Close Call For Alaska's Famous Bears

State Considers, And Rejects, Allowing Hunters Access To Sanctuary's People-Friendly Brown Bears

(CBS)  The McNeil River falls on the Alaska Peninsula, where each summer scores of massive brown bears gather to feast on migrating salmon.

It is the greatest concentration of these huge creatures anywhere in the world — sometimes 30 bears gather at a time — and the world's best viewing spot for the hundreds of visitors, drawn by lottery, who come each year to witness the spectacle. CBS News correspondent Jerry Bowen reports.

"Words can't even describe what we're seeing here today, it's just unbelievable,” says one visitor.

The McNeil River runs through a state game sanctuary, which means the bears are safe here. They can't be hunted by humans, only viewed. It’s been that way for more than 30 years.

And it's a mutually beneficial encounter. The bears get their fish. The visitors get an eyeful, and both survive to tell the story.

And that is why tens of thousands of bear lovers around the world were shocked that State of Alaska game managers planned to make it easer for trophy hunters to kill some of these very same bears.

Protective no-hunting buffer zones on the edge of the sanctuary were to be opened to big game guides and their clients starting this July. Critics said the far ranging people-tolerant bears from McNeil would be easy pickings.

"These bears come up to you and lay down and nurse their cubs and take naps,” says Ken Day, a float plane tour operator. ”They feel protected by you ... the way we describe it is like shooting your neighbors' dogs. It’s heartbreaking."

This past week Alaska’s board of game got an ear- and eyeful: 10,000 letters and petitions from bear lovers. And this question: with 35,000 brown bears roaming all over Alaska, why jeopardize the 100 or so that call McNeil River home?

"McNeil River bears are the pride of the entire state,” says Dorothy Keeler of Alaska Wildlife Alliance. “It's the crown jewel of the wildlife viewing experience in the state."

In the end, the board turned bearish and reversed its decision.

Come this summer, those hungry giants will feast in safety at McNeil, and beyond the sanctuary borders.

And awe-struck visitors will still come loaded for bears — with cameras. Knowing the creatures they see will most likely be back at McNeil for generations to come.

[bjr361]

Yes, I have visited Alaska as a tourist and I believe I appreciate their wildlife more than their run-amok Board of Game. Instead of protecting these treasures for all to enjoy, the BOG promotes a kill mentality. They want to save wildlife only as targets for hunters while they kill off all the natural predators like wolves, shooting them from airplanes like fish in a barrel and killing practically tame bears at tourist attractions. Wildlife belongs to all Americans, not just those who live or hunt in Alaska.

[treetopper2]

Was raised a hunter and enjoyed it in my younger years. I have nothing at all against hunting I simply don't practice/follow it today. If you want to hunt the bears for goodness sake do it away from the public viewing feeding grounds.

[ggrape]

jscribe58's comments are well thought out, though I don't agree with his conclusion.

Hunting is not a sport. An animal can only kill you if it's literally on top of you, and even then will do so if it feels cornered or hungry. Human hunters feel neither, and kill from a distance. The odds are well stacked against the animal. So where's the sport?

The actual PRACTICE of hunting is repugnant to me. There's no reason for it, and even if jscribe58's facts are true, why contribute to killing a thing of beauty for no practical reason other than to mutilate it and place it's dried head on your wall? Some hunters may eat venison, I get it. And merciful? I wonder how many shots actually kill an animal instantaneously. A bear or deer with a wayward shot to the neck or chest will die an agonizing death drowning in its own blood. I used to work in an ER, the suffering is tremendous.

[jscribe58]

I gave up hunting years ago, but feel the sport needs some kind of defense because of this article. In the case of these bears, justice has been served. There was no need to be hunting them because there was plenty of more of them elsewhere. Hunting has been a sport for thousands of years, and there have always been some people opposed to it. It has always amazed me though, how people who do not like the thought of hunting have tried to stop it for people who do. It is a respected sport, and there is nothing wrong with the people who enjoy it. It's a known fact that in most cases the kills taken by hunters have never come near the animals that die natures natural kill. Cold weather and starvation eliminate 15% of the deer in most states, where the hunters take a maximum of 5%. Have you ever seen a deer starve to death? Not very pretty, and the hunter is a lot more merciful. Even though I have chosen to no longer hunt, I think the hunters sometimes get a bad rap for indulging in a sport that's always been there.

[katehar]

Thank you so much for this follow up story to the excellent one Jerry Bowen did for CBS a few months ago. I wrote then-Governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski, my outrage at the proposed opening of the area near the bear sanctuary to trophy hunters. I never received a response, but I am heartened by the fact Alaska's Board of Game has reversed their earlier decision.
Thank you for bringing this story to the public's eye. Undoubtedly, the effect of 10,000 letters and petitions helped save the bears.

[alphaa10-2009]

Since the natural wonders of America belong to all citizens, readers everywhere-- not simply in Alaska-- have an interest in preservation of Alaska's wildlife for now, and for the future.

Yet, despite its attention to conservation, Alaska must confess to its share of problems with conservation and ecosystems, similar to the one reported in this news article.

We need not visit Alaska to know when a BP pipeline develops a corrosion leak because BP has been too busy pumping oil through it to care about maintenance. We need not visit the site of the Exxon Valdez oil spill to know Exxon never paid the penalty imposed until very recently-- decades later.

And we are very aware that even one of Alaska's most outspoken opponents of the global warming alarm not so long ago finally joined efforts to stop greenhouse pollutants. Reason? Alaskan tundra was melting before his own eyes.

[labador4142]

Glad the decision to hunt in the santuary boundary was reversed. The original proposal should never have been considered. However, as a resident of the State of Alaska, it amazes me that many of the comments on destroying the ecosystem, undoubtedly come from subscribers out side of Alaska who have probably never visited this beautiful state. For the most part, the state has done a good job of preserving the lands. Most states have already destroyed their ecosystems with never a whimper from the average citizen.

[mdc76082]

In this day & age anyone who say's, "I hunt for food only" is either living in the Appalachian's or a long, forgotten mountain man trapped in a timewarp somewhere. I hunted for 22 years & gave it up. I found trophies were more appreciable on film and left alive for other generationss to enjoy the "freedom" wildlife should be allow to have. Great White Hunters are like CB radios...they're extinct like dinasours. Any idiot can be called a "trophy" hunter. It just isn't worth it.

[noaanhc]

If only animals could shoot back at the hunters, then this would be real hunting!!!!

[michellem99-2009]

I don't like hunting. I feel killing just for sport is not the right thing to do. There is no need to hunt. It take a cold/uncaring person to hunt and kill just for the sport of it. Years ago we had to hunt for our food. If done for food that's one thing. But to kill just for the the trill or for sport-no.

[alphaa10-2009]

Hunters who go after the Alaskan bear are there for the bragging rights-- they soon depart and leave the Alaskan ecosystem minus one bear, but all the richer for perhaps a rotting carcass and a bag of the hunters' personal litter. No responsible policy can justify this predatory, Disneyland-style approach to game management.

But leave it to the upper (political) echelons of Alaska game management to suggest hunting for a state game sanctuary-- even if Alaska's game wardens and native locals couldn't imagine it. It goes without saying only in the Bush/Cheney regime would anyone even consider hunters on a game sanctuary an aspect of "wildlife management".

But none ever accused such people of thinking ahead, or realistically. Such a policy as they propose would destroy the ecosystem now in place. It would take generations, if not forever, for the
present habitat to reemerge.