Single Page
Mayor Sullivan is betting Anchorage bears will behaveIn May, a federal judge in Utah awarded $1.95 million to the family of an 11-year-old boy killed by a black bear in 2007. Meanwhile, Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan is still betting the city’s brown bears will behave. But how much is it worth to him? And whose money is he wagering? In his decision, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball found the U.S. Forest Service liable for failing to close a campsite and not warning the victim’s family of a bear attack at the same campsite earlier the same day. The judge ruled the agency would not have been at fault if they had posted signs warning of the earlier attack on a gate leading into the area and cordoned off the tent site. But someone dropped the ball. Judge Kimball found no evidence that the family had been warned, verbally or by a posted sign, and concluded the fatal attack was “foreseeable” and that “the whole area could have been closed off by simply closing the gate” blocking a 1.2-mile-long access road to the dispersed camping area. I wonder what Judge Kimball would think of Rover’s Run. Last summer, when Mayor Sullivan had a similar opportunity to act when a biker was mauled by a brown bear on Rover’s Run, a two-mile-long trail in Far North Bicentennial Park, he refused to close the trail. He did allow his staff to post a few warning signs, however. A year later, Sullivan is still obstinately refusing to heed the advice of local experts -- including his parks department, wildlife biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the interagency Anchorage Bear Committee (ABC) -- as well as two municipal advisory boards. The management coordinator for Fish and Game’s Southcentral region, Gino Del Frate, recently met with municipal staff. He reiterated last year’s recommendation: close Rover’s Run from June 15 through October 10, the period when spawning salmon attract a high level of brown bear activity along Campbell Creek. The mayor refused to consider it. The go-to trail for maulingsAnchorage has hundreds of miles of publicly maintained trails, located mostly in Chugach State Park and several large municipal parks and greenbelts. Of these, Rover’s Run has become the go-to trail for anyone wanting to be mauled by a bear. That dubious distinction used to belong to the Albert Loop Trail, in Chugach State Park near the Eagle River Nature Center, where three hikers were mauled by brown bears during a four-year period in the late 1990s. Park rangers have closed the Albert Loop Trail in late summer and early fall every year since. No one has been attacked or injured on that trail in 13 years. In comparison, three people -- two bikers and one runner -- have been mauled on Rover’s Run in the last three summers. The trail was closed by then-Mayor Mark Begich after the second person was mauled in mid-August 2008 and remained closed until mid-October, when brown bears were less likely to be attracted by salmon spawning in nearby Campbell Creek. Begich also closed Rover’s Run in 2009, from mid-June to mid-October. No bear attacks occurred on the trail during the closures despite continued use, mostly by bikers. However, after Mayor Sullivan refused to close the trail in summer 2010, a third person was mauled on June 15 at the intersection of Rover’s Run and the Gasline Trail. If Rover’s Run users had been mauled in the past three years at the same rate when the trail was closed as when it was open, at least six people would have required emergency medical attention. Of course, the real world isn’t that simple. Some bikers and others “poach” closed trails, finding them less crowded and getting a buzz from flaunting authority, so risky behavior continues even though a trail is closed. Also, wildlife biologists shot one of the two brown bears that mauled someone on Rover’s Run in 2008, and her cubs were taken to a zoo. So she wasn’t available to attack anyone else. And the most recently injured biker was using the Gasline Trail, which wouldn’t have been closed because it does not parallel the creek for miles like Rover’s Run. A couple of inaccuracies and/or misleading statements in this piece that I can’t let go without comment. First, to say “Some Anchorage residents believe bears shouldn’t be “allowed” to roam city parks. Shooting the bears is an oft-expressed solution. These folks are in the minority, according to a survey commissioned by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,” is, at best, a poor interpretation of the survey results. According to the executive summary in the survey, “Although residents, for the most part, think it is acceptable to have bears in Far North Bicentennial Park, majorities nonetheless support legal, regulated hunting of bears to control their populations in the park.” It is further noted in the survey that “a large majority support having wildlife authorities destroy specific bears at their discretion when the bears pose a threat to human safety.” Second, if I look at the most recent map of Anchorage I see adjacent and to the east of Rover’s Run is Basher Drive. Continue beyond Basher Drive, and not too far away, maybe 1 mile tops, is “Prospect Heights” neighborhood (Basher Dr., Midden Way, Atelier Dr., etc….). I don’t know how old the maps are that Sinnott is using, but this neighborhood has been around since at least the early-80s. While Far North Bicentennial Park is less developed than what most might consider a “city park”, but to portray it as a part of a vast expanse of “wild country” is hyperbole. I (and I believe the majority of Anchorites), would like to see the city take a more pro-active approach in wildlife management. Closing Rover’s Run may prevent harmful or fatal