Jerry:

>He said that feeding bears is a very good way to prevent bear damage to
>trees.

Yes, I think I mentioned in one of my posts that an ADC-contractor
type had done his own experimenting with this, and analyzed the
comparative costs, years ago, the results being cheaper than killing
them as well as being somewhat more satisfying work.

I kind of have mixed feelings. On the one hand, kill them to placate
tree farmers seems a bit strange, at least when done to the degree
some industry folks have asked for (many would take eradication if
they could get it). Acclimation can be, of course, a problem. Also,
if feeding helps bears survive then it could lead to an artificial
increase in population, though territorial considerations might balance
that out (i.e. it would just result in more bears being pushed out
to marginal habitat, with resultant mortality).

Overall, though, I think it beats using my tax money to shoot them.

>One year he fed 4 bears, the next he had 14.

Yes, and this doesn't necessarily indicate a population increase!
I think bears must have a one-sentence grammar encoded into their
brains: "follow me, free food".

Bear management's a complex issue. I believe the problem with bark
stripping is made worse by fact that large tracts are in even-aged,
young stands. They don't girdle intentionally, it's an artifact
of their stripping bark, so it would make sense that girdling, or
very severe damage, would be likely on a small tree.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza