Bear baiting poses risks to visitor safety

Bait stations use food to attract bears. This one has a combination of bread and dogfood with sweet syrup poured over the top.

More than 70% of national parklands in Alaska are available to hunters. One hunting practice--bear baiting--creates a conflict between providing access to hunters (with practices allowable under the State of Alaska regulations) and providing for visitor safety.

There are a number of things that make bear baiting problemmatic in parks:

• Bait stations are basically "feeding the bears"--exactly what we don't want to see in parks because bears become food conditioned.
• Bears defend bait stations as they would any other food source, and can be dangerous for hikers or other visitors in the area.
• Bait stations are more likely to bring bears and people into contact and create conflicts, which could result in public safety risks, bears killed in defense of life and property, or both.
• Mitigating these risks is difficult and most strategies are insufficient to separate bears and people.

This article further explores the issue and reports the results of a survey of expert opinon on how to address it.

Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses

Abstract

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.

Lafferty, D. J. R., S. M. Trujillo, G. V. Hilderbrand, A. Sears, P. Christian, D. Payer, and M. Hake. 2024. Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. PLOS ONE 19(11): e0312192.