The Ojai Post

The following passage in Nava's report jumped out at me when I read it:

"Also, it was known that a bear (likely this one) had been reported in a nearby neighborhood very recently. At this point the bear was determined to be a threat to public safety and the decision was made to tranquilize the bear."

What is the reason for the passive construction, "it was known"? Who knew this? How did they know it? Was it just a rumor or a positive sighting? That phrase in parentheses "(likely this one)" also calls out for further clarification.

It looks like this "it was known" is what sealed the bear's fate. After all this time and attention, it would be nice to know exactly what was known, by whom, and how it got communicated to the Department of Fish and game.

Please note this part:

"Comments on the Memo may be directed to Ben Turner, Legislative Aide, in Assemblymember Nava’s Capitol Office at: ben.turner@asm.ca.gov

If you believe that it is time for Fish & Games antiquated kill policy to be updated to reflect the times we live in, and that we need to help animals displaced by wildfires, drought, etc., please write.

I think people have to understand that bears can and do wander as do squirrels, raccoons coyotes and that it is against the law to harass a bear--in mammoth, alaska, montana, etc., bears wander up and down the streets over private property (there are very few fences) and that's just what they do--if there is a water concern you can put out catch basins which hold moisture--if someone shoots a bear without a deprivation permit that is against the law.

It says:

"DFG also felt that it was important to note California’s black bear population has increased dramatically over the past 25 years."

That is absolutely the lamest excuse I've ever heard for killing a bear!

If a bear killed a human it would not go over well to say, "It was important to note California’s human population has increased dramatically over the past 25 years."

Here's what I wrote to Mr. Nava's office.

From: Cordelia Sipper

Date: November 26, 2009 8:33:44 AM PST

To: ben.turner@asm.ca.gov

Subject: Ojai Bear Incident

Hello:

I am one of the folks who helped initiate the Ojai Wildlife League in response to the bear who was killed on Aliso St. My husband and I created a website for the cause (www.ojaiwildlifeleague.com).

Firstly, I would like to thank you so much for your participation in looking into why this killing happened. It means a lot to many people. For what it it worth, I just wanted to add my voice to the many who feel the bear situation was dealt with in a horribly wrong way.

1. They did not give the bear ample time to come down on its own.
2. There are ways to get bears out of trees without tranqualizing them.
3. And perhaps the biggest question/concern was that Animal Rescue Team offered to deal with the bear, had the means to do so, including a trailer and a place to keep the bear for a short period of time. WHY (honestly) did the DFG not allow them to help?

I saw this bear. Anyone who looked at this bear and anyone who knows about the nature of black bears, can tell you there was no aggression on his part. Black bears are NOT killers and not aggressors. They are scared of people. It would be refreshing to know that the DFG has some insight into the true nature of black bears. They obviously do not. On top of everything else, lets get the DFG educated in Black Bear behavior.

Again, thank you so much for your time and efforts. Thank you from the very bottom of my heart.

Cory Sipper

Sooooooo dang tired of hearing how the bear was a threat. Black Bears are NOT aggressive. They are NOT killers. Anyone who disbelieves this should do their research first. Had this bear been given a patient and humane chance, he might very well be back in the forest right now. DFG will say anything to make themselves sound like there was a healthy reason to do what they did.

a reminder that if you want to support Pedro Navas investigation and supply your thoughts- please write his office at ben.turner@asm.ca.gov. He is looking for support through your thoughts before his meeting with the DFG next month.

