Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

On Bears and Food Security Part IV

Because of what I do and where I live, I am often talking with people about the human-wildlife conflict, and am continually surprised by what I hear. There is a lot of talk in the media these days about local eating: the 100 Mile Diet, re-localization, Food Security, Food Sovereignty, and so on. There has even been some B.C. Ministry of Health interest in promoting the aforementioned with their recent ‘access to produce’ initiative. However, the Conservation Service (Ministry of Environment) seems to be at odds with this food security agenda by advising people to cut down their fruit trees whenever there is a bear-human conflict. This issue is the fuel that sparked this series of articles–when I found myself in conversation with some folks from the BC Food System Network who were alarmed by their Conservation Officer threatening them with fines if they did NOT cut down their fruit trees.

It’s a question of food security

While it may sound as if I would have all bears and wildlife destroyed, it is not the case. My position with respect to the human-wildlife conflict is rooted in terms of food security and community/rural survival: we cannot have food security when there are oppositional philosophies being enforced by different Ministries.

What I hope to do over the course of several articles is to examine these key themes and shed light on these common false beliefs. The other articles of this series are:

1. On food safety and bears, part one

2. On food safety and bears, part two

3. On food safety and bears, part three

As ever, I welcome your feedback and comments as they can add to the discussion and help me develop my position.

False belief #4: After all, you are in ‘their territory’

Some readers’ responses to one of my articles about the human-wildlife conflict provide a departure point for discussion of this false belief: “Any thoughts about the fact that you are placing tasty food morsels in the bear’s territory? Why are you keeping fruit trees in bear territory?” … “If you have animals and fruit trees then you are just asking for predators to come”… “Well, you are in their territory so you just have to accept this” (my personal favorite).

The very concept of ‘territory’ is the essential problem.  It is a neat fiction which presumes a boundary between the bears’ ‘territory’ and ‘ours’, and a contractual agreement as to where that boundary-line is. If so, where is it? At the edge of cities? around all rural areas? or should we all move out of the countryside and back into cities… again, where is the edge of the city? At this field, or that fence-line? As with so many issues, this debate is over boundaries, borders, and margins, and yet there is no demarcated boundary to any natural creature’s territory–only constantly changing niches or ill-defined ranges, constantly fought for with tooth and claw.

The idea of identifiable borders is a human invention (viz. Hadrian’s, China’s, Berlin’s, Peach Arch Park and the 49th parallel) and we have difficulty maintaining even those (look at Gaza, or the Mexico/US border, or China and Tibet, or the Northwest Territory now Nunavut, to name a fraction of the infractions). Animals like bears do understand territory and mark theirs distinctively, but that territory is a living, changing thing, depending on each bear’s niche, condition, and the state of the food supply. That food supply is intimately linked to the general bear population; if the food supply or population changes, the bear’s fight for territory becomes more competitive; the delineation and extent of that territory shift and morph under these pressures.

With respect to our current bear problem, a poor summer with few fish or berries coupled with an increase in bear population means their food source is too scarce in their own food shed, so the fight for territory between bears has become more vicious. Consequently, the weaker and younger bears that are denied access to prime habitat are pushed out of what we think of as ‘their territory’ and into ‘ours.’  Easy pickings are chicken houses, fruit trees, gardens and garbage; combined with a policy of ‘non-attractants’ it’s not long before bears consider ‘our territory’ theirs. When we add the fact that people are no longer ‘fighting’ back as we once did against these carnivores, their assumption is understandable. Unlike the bears along the river fishing for salmon, who drive us and each other away in order to protect their food source, we humans didn’t even put up a fight when they came and ate all our chickens, turkeys, and ducks; nor did we complain when they harvested all our carrots, parsley, plums, and pears.

So how do I establish and maintain my border?

