In Lake Tahoe, California, a clever black bear became an internet sensation after being caught on camera tearing down a wall to free other bears trapped inside a building.
The dramatic scene unfolded on February 25th, when nature enthusiast Toogee Sielsch captured footage of the bear ripping away a boarded section of the building. The video, posted to Instagram which quickly went viral, shows the determined animal creating a large enough opening for two other bears to emerge before it followed suit.
“The anatomy of an urbanized black break-in, eviction, and seclusion, all within 25 minutes! I responded from home, and I live 6.2 miles from this spot. We’ve had to keep this family of three honest, and try and discourage urban life four times in the last three months.”
Sielsch reported that the entire event, from the initial tearing to the bears’ departure, took only about 25 minutes. He believes the bears responsible might be the same family spotted exploring the same building back in January, suggesting a potential familiarity with the location.
While the cause of the initial “entrapment” remains unclear, the incident highlights the importance of securing potential attractants, like food or trash, around properties to deter curious bears. Wildlife officials also emphasize the need for residents and visitors to be aware of their surroundings and maintain a safe distance from these powerful animals.
However, the story has also garnered significant positive attention. Many online viewers praised the bear’s “heroic” actions, viewing its behavior as a sign of potential altruism within the animal kingdom. While the extent of the bear’s intentions remains open to interpretation, the video serves as a reminder of the intelligence and resourcefulness of these fascinating creatures.
Ultimately, the Lake Tahoe bear incident serves as a unique reminder of the complex relationship between humans and wildlife. It highlights the responsibility we have to coexist with these animals while also appreciating their remarkable capabilities.
Photo courtesy of Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Washington’s gray wolves would lose their endangered species status under a reclassification proposed by the state.
Gray wolves in Washington, currently listed as an endangered species under state law, would be reclassified as a sensitive species under a rule proposed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
WDFW is seeking public input until May 6 on the proposed rule, which would reduce criminal penalties for killing wolves, among other changes.
The proposal by WDFW staff to downlist gray wolves is the result of a periodic status review that is required every five years for protected wildlife species listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive.
The agency said it based its decision on 14 years of data and trends on Washington’s wolf population and on a new population model developed at the University of Washington.
“Wolves in Washington have made significant progress toward recovery since their original state endangered listing in 1980, when there were no known breeding wolves in the state,” said Julia Smith, WDFW’s endangered species recovery section manager.
“This recommended reclassification to sensitive reflects that progress and most accurately describes the current status of wolves in Washington, while also recognizing that wolves are not established in western Washington and should remain protected,” Smith said.
Under state law, an “endangered” species is defined as “seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state.” A “sensitive” species is defined as “vulnerable or declining and likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.”
In the western two-thirds of Washington (including the Methow Valley) where wolves are currently listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the change in the state listing would not affect wolves’ federal status. Wolves in the eastern third of the state, west of Highway 97, are not protected under the ESA (see related story) and are managed by WDFW based on their listing status under state law.
Some differences
Downlisting wolves from endangered to sensitive would maintain prohibitions on hunting and malicious and intentional harassment of gray wolves. Differences in management and protection for wolves listed as endangered or sensitive include provisions related to criminal penalties, permits for lethal control, and actions that can be taken in critical habitats.
For instance, penalties for killing an endangered wolf range up to $5,000 and/or one year in jail. If wolves are listed as sensitive, the maximum penalty for killing a wolf is $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail.
Permits for lethal control by livestock owners (including family and authorized employees) are generally not issued in the case of endangered wolves unless WDFW does not have the resources to address control issues. However, permits to kill wolves may be issued to livestock owners (family and employees) on private lands and public grazing allotments if wolves are listed as sensitive.
For wolves listed as endangered, activities such as harvesting, road construction or site preparation within one mile of a known wolf den site is prohibited between March 15 and July 30, and prohibited with one-quarter of a mile from a den site at other times of year. For wolves listed as sensitive, not such restrictions apply.