Mr. Nava, I was at the scene of the bear from when it was first spotted by police at CLUFF PARK. At no time did it ever drink out of the fountain at Libby Park nor was it the one seen a couple of days before. That bear is alive and safe, the people of Ojai never got a chance to gawk at it. "Our" bear indeed did come from Cliff Park down to Signal & Aliso being prompted by police cars. The intention was to get it to go up Signal St. to the mountains. (Didn't know the good ol' bear hunt season had opened.) Unfortunately the bear crashed into the chain link fence on Signal St. next door to me. It then panicked and ran behind my apartment complex. It sounded like a Mack Truck as it tried to get through the small area (it could only go one direction). It came out the driveway on the east side of my apt. There were police cars everywhere. The bear ran across the street and up the trees. Again UNFORTUNATELY, all police cars stayed near the tree and never shut their engines off. The bear could have come down the tree in the dark and ran back into the mountains if they had backed off and only watched quietly from a distance with engines off. Police got very near the bear at my complex and it never was a threat and at one time hunkered under some bushes. The next day was a human circus. I tried at my end to keep the idiots back dragging toddlers, dogs, cameras, etc. Every one of those morons should be ashamed. We were trying to save the bear which was more important than they gawking at it as though they had never seen a picture of a bear or a bear in a zoo. I realize it is human nature to be curious but do you think if a human was up a tree, a thousand bears would rush to look and stare? If the bear was so dangerous why did I witness couple after couple dragging toddlers to the tree the bear was in before someone had the good sense to cordon off the street? Even then certain individuals tried to go under the tape, thinking somehow they were so special, only to have a tired sheriff walk a half a block to turn the nuts around. This was of course after they were asked to stay back by the residents of this apartment complex.I was at the ending also and I would like to speak to Pedro Nava and Suza Francina (she was trying to get the looky loos to go away at the other end of Aliso near the tree) regarding the lies told about this. I would like to say the sheriff at nine o'clock did not think the bear would be killed. It was decided as soon as some very young Fish & Game kids arrived at 10.00. They shot SIX darts into the bear. I was on my balcony and heard them and saw the bear go higher in the tree after the first one. Funny thing, no one has mentioned: when the bear came crashing down into cactus plants and injured.....there was a loud rifle shot. Now, who wants to look me in the face and tell me that the bear was taken away and humanely euthanized? It took them forever to get the dead bear on the tarp they had brought just for this purpose as it was so heavy. You bet this did not have to happen and yes I know where that other bear still comes and I will never tell anyone! It's smaller, that's all!

Nancy, please contact me regarding your Comment #7, or leave your contact info here and I will get in touch with you.
Thank you,
Suza Francina

E-mail:Sfrancina@aol.com
Phone:646-2613

Here is my Letter in response to the Memo from Pedro Nava, directed to Ben Turner, Legislative Aide, in Assemblymember Nava’s Capitol Office.

To: ben.turner@asm.ca.gov
Subject: Re: Ojai Bear Killing

Dear Mr. Turner,

As you may know, there are many different accounts as to what actually happened prior to, during, and after the Ojai bear tragedy. The police say one thing. The DFG say another thing. The community witnessed many things.

I was one of those who went to Aliso Street on three separate occasions the day and night of the event in order to see the bear and to talk with officers and friends about what to do, what had happened, and then what happened after they killed the bear.

Two things stand out.

1. There was no evidence that this bear was a "nuisance" bear or a "public threat". I don't believe DFG was sufficiently questioned or sufficiently answered this question of "public threat".

I was even told by someone in a very high position with DFG that the reason they couldn't wait until dark to let the bear come down was that if it did it might cause a car accident, thus hurting a car driver. In Ojai? Traffic in the middle of the night? Oh please...that is an absurdly ignorant and lame excuse. Should all pets be killed because they are public threats since they might cause a car accident?

As for whether this was a nuisance bear, again, based on what? One POSSIBLE sitting? That doesn't hold water in my book. What is the criteria used by DFG and the State? Does this need review? Or is it up to whatever DFG warden is there and if he is particularly fearful or ignorant of bear and bear behavior and would rather just kill it, that's ok with DFG?

Or is any bear, no matter their history or behavior just considered to be a "public threat?" If so, why is it that in other areas of CA, like Tahoe, bears up trees in downtown well populated areas are not killed but herded safely out of town by trained volunteers with no one being hurt, except perhaps the bears butt as a result of some rubber bullets to teach it a lesson?

