Is it too much to ask?
November 2, 2010 – 5:59 PM CDT
Is it too much to ask hunters to look for ribbons and collars? Probably less than 25 out of the 10,000 bear hunters will even see a radio-collared bear. In our study area where hunters will be alerted about the dozen or so radio-collared bears, maybe a half dozen hunters will see one. Total hunters in the study area between Ely and Tower are probably less than a hundred.
Are hunters required to look twice at other game before they shoot? That is best answered by William Dilks, a Minnesota hunter who posted an eloquent, factual comment on Facebook today. He wrote,
“I'm a hunter and I live in Minnesota. I'm going to comment again on the hunting issue, as I said in a post a few days ago, a hunter needs to clearly identify the target animal and the kill spot. The hunter needs to take enough time to do this if the hunter wants to quickly and humanely kill the target animal. This whole concept is not new, in Minnesota there are deer hunting zones that require that you can only kill Buck Deer with visible antlers, the hunter has to take the time and look. A new regulation in South Eastern Minnesota will require that the Buck Deer have four or more points on the antlers, which will take a little more time. My point here is that hunters already have to take the time necessary to properly identify their target animal, sometimes you only get a very quick view of the animal, but you can't just shoot and look later. You have to properly identify your target, even if that means you have to pass up a possible shot, which I have had to do many times, just like any other hunters. As a pheasant Hunter I can only take male (Rooster) pheasants, and when 10 pheasants come squawking out of the cover and some are hens, I have to take the time to identify the rooster or not shoot. I'm also a duck hunter. Some ducks are not legal to harvest. In the dim dawn of the day, you had better take the time to identify the species, and sometimes the sex of duck, even if that means you have to pass up the shot. I cannot stress enough the good hunter wants and needs to clearly see and identify the kill spot on the animal they’re intending to harvest, which means you have to take the time to carefully identify and place your shot or not shoot.”
That makes me ask why giving protection to a few radio-collared bears wearing ribbons is so hard to decide.
Having to look twice to check for a radio-collar and ribbons is not much of an inconvenience to hunters. The bright ribbons are hard to miss and are plenty durable. Hunters will be alerted to the presence of radio-collared bears in our main study area because of the signs we put up on all the roads. Hunters there could be further alerted about the research, ribbons, and collars by letters from the MN DNR to every hunter who draws a permit for this area. The DNR sent out such letters in 2009, and hunters were interested and cooperative. None of our radio-collared bears were shot. In 2010, the DNR skipped the letter, and two were shot. We heard the letter was scrapped in 2010 for budget reasons. If they would protect bears and send out such a letter in the future, we would help pay, perhaps partly with donations from you.
We hope Dr. Garshelis is effective in influencing administrators to protect radio-collared bears in Minnesota. We believe the meeting is this week, but we don’t know the date. We also hope his efforts to reduce people’s fear of bears were effective on The Colbert Report four days ago http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/thu-october-28-2010-maira-kalman.
Dave was also good enough to share more information with us today.
Lynn,
Thanks for checking with me on this. Archery kills are 18-20% of the harvest, and muzzleloaders are about 2%. Crossbows are insignificant as they are only legal for handicapped hunters.
I think the point to make is that protection of collared bears would have little impact on hunters. Hunters would normally be “looking twice” to ensure they have a good shot. The markings we put on are so obvious that it requires no extra effort to see them. My argument is that we are not asking hunters to do anything more than hunt normally. The responsibility for making the bears highly visible is ours, as researchers.
I think we also have to acknowledge – and this is where you and I differ – that people will make mistakes no matter how visible the markings are. Those who do are not criminals, and should not be treated as such. I think your signs posted in the area will help prevent people from making a mistake in the “excitement of the moment”. As for a letter from the DNR – certainly if this goes through, hunters will be amply warned.
We do dens in Dec, Feb and March.
Can you refer me to the Ontario study with the much higher wounding rate?
Dave
Again, if any of us erred related to this, please do not post comments about it.
On another subject, for the past several days, when we click to enlarge pictures in the updates, nothing happens on Facebook unless they are viewed through the ‘Notes’ tab, but they do enlarge on bear.org. To see view the updates on bear.org; look at the top of the home page, hover on Lily & Hope, click on Research Updates.
The engineers and technicians working on the den cams are sending many emails back and forth. The principals are located in South Africa, Pennsylvania, Florida, England, and Minnesota. They are considering simple solutions and enhanced options, depending upon what they can make work. Complicated options that might not work yet this year will be on the table again next winter as technology improves.
Your work for Ely’s Schools is within 10 days of a win. With our lead of 3,026 to 1,252 votes over second place, we’re betting no one can catch us.
We ate more of your goodies today. Thank you for all you do.
—Lynn Rogers, Biologist, Wildlife Research Institute and North American Bear Center