WDFW said the timeline for consideration of the proposed rule includes a meeting on March 15-16 of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, which will include a briefing on the proposed rule change, followed by a pubic hearing.
On April 18-20, the Fish and Wildlife Commission will hear WDFW staff present results from the state’s annual gray wolf management report, which includes an estimate of wolf population throughout the state. The commission will discuss if data from the report should be considered when deciding whether to reclassify wolves in Washington.
At a meeting on June 19-20, the Fish and Wildlife Commission is tentatively scheduled to make a decision on the proposed rule to downlist wolves.
Population growth
The first documented breeding pack in Washington since the early 1900s was the Lookout Pack in the Methow Valley, confirmed in 2008. The most recent population estimate, as of December 31, 2022, counted a minimum of 216 wolves in 37 packs with at least 26 successful breeding pairs.
The Methow Valley was home to four gray wolf packs with a total of 31 wolves, according to the 2022 wolf count. The Lookout, Chewuch, Loup Loup and Sullivan packs all had successful breeding pairs.
In a summary of its periodic review of wolves, WDFW noted that the wolf population in Washington has increased each year since the state began monitoring wolves. Northeast and southeast Washington wolf population growth has slowed due to wolf reoccupation of most of the available suitable habitat, WDFW said. The 2022 annual population revealed a continued increase in wolf packs and successful breeding pairs in the North and Central Cascades as well as novel presence in the South Cascades.
Documented mortality annually averaged 10% of the known population from 2008-2022, according to WDFW. Legal harvest on tribal lands is the largest source of Washington’s documented wolf mortality from 2008-2022 (36% of documented mortality), followed by lethal removal by WDFW in response to conflicts with livestock (24%), and poaching (11%). Human-caused mortality during 2008-2022 constitutes 87% of known wolf mortality, according to WDFW.
Wolves in Washington are managed under a state conservation and management plan that sets goals for population recovery. Wolf population growth in Washington has largely occurred in the absence of federal protection, WDFW said. The majority of Washington wolf packs (an average of 79% of all packs 2011-2022) are in the eastern third of the state, where wolves have not been federally protected since 2011.
Wolves in that part of the Washington, as well as nearby states like Idaho, will be important to the viability of wolves statewide. “Continued population growth and range expansion will depend on the robustness of source populations in eastern Washington (as well as neighboring states and provinces) and cooperative management to ensure sources of human-caused mortality do not impede recovery,” WDFW said.
Public comments on the WDFW proposal may be submitted until 11:59 p.m. on May 6. Members of the public can submit comments on the proposed rule in several ways:
• Go to publicinput.com/sepa_graywolf and submit a written comment.
• Email graywolf2024@publicinput.com.
• Call 855-925-2801 and enter project code 6505 to leave a voicemail.
• Mail written comments to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, attention Wildlife Program, P.O. Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504.
Editor’s note: Because of recent reports of dogs being caught in the Cody area, the Enterprise decided to delve into the issue by presenting three different views of the activity.
Trapping is either respected or detested … or somewhere in between, depending on the commenter.
Sharing their divergent views were a pro-trapper from Clark, a con-trapper from Cody and a retired Cody High School science teacher who calls himself a non-trapper.
Pro-trapping
“Trapper discretion” is a message delivered by E.J. Kelley, who recommends that trappers be sensitive about where they place traps and what types and styles they use, especially in popular recreation areas.
“It makes no sense to put a trap by a trail,” he said.
At the same time, the lifelong professional and certified trapper-educator offers advice to those who recreate in open spaces, especially with dogs and especially unleashed ones.
“There’s the need for public awareness that you can encounter traps anywhere in this country, especially fall and winter,” he said. “And you need to know how to release traps.”
Kelley recommends bringing tools such as a cable cutter and trap-release gadget, noting “You can carry most of them in a fanny pack.”
Trapping is legal in Wyoming – “It’s in the constitution,” he said — and subject to regulations, though not every place is appropriate. “because we can doesn’t mean we should.
“There are slobs in every profession — people who don’t adhere to the rules, a small handful.”
However, to him, responsibility lies on both parties.