2. The bear was never given a safe quiet time to come out of the tree to be herded out of town. There are too many observers to testify to that fact, including myself.

The first night the bear was in the tree there were numerous neighborhood dogs outside, so the bear remained in the tree.

Fish and Game used no tactics to encourage the bear down.
They failed miserably, either intentionally or unintentionally. If it was the former they should be fired. If it was the latter, they should get proper training in both crowd control and bear control.

If trained volunteer citizens could have handled the situation, why can't we expect our public employees, paid by our taxes to be at least as capable?

Since that time I have spoken with many people and am actively organizing an Ojai Wildlife League in order to find better ways of handling these kinds of situations so that this horrible tragedy can never happen again. It is overly and abundantly clear that the vast majority of citizens of Ojai do not approve of how things were handled or of the murder of that bear in our midst. The issue of guilt is irrelevant and can be summed up in one word. Ignorance. Every single person and animal involved in any way in this event was a victim of just that. Ignorance.

As a result of several long and incredibly enlightening conversations with Ann Bryant of The Bear League from the Lake Tahoe area, and also having just finished reading Living with Bears by Linda Masterson I have come to several conclusions which must be overly simplified due to space and time considerations. I cannot recommend enough the importance of thoroughly reading Living with Bears. It provides the necessary backup research, statistics, experiences and information that make what I am about to say valid. It shows what other states are doing that is proactive, rather than destructive to wildlife. There are numerous examples of what our state and our county should adopt as policy and protocol.

1. Contrary to popular belief, relocating bears is not a solution. It's a big waste of time and effort. At best its a tactic to buy time to remove attractants and improve deterrents, like installing electric fencing, bear proof trash containers, etc. It would be an absolute last resort. In the case of Ojai, given the level of lack of public awareness and the amount of bear attractants that have not been addressed, this would not have begun to solve the problem.

2. There ARE ways of educating and reeducating bears so they do not become or remain nuisance bears. One is on site "hard release". Another is on site "not so hard release". Another is on site aversive or negative conditioning. These techniques have been used successfully in many places in the US and Canada by both paid govt. employees and trained volunteers. They are carried out any place bears show up that is not appropriate, from a backyard to a town center, from a park campground to a back country farm. If the bears are managed soon after they start to lose their wild behavior, they have a better chance of returning to natural food foraging behavior.

Proactive aversive conditioning involves capturing, working-up, and releasing bears back into the same area. The work-up involves tranquilizing the animal and performing a safe medical examination on the bear. When the bear is released other techniques are used to harass it and herd it back to its appropriate habitat. In some cases specially trained dogs are used. As soon as it reaches its habitat all harassment stops.

While the procedure is harmless to the bear, it is unpleasant and re-instills a fear of humans. This approach allows bears to remain in their home range, but they shy away from the developed areas. It has already been 73% effective in Smoky Mountains National Park where bears had been previously allowed to dine on human food for years. Some level of these (overly simplified) techniques is what should have and could have been done in Ojai. It would also have been far more cost effective than what occurred.

3. The real problems lie with the humans. I won't go into the pathological behavior of those who get their kicks from killing our all too quickly vanishing wildlife. Those types are no better than the bears that have become killers and should be put down (I mean the killer bears, of course). Many people are not aware what attracts bears or of the options available for removing all bear attractants, or even that allowing bears to forage on human food is a death sentence for the bear, limiting the life span of that bear by at least one half. Many others are so overly fearful because of misinformation about the black bear, that they think the only solution is forceful elimination or removal of the bear. Both of these extremes are inaccurate and easily remedied by education.

If the State of CA provided more education, it would save far more money and lives than the current policies, as we witnessed only to vividly in Ojai. I commend the website providing much needed information--www.keepmewild.org --that was mentioned to Mr. Nava by DFG. However in all the publicity surrounding this bear incident, never once was this website or its contents brought up by DFG officials or city law enforcement people being interviewed. Instead they defended their failure to act appropriately. Not a good sign and a clear indication of how much work and education needs to take place.

