Wounding loss
November 8, 2010 – 9:35 PM CST
The information arrived on wounding losses in Ontario. Altogether, the data from Dr. Garshelis from Minnesota, the data from Washington, and the data from Ontario give a more complete picture of wounding than any of those data sets alone. Comparing Ontario and Minnesota is helpful because the habitat is similar and both have baiting. The advantage of baiting is that it gives hunters a clear, close shot to minimize wounding. The idea is to make it easier to pick a killing shot, so hunters don’t wound bear after bear until they shoot one dead.
Ontario asks hunters about wounding so they can add those bears to their kill figures and make sure they are not killing an unsustainable number of bears. They assume that wounded bears will die. Here are their numbers from hunting seasons in 1993 to 1996.
In 1993, 870 (11%) of 7,641 bears that were shot escaped.
In 1994, 970 (12%) of 8,171 bears that were shot escaped.
In 1995, 1,227 (13%) of 9,370 bears that were shot escaped.
In 1996, 389 (6%) of 6,258 bears that were shot escaped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the average, 864 (11%) of 7,860 bears that were shot escaped.
So we wonder how many of the wounded bears died.
Dr. Garshelis’ data from his radio-collared bears help answer that. He found that only 5 (2%) of 270 bears that hunters shot escaped and died. How many escaped and healed? Here, the differences in research methods help provide an answer.
In Ontario, wounding data were collected by asking hunters how many bears they wounded (11%). In Minnesota, wounding data were collected by finding dead radio-collared bears that hunters shot and couldn’t find—only 2%. Very different approaches. If wounding loss in Minnesota is indeed comparable to that in Ontario, considering the similar habitat and hunting methods, it may be that both places have an average 11% wounding rate, of which 2% die and 9% heal.
That would mean good news for Ontario. If 11% of the bears shot escape on the average, and Ontario official assumed that all 864 died, the good news is that only 157 died while 707 healed.
On the other hand, that would mean bad news for Minnesota. If 11 percent of the bears that are shot in Minnesota escape, and if the average known kill is around 3,000, it is likely that 3,371 are shot, of which 3,000 are found by the hunters, 67 escape and die, and 303 escape and heal. That’s more wounding that has been assumed.
And that’s under ideal shooting conditions in Ontario and Minnesota where bears come to bait, linger and eat, and present a number of shots, giving patient hunters a chance to make a quick kill.
That would mean even worse news for Washington where there may or may not have been baiting. The author does not tell us. However, we know that voters banned baiting around the time of his study. The author found that 13 percent of his radio-collared bears were shot, escaped, and died. How many additional of his radio-collared bears were shot, escaped, and healed? If we apply the above ratios to his numbers the wounding rate without bait would be horrific. Comparing 2% dying to 9% healing means that for each bear that escapes and dies in Washington, 4.5 escape and heal. 13% times 4.5 is 58%. Could it be that in the very dense foliage that Dr. Garshelis mentioned for Washington, taking shots at bears that are not at baits results in a 58% wounding rate? That’s a question that should be researched, and it was not addressed in the publication.
Dr. Garshelis mentioned that most of the wounding loss in Minnesota was from archery. It is possible that there is less use of archery in the dense underbrush of Washington State, which would reduce that 58% wounding figure.
Another question. Dr. Garshelis mentioned that he examines bears for wounds in dens. How could wounded bears be missed doing that? Easy. Black bears have amazing ability to heal wounds during hibernation. Finding healed wounds under very dense fur at dens is very difficult. Most wounding in Minnesota occurs in early September in the first two weeks of bear hunting season when most of the bears are taken. By the time Minnesota biologists visit dens, usually in late February or March, but occasionally in December, all but the most serious wounds would be very difficult to find under the dense fur. No blood would show. The wounds would be dry. Only serious wounds would be obvious in dens in spring, like the wounds Dave mentioned a few updates back. Like some we have seen. For example, a female who had the distal half of her lower jaw shot off was plenty obvious, but the wound was dry and healed by the time we saw it in spring at a den back in the old days of tranquilizing bears. More recently, a big male we saw walking around with a bone sticking out of his leg in late September would have been obvious in a den. Very serious wounds can continue to ooze pus for years. However, many of the wounds end up being scars we can find in the fur because we know where to look—wounds we watched heal—wounds that at first dripped blood and then closed up. Some end up being a divot in the skin where the underlying muscle was shot away, but these depressions in the skin would not be obvious at dens when biologists are quickly trying to get weights, measurements, blood samples, and change radio-collars before the drugs wear off. Actually, finding wounds at dens may not be as easy as spotting active bears limping. Some bears carry multiple wounds.
To a large extent, what a researcher discovers depends upon the methods used. Several methods can reveal more than can be learned by one method. In this case, comparing results from the different methods used to detect wounding in Ontario and Minnesota reveals more about wounding, or at least raises more questions about wounding, than either method could do on its own. The tentative conclusion is that the death rate of wounded bears in Ontario is likely lower than Ontario officials assumed, and the wounding rate in Minnesota is likely higher than Minnesota officials assumed.
Again, we join the chorus of hunters who say the way to avoid wounding a bear is to look twice, be patient, and wait for a killing shot. It also gives hunters time to look for radio-collars and ribbons.
We thank Dr. Garshelis for sharing his wounding data, giving perspective on the Washington wounding data, and providing the information that most of the wounding he found is from archery. Dr. Garshelis is one of the leading bear biologists in the world and is often consulted by biologists around the world regarding population estimation and bear management. It is important that his radio-collared bears and ours be protected so we can continue our research.
Again, if any of us erred in any way in this, please don’t post comments.
On another subject, you might want to wait to order calendars. Two more are coming—Lily and Hope, and Ted, Lucky, and Honey calendars. Plus holiday cards and new clothing designs. You can save postage ordering everything at once. For the people who ordered the single calendar already, they are going to put an extra gift into your packages.
Lynn Rogers and Sue Mansfield, Biologists, Wildlife Research Institute and North American Bear Center