“Trappers should know the rules and use discretion,” he added. At the same time, there’s the “pet-owners’ responsibility for their animals, to know the risks and know how to release an animal from a trap or snare.”
When using foothold traps to catch furbearers, Kelley said he must check them within 72 hours and will often visit them more frequently to preserve the pelts that he prepares and sells.
“If your dog is caught [in a foothold trap], it doesn’t matter,” because it can be released with no injuries, he said. “They don’t suffer. People have humanized animals. They’re a thousand times tougher than people.”
He compared being caught in a foothold trap to being “foot-cuffed,” adding that the animals won’t chew off their legs to escape, which he called “a myth.” And he’s seen healthy coyotes surviving with stumps on two legs after the other two were shot off.
The best-selling, average-sized foothold trap in the country is an MB 550 with smooth jaws that open 5 ½ inches wide and “don’t cut or break bones,” Kelley said. “Trap manufacturing advancements have come a long way.”
Snares, which can kill quickly, require checking once every seven-day period. They have “break-away devices” so larger animals – such as deer, elk and stock – can pull out of them, he said. Others have a locking device that can be backed off to release a captured animal.
As to the suggestion that trappers post warning signs near their devices, he dismissed the idea because it would invite tampering or theft.
To Kelley, trapping serves as the No. 1 tool for wildlife management – “furbearers are plentiful because of trappers,” he said. “We harvest a surplus of animals to maintain a healthy population. Furbearers are a renewable resource.
“The cruelest thing we can do to wildlife is fail to manage it.”
Trapping’s image, Kelley said, has been negatively influenced by Hollywood’s distortion of the truth and its depiction of huge traps that sever legs. It’s also given a bad image by those who have no knowledge about the practice.
“It’s a profession I’m very passionate about,” Kelley said. “The anti-trapping community is based on emotions and lies. Anti-trappers will never change their minds, and we won’t either.”
Con-trapping
Kathy Kyle of Cody is a dog owner who’s concerned about her pet’s safety during outings in the countryside. She offered a number of reasons to oppose trapping, starting with this scenario:
“Imagine what it’s like for a wild animal to be caught in a trap. The animal, let’s say a mink, is going about her daily business when suddenly immobilized by a sharp pain. She can’t move, and can’t understand why not or what’s happened to her. As she struggles to free herself, the trap or snare cuts deeply into her flesh. Terror, incomprehension and pain fill every hour of the 2-7 days she will remain caught until the trapper is legally required to check his line. “The mink freezes in the cold; she urinates and defecates on herself. She becomes parched and desperately hungry. She may try to gnaw her own paw off if caught in a leg-hold trap. She’ll be helpless if a predator finds her.”
The mink’s experience could be a pet’s, Kyle said.
“Let’s say your dog makes a bad decision to have a day out exploring on his own. He encounters a trap — no hands, so he can’t free himself. He’s too far from home for you to hear him bark. He doesn’t come when called. After days of searching, you still can’t find him. Eventually, a man comes to check his trap and finds a dead dog. He’s not going to go looking for the owner, is he?”
Kyle said she sees no justification for trapping because, “today, demand for furs is met by fur farming, just as demand for meat is met by livestock farming. … But laws and policies in the United States still allow humans to inflict days of torture on wild animals for ‘recreational’ purposes.”
Fur trapping is considered recreational because it doesn’t provide a livelihood in the U.S., she said. Kyle cited a Humane Society International report that in 2018, nearly three million animals were trapped for pelts in the U.S. https://www.hsi.org/news-resources/fur-trade/, although the pelts were sold for pitifully small prices, from $8 for beaver to $50 for coyote in Wyoming.
Compare that to the economic value over $308,000 for a bobcat in Yellowstone National Park (www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/open-spaces/2018-04-06/a-look-at-the-dollar-value-of-a-bobcat-its-pelt-vs-alive), she said, because the chance to see wildlife is the number one reason people visit the park. Further, the National Park Service reports that the money spent by the 4.9 million visitors to Yellowstone in 2021 “supported 8,736 jobs in the local area and had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $834 million.” www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/220629.htm
“Trappers prey on wildlife, and also on the rest of us. They consume a public resource — wildlife — for a very small personal gain,” Kyle said. “And they waste a large portion of that resource because their victims are not only the fur-bearing animals they have a license to trap.”
