One step closer to a den cam
October 29, 2010 – 6:41 PM CDT
Today, we met with Lily and Hope’s landlords. They were fun, helpful, made us laugh, and gave us access. They saw Lily and Hope as we placed the tubes that will hold the den cam and microphone near the den so they can get used to them. They are very supportive of the den cam effort and mentioned the benefits to bears, education, and the community.
In last night’s update, we discussed wounding losses. Today, we were happy to hear from Dr. David Garshelis, Ph.D, who is the principal bear biologist for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Dr. Garshelis was kind enough to candidly let us know that his data for wounding losses in Minnesota bear hunts are lower than the 13% we cited from a study in neighboring Ontario. We hope Dave will share with us his wounding loss rates for rifle, archery, crossbow, muzzle loader, etc. We haven’t seen this information in his annual reports and had no idea it was available.
We always say that Minnesota has perhaps the best-managed bear population anywhere in the world. The presence of the data Dave mentioned is a reason to echo that. Another reason is that Minnesota’s bear population has about quadrupled in 40 years of regulated hunts and public education. Dave’s support is crucial in the effort to protect radio-collared bears in Minnesota.
Dave challenged us to post his complete email response for Lily’s fans to see. We appreciate his candid comments, and we honored that request below. We indeed do want to report the truth.
If readers think anyone has erred in any of this, please don’t post any comments. As soon as we obtain Dave’s data on wounding in Minnesota, we will share it with you.
First, our response to his email.
Dave, it sounds like your data from Minnesota differs from the Ontario study I mentioned. Great that you have that data. Could you tell me what the wounding losses are for each type of weapon used and the portion of the kill from each? Lynn
And now, the email Dave challenged us to post.
Lynn,
I just read with absolute astonishment your claims, on the NABC website (yesterday’s research post), of all the wounding losses of bears during the hunting season. We have very solid data on wounding losses of bears in Minnesota, with a very large sample (probably the largest in the country), collected since 1981. I am not going to provide those data to you because (1) you never asked, and (2) I doubt that you would report it correctly – however, I can tell you that your 13% figure is not even in the ballpark for Minnesota bears. It is clear that your objective in exaggerating the number of wounding losses is to incite your web fans into writing to protect radio-collared bears on the grounds that by doing so, hunters would be more careful, wounding losses would be reduced, and less people would be injured due to off-target shots (Really? How many people have been shot by bear hunters?) You tout yourself as a scientist and an educator, yet you freely report grossly misleading information without attempting to verify it (indeed, knowing that we would have that information, and writing to me to seek other information, which I gave you, the day before you posted this).
I find it difficult to make the pitch to protect collared bears— which I told you I have been doing— when it feeds into such wild allegations about bear hunters. You argue that your collared bears need protection because of the information they provide to science, yet you disgrace science by making highly flawed assertions about something for which you have no direct knowledge.
I challenge you to post this complete email response to your fans—if you have any inclination toward reporting the truth.
Dave
Meanwhile, from Lynn and Sue, thanks to you Lily fans, we are all still eating the abundant treats you sent yesterday, we are watching the lead widen in the Ely Schools contest at http://www.care2.com/schoolcontest/2704/054/, we are reading your thoughtful letters, we are seeing the results of your work on the Educational Outreach Project, and we are feeling thankful for all you do.
Again, please do not comment on the debate about wounding loss rates. When we get Dave Garshelis’ data, we will post it.
—Lynn Rogers and Sue Mansfield, Biologists, Wildlife Research Institute and North American Bear Center