bears cannot carry the canisters. They can toss them or push them to the cliff.

2 Place the canister in a narrow gap between several rocks so that the canister can only be moved by lifting it out.

3. Secure it to a tree with a light weight cable or strong rope.

"For example whose side would would you have taken when Stalin and Russia where fighting each other?"

Uh…I'm confused.

"How do you pick between genocidal dictators?"

Go after the one with the smallest army. Better yet, mind your own business unless you and yours are the intended genocidees.

"or to shoot a dictator to stop a genocide."

That would be an easy question to answer if you only had to shoot the dictator. Trouble is, they usually have an army you have to deal with first, and then lots and lots of people get shot, including a bunch of your own. That's a problem we generally seem to have trouble figuring out, but at least we had the sense not to mess with Good Ol' Joe, who had an army of about 10 million at the end of WW II. And he had the sense not to mess with us. All in all, a decidedly moral decision on both sides, given the likely outcome.

"Principled people have taken variations of both positions but few hold position with complete consistency."

Probably because a lot of situations like the ones you describe are extremely complex and involve a lot of contradictory moral principles. In general, I would say it is better to avoid killing in all but the most extreme situations, but I doubt I could apply that principle in all cases.

"How does this connect to bears, I lost track."

From the bear's perspective, if we're arguing amongst ourselves, we're not shooting at him. Which is probably why I'm jerking your chain a little. ;0)

As long as we're distracting us from shooting bears

I don't think wars have much to do with genocide

I think they have to do with getting political power to the leaders so they can pillage the economy. Sort of like Smedly Butler talked about – who the right wingers tried to lead a coup against FDR but Butler ratted them out instead.

Tom I cleared up the dumb typo, yeah those are complex issues. Most moral questions seem to involves some version of "Whats pragmatic" vs. "What's principled." My guess is because no one has the ability to create a perfect solution.

Getting back to the bear here would be my questions

1. What actually happened to the canister? If the bear got his mouth in a half opened canister as suggested we don't have a super smart bear we just have dumb campers, nothing new there, similar things have happened before and the officials can manage that.

2. If he really did break a canister how? If he pushed it off a cliff that's manageable to some extent. If he side swiped it into a tree and smashed it we have a bigger problem.

Edit – I'd be fine with Nick's idea of blowing up Hwy 120, can we blow up the Blue Ridge Parkway too?

According to my students, the person hired to monitor and tag the bear aid it was knocking them over a cliff, then going down to eat the contents. Nothing half opened to begin with.

FWIW, the bear recognized the lady with a rifle, and took off when it saw her. Some negative reinforcement has been done, but not enough to stop the canister predation.

Jerry-I thought this was a discussion about bears getting into containers? I didn'tquestion you or anyone else about the ethics of eating animals.

Greg-so far one bear pushed a container over a drop off, no deaths or injuries. I think calls for it to be put down are premature.

Hypothetical question? Why don't we kill all the bears right away, so there would be no chance any bears will ever pick up this behavior?

Ken-What may have happened 75+ years ago really doesn't matter. Then all nearly all predators were shot on site. I would like to think that humans have advanced since then to deal with these sort of problems without resorting to such methods.

As for now,technology should be able to devise an better canister: kevlar, carbon fiber, improved cross linked polymers, that would survive drops.

A question, can bear canisters also be suspended or is that a violation of regs in NP and forests?

RATS! That's exactly the bear can I own.

(Do you think that is a good excuse to buy a new bear can? ;o)

"Gee Honey, a bear at Yosemiter learned how to open this bear can and he's teaching all his friends how to do it."

Dean, the word I got was the bear has done this repeatedly. Thus the Park hiring someone to target that particular bear. They wouldn't do that for a single incident.

"A question, can bear canisters also be suspended or is that a violation of regs in NP and forests?"

Dean, I haven't heard that you can't hang your bear canister. Certainly not in Glacier or Yellowstone, where nearly all campsites have a bear pole. I once asked a head ranger at Rocky Mountain NP why they don't provide bear poles, so that we don't have to carry a canister. The reply was that creating bear poles harms trees. Given that logic, maybe they would frown upon someone that found a way to hang a bear canister from a tree limb. Who knows how the various bureaucrats are apt to think?

Eric-I'm going to start shooting all those songbirds that get me up before the dawn, noisy little buggers. And those squirrels that keep burying nuts in my yard. I had to have the turf doctor out 3 times last month to fix the grass! ;)

My understanding is that hanging a bear can is not recommended because if the can is restrained the bear may be able to work on it long enough to get into it, or be able to crush it against the tree trunk. The cans are sized so that a bear cannot get its jaws around the can to either carry it or crush it (which is why you can't have a really small bear can). Bears can't carry a can, so their only means of moving it is to push it or roll it along the ground. Standard recommendations are also not to place your can where a bear could start it rolling away. I like to put mine in bushes when I can – it can't be rolled out of there.

Well there is always the electrified bear canister. I have been looking at this thing for a while, and waiting for positive reviews. Of course, it would have to be approved for use in troublesome areas. The achilles heel is the battery. What if the battery goes dead or shorts out? Interesting concept though.

http://www.rutalocura.com/palisade.html

"Ken-What may have happened 75+ years ago really doesn't matter. Then all nearly all predators were shot on site."

Exactly my point. Then the bears were afraid of us. Now in the parks we don't shoot them and have become a curiosity to them that brings food along.

We have changed and now give positive reinforcement too often. The bears are just being bears.