A border, however loosely defined, only has existence if both sides acknowledge and maintain it. In contrast to predators’ shifting borders, humans have always grown gardens, had fruit trees, and raised domesticated animals in this valley.  While the bears’ boundary is shifting, our human boundary has always been clearly delineated (mown lawns, driveways, and often a fence, etc.), and we have throughout history educated the animals by trapping and shooting. Everywhere in the world, people have marked their ‘territory’ by shooting and trapping offenders in this way, and thus they have trained predators not to intrude across the humans’ clearly delineated, and relatively unshifting borders. Like dogs, bears and cougars can be trained, and that is why we have a residual idea that those animals have a natural fear of humans. But there is nothing innate about it; it is a learned behavior and a direct result of an ancient human-wildlife conflict in which we have always been engaged.

I have come to understand that the remaining predators need constantly to be ‘trained’ not to come where humans are. One of the reasons that the large predators are coming back into cities in broad daylight, and generally to where humans are, is that we are no longer shooting at them. Consequently, they no longer see us as an equal predator, or even as a threat. Contrary to the misconception that these animals are innately nocturnal, they have figured out that they can even get away with being out in the day time, so every year there are more reports of their daytime marauding on farms, and through garage bins in cities.

The assertion of my blog respondent, that I am in their territory, creates the misconstrued dichotomy of ‘their territory’ versus ‘our territory’, as if humans only ‘belong’ in cities, and that those cities have always existed. However, all North America’s great cities (the same goes for Europe, India, China and so on, though with different predators) were once the bears’ ‘territory’ before ‘we’ decided to stop being hunter gatherers and develop human settlements, based on cultivating crops.

The ‘our territory/their territory’ theory arises from a flawed preservationist philosophy, which mistakenly presumes that bears have a ‘territory’ which we humans have encroached upon, and now drives policy and legislative decisions in British Columbia (and North America in general, as shown in their responses to my blog). 

Am I really ‘in the bears’ territory’ when I am in the confines of my property’? If so, isn’t all of the North American population? And most of the European (or Chinese, or Indian, or African, etc.) population too, for that matter? The reason we have the few agricultural areas we do, is that we’ve shot almost everything that once moved there (hence the European eradication of wolves and bears and the dearth of them in large parts of the U.S. that they fo
rmally occupied), and continue to let the survivors know they don’t belong there anymore. Our food security depends on our making more enlightened land use policies based on historical and biological realities, not these neat, fantastical conspiracies of cartographers.

© Food Safety News
  • Natalia

    It is ridiculous to claim that we “train” wildlife to stay away from our “territory” by killing them. This “training” is simply the elimination of any creature we don’t want around by death – pure and simple –
    If we want to declare a given area “ours” and let other creatures know we don’t want them there, then we should utilize the method by which THEY let each other know their territorial boundaries – namely, BY URINE MARKING THE PERIMETERS OF “OUR TERRITORY”. It’s just plain stupid to think that killing solves the problem, because as soon as you kill the animal(s) you don’t want around, new ones move in who don’t have the “benefit” of your “training” – i.e. they are still alive and still looking for food.
    Is the problem that you are anthropomorphizing these animals, and think that they print up newspapers to tell everyone around that there are serial killers (us) out to get them?
    It has been proven time and time again, in actual field research that animals DO respect boundaries in a language they can understand. On the other hand, using your method of “communication” has ALWAYS resulted in doing nothing about the animals behavior – it just reduces their numbers (and many times to extinction) so that the “problem” SEEMS to be solved.
    If one finds it objectionable to use one’s own urine (by far the best thing) then at any farm supply store one can buy concentrated urine of bobcats and other big predators to spray around – a time-honored protection which farmers and other real country people use successfully – or buy it on the net –

  • Ken Bookmyer

    I would be really interesting to see Natalia try to stop a bear from entering a fifty acre corn field armed with a bottle of urine. The real country farmers I know in Virginia get a damage tag and shoot the bear.

  • James

    I squeeze honey out of a bear…

  • Billy Tucker

    Interesting… is it bear behaviour or human behaviour that needs adjusting; or a combination of both? Whatever happened to “co-existence” between both species? thus securing a food source for both. Is such an arrangement tolerable in the long term? Which takes top priority: the human or bear food source? and Why? Do we humans maintain our age old tradition of plunder and conquer or do we find the balance required to maintain both species?
    Shooting bears is a permanent solution for humans; what solution is it for bears? We humans must be tolerant of other species or we will justify eradication for whatever reason we choose; be it personal safety or food security.