human-bear encounters on that particular trail, but it does nothing to prevent the bear population from expanding throughout the park and preventing human-bear encounters from occurring on other multi-use trails. Until a better wildlife management plan is implemented, I have to agree with the Mayor that it’s up to people to use good judgment when using the trails. There are many things a person can do to reduce their risk of a negative encounter with a bear to almost zero. If you live in bear country you should become bear aware, and that includes making smart choices about where and when you recreate. Running and biking are especially dangerous activities in bear country because it is easy to surprise a bear when you are moving fast. Make noise, travel with a buddy, stay tuned in to your surroundings and avoid areas where you know bears will be present (like Rover's Run). Never run away from a bear. Carry bear spray and know how to use it. Sour grapes. If Sinnott had not been rewarding bears for miss behaving for the last two decades, we in Anchorage would not have the problem Anchorage has today. Sinnott is the real problem not the bears. What about the Gasline, South Bivouac, Spencer and Tour of Anch Trails? All these cross or run next to Campbell Creek. I'm not real comfortable w/just closing trails and the focus on Rovers doesn't solve the problem. There could easily have been an attack on Spencer last year as there was much more bear sign on it than Rovers. I like the idea of limited bear patrols and teach these critters to fear humans. This article shows way sinnott is no longer employed with F&G any more.he has always tried to control people instead of bears. I have lived here all my live and when growing up on the homestead on Campbell creek we never had bear problems . if a bear came around and was a problem you took it out. I now live in eagle river valley and i still don't have problems with bears because i use the old tried and true methods . I do give F&G Sinnott reveals his prejudice early when he claims that Sullivan "allows" the posting of "a few" warning signs. Next Sinnott displays supernatural mind reading ability when he all-knowingly states that Sullivan "refused to consider" closing Rover's Run. How the hell does he know that? How can Sullivan be guilty of both "allowing" warning signs and "refusing to consider" closing the park? Well, I've considered it and the answer is obvious. Post warning signs in order to mitigate liability and let people decide for themselves if the risk is worth the reward. Where's the call for closing the Seward Highway? Talk about a dangerous trail! Just the blind, ideological idiocy of another megalomaniacal Republican politician determined to demand dictatorship over democracy, intelligence, or common sense. Tom Fink's heir dedicated to destroying all social services and government operations by starving them to death or refusing to perform the legal functions of an elected official to protect the public and the local ecosystem. All done to fill the pocketbooks of the millionaire+ residents in their gated mansions looking down on the working rabble occupying the bottom of the Anchorage Bowl. Another Hitler wannabe flailing away against anyone who dares to oppose him until, finally, the political establishment ends his tyranny. All of it reflective of a mindset fouling the municipality for too long where wealth and privilege receive full benefits and all others are subservient to the upper class retention of every unearned penny while the municipality descends into ruin. The slaughter on the trails of both human and animal will continue while the spoiled child of wealth and privilege throws his tantrums on the floor behind his desk. The perfect ruler for too many brainwashed, government-haters cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. CONservative Fascism at its most vile. I'm a good, bunny hugging liberal, but I'm going to trot out the tired argument that bears shouldn't be protected in Bicentennial Park. I'm not talking about not tolerating bears, but us Alaskans shoot bears. We shoot them for meat and fur and just to rid ourselves of them when they are a nuisance. Bears, smart bears, end up modifying their behavior around humans with boom-sticks. All I have to do is look at Sinot's map, and it's clear that shooting bears on Rover's Run isn't going to negatively affect the apex predator ecosystem. If we don't shoot bears on Rover's Run, it should be because we desire having bears at Rover's Run whom aren't afraid of humans. That's an odd desire. I guess that Bicentennial Park bears bring the redneck out in me. This is intended as a non-critical question. Rick, When did pre-emptive aversion techniques for bears go off the table for the parts of creeks like Campbell that have trails next to them? Admittedly the cost of patrolling would be higher, but if bears that show themselves are made to re-learn (non-lethally) their previous fear of humans in general (from the bad old days of "kill on sight") on the limited stretches of the creeks where human trails parallel them, won't that in a few bear generations lead to a decrease in bear/human interaction on those trails in particular and in town in general? The urban bears don't need to (and shouldn't) die (I like having critters, particularly apex predators, around) but they'd go back to avoiding people in areas where, for good or ill, people predominate. Is that impossible cause bears are so independent and ornery (like people =) ) or simply impractical due to cost? Matthew, All too often, the general public would rather blame the government for an error that was self-induced. Urban critters are great! But, we must remember they are still wild animals. |
Comments