Hopefully we have all learned from this incident. I know I have. Hopefully the State of California will adopt more up to date management practices as those practiced by The Bear League in Lake Tahoe and the numerous other organizations and Departments of Fish and Game in other states, like Florida and Colorado, to name a few.

If I can be of any service in this regard, please don't hesitate to write or call me. The Ojai Wildlife League is well on its way to getting set up, and would like to be kept up to date by your office.

Sincerely,
Sue Williamson
805-640-0187

Sue, thanks for this great letter.
I've read it through twice now (once quickly, once slowly) and each time learned something new.

Welcome to Bear Smart Central! http://www.bearsmart.com

Bear Wise http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Bearwise/index.html

Check out how "bearwise" communities handle bear encounters.
Here are two examples:

Welcome to Bear Smart Central!
http://www.bearsmart.com

Bear Wise
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/...

I will add quotes from these resources to my Letter to Nava:

"It is strongly advised that dispatching a bear be the action of last resort."

"Trapping, relocating or killing bears does not keep bears out of your neighbourhood. As long as attractants are present, bears will come."

These websites are interesting but there still has to be an overview of water and food habit--if there is a fire, if there is a drought, or if there is urban encroachment and habit is destroyed there needs to be some mitigating factor--all of these sites say the same thing but none of them deal with WHY the bear needs to forage for food in terms of human food.

Seems to me that to have a balanced program one also has to understand the habit and if that has been in some way compromised and if so then something should be done to mitigate the problem--elderberries, toyan, lemonaide berries etc should be planted--example is the station fire--why has there not been more done to reseed the lost habit?

Thank you, I agree!

I will mention this in my letter to Pedro Nava's office.

but aren't there more bears now than ever?

To thriving (Comment #15)

I'm not sure --some statistics say there are more black bears now than in the past --but maybe it depends on what year you are comparing the present (estimated) population too.

Here is something to think about:

When the European people first came to populate the West there were grizzly bears living in this whole area, far outnumbering the elusive black bears. The grizzlies were the dominant animals, the ‘King of the Jungle’ so to speak.

Next in the pecking order were the Indians and finally, the meek and submissive black bear.

The first step to ‘House Bears’ was the killing of all the grizzlies.

We first honored him by placing his majestic image on the California State flag and then proceeded to kill every single one of them.

By 1922 they were all gone.

I am curious about your question and will research it ASAP.

What are the implications of whatever "bear counts" exists?

I wonder how Fish & Game determines how many bear can legaly be killed during hunting season?

Something else to think about:

U.S. hunters shoot about 33,000 bears each year—and poachers kill thousands more. In fact, bears are a favorite target for trophy hunters the world over.

Some states even allow unsporting bear baiting, hounding (cruel to bears and dogs) and spring hunts, which cause orphan cubs to die slowly.

Gentle black bears will stay away from people unless lured by food, but some hunters stir up fear as an excuse for hunts. [or excuse to kill, as we saw here in Ojai]

Many bears die to satisfy the black market for folk remedies. Vacationing trophy seekers kill polar bears although they are already in peril from global warming.

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/bear_hunting/

can't help but note some hypocrisies...a bear is killed by authorities because it is deemed to be a nuisance, but Mario Cedillo senselessly and purposely murders PUPPIES – where are the letters to Nava and the Save the Puppies town hall meetings? and last spring a teenager was murdered, but not a word from you on this!

Please calm down...

We cannot possibly post every atrocity on earth under these bear articles, but that does not mean we do not care.

We care deeply about the things you mentioned.

Everything is connected.

For the record, many of the people working on local wildlife issues, myself included, are involved with local spay and neuter programs. We volunteer for the Ventura County Humane Society and other animal rescue organizations...

Over the years we have also worked with youth organizations and volunteered hundreds of hours teaching and organizing programs to mentor the youth in our valley and rest of Ventura County...

Now I must take a deep breath and go to work...