Meanwhile, the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report 2022 found that Earth’s wildlife populations have declined by an average of nearly 69 percent since 1970. https://livingplanet.panda.org/en-US/
“We can’t afford to waste wildlife populations for the sake of allowing a few individuals to continue a cruel, anachronistic and economically irrational activity,” Kyle said.
Civilization has advanced since the days of gladiator contests and bear baiting, she continued.
“We now view those who torture and kill animals or people for enjoyment as psychopaths,” she said. “I am not suggesting that trappers are psychopaths, but that they — and we in permitting their activity — turn a willfully blind eye to the profound, and profoundly unnecessary, suffering that trapping inflicts on wildlife — and sometimes on pets.”
Instead of trapping, Kyle cited various options to experience “… wildness and wilderness, or to test ourselves against nature. Go hiking, climb a mountain, take up skydiving — take a real risk instead of preying on animals without a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against you.
“Trapping uses cruel and primitive technology to kill wild animals whose fur we don’t need and whose meat we don’t eat. It’s not a testament to manliness or tradition. It’s a barbarism that should be outlawed.”
Non-trapper
Trapping is a controversial issue that elicits both positive and negative responses, so “readers should decide for themselves,” said Dan White, retired Cody High School science teacher, who trapped as a teenager. He’s also a self-described “non-trapper,” neither pro nor con the practice.
Trappers are attuned to their locations, to what’s going on in wild places, he said. They’re aware of the animals’ dens, their tracks.
“Trappers enjoy getting out. They see more detail,” he said. “It makes you more aware of your environmental surroundings.”
What they do is “part of the consumptive use of wildlife,” White added. A frequent visitor to Africa, he compared that continent and Wyoming for their shared abundance of and attitudes toward wild animals. “…They put a value on wildlife – economic and social – through scientific management. Successful management has allowed wildlife to thrive.”
Trappers can see an economic benefit. For example, White said, an adult bobcat brings $700, while the price of a coyote pelt has varied, from $20 to $400, depending on trends. “China and Russia are big markets,” he noted.
State Game and Fish officials keep counts of trapped furbearing animals and determine seasons. “Their populations are not at risk,” he said. “If the seasons are set properly, it doesn’t hurt the overall population.
“Babies are born all the time and are available to fill in. “[Trapping] doesn’t make less of the animals.”
Some of the trappers’ prey are very wary about getting caught, and some seem rare because few are sighted, but they can simply be nocturnal and elusive. Still, he admitted, it’s not “fair chase.”
Regardless of whether the prey are hunted or trapped, White noted, “they’re going to die, one way or another. Animals usually die an uncomfortable death.”
If their numbers get too high, disease could invade the population and lead to mortality, he continued. Many good-hearted people think wildlife should be left alone, he said, but they need to understand “it doesn’t work like that.”
For animals considered predators – such as red fox, coyote, raccoon, porcupine and skunk – there are few rules, said White, who noted that the commercialization of the pelts is “distasteful to some people.”
However, name-calling and demonizing are not the answer. “Extremists on both sides are not particularly productive,” he said. “Both sides need to get along better.”
“It wouldn’t be a lot of fun to be caught in a trap,” he noted, but traps pose no danger to people. “Dogs getting caught is another concern.”
He acknowledged that many people feel trapping is outdated, cruel, inhumane and painful, and also oppose wearing fur — “and trappers need to understand that.
“And trappers should know that nobody should be trapping around Newton Lakes” north of Cody.
Trappers need to use common sense about where they trap, White said. Still, on the negative side, they do catch and kill non-target animals.
Both sides should take a broader, more scientific, rather than emotional, view of the issue – in White’s words, “There are different ways of looking at the same thing.”
Exposing the Big Game 