Just before Kentucky’s first legal bear hunt in more than a century, we boldly predicted that hunters in Pike, Letcher and Harlan counties would have no trouble reaching the kill limit of 10 male bears or five female bears or some combination of the two during the hunt on Dec. 19-20.
But we were wrong, and now we are eating crow while nary a hunter is dining on a bear killed in Kentucky. To our great surprise and to the disappointment of hunters who purchased bear-hunting licenses not a single bear was killed during the brief hunting season.
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources blame the unsuccessful hunt on the weather. There was a heavy snowfall in the mountains on the weekend before Christmas, and Kentucky state bear biologist Steven Dobey said hunters simply were not able to trudge through the up to 12 inches of snow to get to the areas where they most likely would have been able to shoot bear.
Thus, the hunt that was intended to thin the rapidly growing bear population in the three counties did not reduce the population one iota. However, the first bear hunt in the state in modern times is unlikely to be the last. Expect the state to schedule another bear hunt for next fall or winter.
It was only in recent years that bars began to return to Kentucky after being driven out by the destruction of habitat. The number of bears now living in Kentucky is estimated at between 100 and 350, and while the three counties where the hunt was allowed may have the largest bear populations, black bears have been spotted in Boyd County and most other neighboring counties.
The state bear population has grown large enough that state Rep. Rick Nelson, D-Middlesboro, had filed a bill to be considered by the 2010 General Assembly that would protect from criminal prosecution residents who kill black bears that they believe are a threat to their safety.
Roaming bears ransacking garbage cans or eating from bird feeders or bowls of pet food are terrorizing a growing number of Kentuckians who live in rural areas, Nelson said. “It makes you a prisoner in your own home,” he added. “Under existing law, if there is a bear on your property, you can shoot it, but fish and wildlife folks make the determination if they feel you are justified.”
From our vantage point, Nelson’s bill may not be necessary since all it would seem to do is clarify existing law. Nelson’s bill may just change one broad and vague passage in the existing law with another passage that is as equally open to broad interpretation.
Kentucky Wildlife Commissioner Jon Gassett said the state law currently allows Kentuckians who are “genuinely threatened with bodily injury” to shoot bears or other threatening wildlife. However, Nelson is right when he says fish and wildlife officers decide whether individuals made the right decision in shooting the bear.
Under Nelson’s proposal, an individual who “reasonably believes” he or she is being threatened by a bear can shoot the animal without fear of being prosecuted. However, the term “reasonably believes” is open to broad interpretation. Just as with existing law, prosecuting someone for shooting a bear still would be a judgment call under Nelson’s bill.
A better approach is for residents in areas where bears are known to be to take steps to discourage the roaming bears. The black bears are not interesting in attacking humans; they simply are after food. Make it too difficult for the bears to get your food, and they will cease to visit your property. Bear-proof garbage cans cost a little more but they are reasonably effective. Pet food also can be placed in area where bears can’t go.
In short, if roaming bears have become a nuisance on your property, there are ways to discourage the animals short of shooting them. That’s the best approach to a resident’s bear problem. Besides, as hunters in three counties discovered just before Christmas, shooting bears is not as easy as most think.
