Our Mission:
To protect local
black bears so they remain alive and wild.

Late summer/early fall in Boulder is synonymous with seeing bears, as they venture into the city looking for food. Bears that become a “nuisance” by becoming too comfortable living in the city are tranquilized, tagged, relocated and, for many, killed by Colorado Department of Wildlife officers. There are many reasons why this reactive management policy needs to change, especially since there are things we can do as a community to improve the fate of Boulder bears.  There are two issues that need to be addressed to keep future bears safe: 1) How to keep bears from coming into our town in the first place and 2) When a bear does come into town, what is an acceptable bear management policy?

Current Bear Management Policy

During hyperphagia, a time of increased eating to prepare for hibernation, bears are attracted into town by the lure of unsecured trash, unharvested fruit trees, beehives, chicken coops, bird feeders, open grills, etc. Some of these bears will become habituated to people and food conditioned to these easily available calories, thus becoming “nuisance” bears.  Colorado Department of Wildlife (CPW) officers, whose priority is to keep people safe from wild animals, are charged with managing the bears in town.  The “nuisance” bears are tranquilized, tagged (Boulder bears are given a green ear tag in each ear) and relocated outside the city. Unfortunately since many areas of Colorado are also dealing with their own “nuisance” bears, options on where to release a bear is limited. Thus bears are often relocated within 50 miles of their original point of capture, and as study after study shows, despite no visual cues, relocated bears typically return to their place of capture or are hit by cars trying to return. Relocation does not work in part because bears need to find their own territory and being released into another bear’s already established territory can be dangerous for the relocated bear, especially a sow with cubs. Bears that return to the city limits and continue to be “nuisance” bears are shot and killed by CPW. In summary, if a bear has to be handled twice by a CPW officer, the second time it is killed.  See Colorado’s 2-Strike Policy for more information.

CPW’s definition of a “nuisance” or “problem” bear is a bear that meets one or more of the items below (2-Strike Policy applies):

  • a bear that is continually reported in town eating unsecured trash
  • a bear that is continually reported in town eating natural food (fruit from trees)
  • a resident of home where a bear has been habitually seen wants the bear removed
  • a bear does a bluff charge, including a sow with young cubs (in other places such as Yosemite this is considered normal behavior and would not justify labeling her as aggressive or a problem)

CPW’s definition of an “aggressive”  bear is a bear that meets one or more of the items below (1-Strike applies):

  • has charged several people
  • eaten livestock
  • entered a home

What is the solution? Proactive versus Reactive Bear Management

There is more that we can do to protect our local bears and keep them from being killed by CPW officers. The first area of focus is on proactively keeping bears from coming into town. We can do this by reducing attractants that bring bears into town, such as unsecured trash, chicken coops, beehives, fruit trees, bird feeders. We can increase the use of electric fencing, electric mats around beehives and chicken coops,improve hazing techniques before the bears enter town, increase use of bear-resistant trash/compost bins.  The city of Boulder can implement proactive code enforcement for trash during hyperphagia (July-November). Boulder Bear Coalition is developing a Proactive Bear Management Plan which includes mapping natural corridors that bears are using to come into town and finding ways to reduce the ease of bears moving from open space to densely populated neighborhoods (ie Goose Creek). In addition we will be looking at planting fruit bearing trees natural to the area in open space, including varieties that would survive a freeze such as the one Boulder experienced last fall which created a low harvest the following spring. Boulder Bear Coalition is also working on creating BearSafe Neighborhoods to increase community outreach and accountability for reducing attractants. 

The second area of focus is on Reactive Management of bears that are in town. This involves looking at the current methods of managing bears that are in town and making appropriate changes based on the community tolerance and more humane alternatives to euthanasia. There are two approaches to this. The first is looking at eliminating CPW’s 2-Strike Policy. Boulder Bear Coalition believes that Bear 317 would have been killed regardless of the 2-Strike Policy given the current definitions of “aggressive” behavior. Thus we are focused on potentially revising the definition of “nuisance” or “problem” bears such that fewer are ever handled in the first place (thus eliminating any need for a “first strike”). Because most relocated bears return, especially a sow with young cubs, this first strike often seals a bear’s fate, thus relocation should only be used in rare cases (eg. buying time to remove the original attractant before the bear returns). We would like to have a clear definition of  “nuisance” and “problem” bears based on wildlife officers knowledge, scientific understanding and community tolerance. We would also like to have a clearer understanding of what CPW considers “aggressive” behavior, since this results in a death sentence. For example, is bluff charging considered aggressive? How does an officer or a layperson know if it is a bluff charge?  Are there different criteria for sows with cubs than a lone bruin?  In order to create greater trust within the community, the community would like to have better, more transparent accountability for each relocated and euthanized bear. What happened, how was the decision made? The community would like to know that the decision is not based on a subjective officer or resident’s opinion but on substantive and clear understanding that the bear is a clear threat to human life.

4 thoughts on “

  1. I am so, so devastated about the recent bear death at Columbia Cemetery. I live right next to the school, and these bears have been around a lot this summer. My heart is broken and I feel called to action. I am so angry with people that leave their trash out, but more with the policies of the DOW. Thank you for this page. I hope to become involved and find more people interested in saving our precious bears.

    1. The human population that lives up against open space is privileged to live that close nature and wild lands. With that priviledge comes a reponsiblity, to clean up the trash that is killing bears for doing what is natural. Eating. They are basically making a choice to leave a bear-buffet out for all to enjoy. But the price is death. Imagine being shot on your way out of having dinner at a Ponderosa? This website is a gem, a wonderful resource to educate oneself about what can be done and is already in the works. Thanks Brenda for all of your selfless dedication to this magnificent species, and keep up the good work! I for one will surely find a way to volunteer and help bring balance to the current broken system of managing bears in Boulder.
      Tiffany O’Meara

  2. Transparent accountability is a must. Whenever a bear is sited in my North Boulder area and wildlife management is called, I have no idea what action was taken. They should not be able to kill a bear without public input.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s