What to do about the bears?
What To Do About the Bears? Many prescribed fire advocates around the world can only dream of the kind of detailed advanced ecosystem reconstruction debates and actions involving fire management that are going in the Southeastern United States. An example of such a fire management ecosystem controversy between plant and animal specialists, prescribed fire advocates, hunters and the general public involves Black Bears. The question being intensely debated is what role are bears going to have now and in the future in the state of Florida and to some degree Georgia and Alabama as well.
Prescribed fire advocates in the South pretty much won the struggle to get fire back into the South’s light fire adapted ecosystems, first for wildfire mitigation and now for ecosystem reconstruction. We did not have much controversy in the ecological community on the bear front until prescribed fire advocates finally got a handle on wildfire mitigation in Florida keeping fuel loads down to reasonable levels with four to eight year periodic burns.
It’s when Florida’s State Parks, Refuges and National Forests began to go to frequent burn cycles of one to three years to protect and enhance many plant and animal species that bears began to take it on the chin. Some threatened and even endangered like the Red Cockaded Woodpecker require frequent fire. Bears like, according to bear specialist Karl Ambrose, four to eight year burn cycles because bears need a food supply of berries and fruits that are adapted to these longer burn cycles. Karl says shorter burn cycles severely cut into this supply of food and hungry bears have to go on the move to stay fed and inevitably came into conflict with humans.
The Florida Wildlife Commission got involved because the public demanded something be done about the bears and controversial black bear hunts were authorized and hunters were allowed to use dogs to hunt bears to thin down the population. Hunters of course thought this was a great idea, but bear conservationists were appalled and like Karl have become very passionate about preserving bears and bear habitat. Unfortunately we don’t have a well thought out publicly decided transparent plan for fire management ecosystem reconstruction for the whole state of Florida. We need such a comprehensive plan to balance the needs of a complex web of species.
The problem with bears is that they are a top predator species and will compete with humans if driven to do so. This is not like say Red Cockaded Woodpeckers that just go about their business being woodpeckers making nest cavities in old Longleaf Pines and feeding in Longleaf Pine Wiregrass habitat that needs annual fires. It’s the same for Bobwhite Quail, Turkeys, Deer, Rabbits, Fox Squirrels, Cotton Rats, Rattlesnakes, Gopher Tortoises, songbirds and a host of plant and animal species dependent on frequent light fires. So we have a conundrum as I see it, either we cut back or backside on prescribed fire use or we somehow have got do what Karl dislikes very much is “ranch the bears”.
The only way that I can see out of this conundrum is a compromise. I think it’s going to come down to mostly “ranching the bears” and to find prime bear food habitat and enhance that habitat. It may come down to permaculture for bears with berry and fruit orchards, not that different than what the native peoples once achieved with cultural burning and sweat. Critical planting and management of food in “bear reservation areas” could be used to lure them away from human populations. I can tell you right now Karl and his activists are not going to like this idea at all, let alone any of Indian heritage. Without any serious predators besides man, I think there will still be a bear overpopulation problem in regards to a limited supply of bear habitat on the reservation. I think I will just sit back and observe the fireworks.
Since writing and publishing the above Karl and some of his associates seem to have shown themselves to be a throwback to an earlier time in history and while advocating for prescribed fire, seem to be in fact a modern variation of fire exclusionists masquerading as fire advocates. The following statement made by Karl on his Facebook page and the reaction to some of his associates on that page has caused him to lose credibility by fire scientists and fire managers.
In my opinion to suggest such a ban, with little or no scientific basis, would set back good fire management in Florida and the statement severely hurts his cause and credibility. Karl states, "The ban would have to be from October to May to be sufficient to protect the Vaccinium in the Flatwoods, that's not gonna happen, my goal here is to get the Bears off the table, Forever. If we can get a burn ban in the Flatwoods from October to May that would be really incredibly cool. you burn in any month in that timeframe, you burn the buds no fruit in spring and the cycle would have to be every 4 to 7 years in late May early June only."
Some more reasonable comments showed up in Southeastern Grasslands Ecology. History and Biodiversity. Andy VanderYacht said: "Mosaic. Mosaic. MOSAIC.
1) Bear populations have increased to a 100 year high despite the increased use of fire. Perhaps they are adapted to historical fire regimes, which were even more frequent than thst being applied today. The entire premise of this article is wrong...the bears are doing great! Regardless, a local mosaic of fire frequency should be designed into management plans so that at any one time their is plenty of bear food. The fact that populations are growing, to a 100 year high, suggests this is being adequately achieved. A May-Oct burn ban would limit already difficult to achieve restoration.
2) "Thickets" are important, but a simple understanding of succession argues they are easier to restore. This is supported by trends it biodiversity (more grassland associated are imperiled than scrub shrub). An herbaceously dominated understory takes a substantial investement of management, and this perhaps explains the disparity in attention. Lets not forget the thickets, but continue to conserve grasslands."
Solomon Abbay Gamboa said: "This article also relates to the native thicket decline in a sense that shrub/thicket species that produce an abundance of both bear and bird food such as wild plum, hawthorn, dogwood, Hazelnut etc etc are excluded in a landscape that is burned annually. It isn’t just bears that suffer from an absence of native thicket mast but being the largest consumers its most obvious with them i Imagine.
Indigenous landscapes has been trying to bring light to this issue; these thicket species evolved in grasslands, wetlands, and Savannas - not on the man -made wood edges that are being overcome with invasive species. And their is a biological consequence of excluding the entire shrub/thicket layer of these ecosystems in favor of the herbaceous layer. Many pioneer journals and original land surveys described shrubby prairies, and thickets that stretched for miles too thicket for horses to pass through. Today, native thicket species are treated nearly like invasive species as if they didn’t co-evolve with Prairie-Wetland-Savanna environments which denies their biological value- a lot of fauna utilize the mast and micro-environment they create. This following article is written from a Midwest perspective still relates to the biological degradation of fully excluding native thickets from the only natural environments they evolved in:"
Keep in mind this is a work in progress and can be added to and amended as I receive comment and input from all stake holders. This article is simply a conceptual framework that we all can flesh out together. It’s simply a small move toward publically creating a long term management plan for all plant and animal species in the state of Florida. That I think we can agree on. Those that have an interest in prescribed fire please join with us at the Association of Fire Management Activists group on Facebook. Those that have a interest in Southeastern vegetation identification and management may want to join Edwin Bridges group, Florida Flora and Ecosystematics Facebook group.
Prescribed fire advocates in the South pretty much won the struggle to get fire back into the South’s light fire adapted ecosystems, first for wildfire mitigation and now for ecosystem reconstruction. We did not have much controversy in the ecological community on the bear front until prescribed fire advocates finally got a handle on wildfire mitigation in Florida keeping fuel loads down to reasonable levels with four to eight year periodic burns.
It’s when Florida’s State Parks, Refuges and National Forests began to go to frequent burn cycles of one to three years to protect and enhance many plant and animal species that bears began to take it on the chin. Some threatened and even endangered like the Red Cockaded Woodpecker require frequent fire. Bears like, according to bear specialist Karl Ambrose, four to eight year burn cycles because bears need a food supply of berries and fruits that are adapted to these longer burn cycles. Karl says shorter burn cycles severely cut into this supply of food and hungry bears have to go on the move to stay fed and inevitably came into conflict with humans.
The Florida Wildlife Commission got involved because the public demanded something be done about the bears and controversial black bear hunts were authorized and hunters were allowed to use dogs to hunt bears to thin down the population. Hunters of course thought this was a great idea, but bear conservationists were appalled and like Karl have become very passionate about preserving bears and bear habitat. Unfortunately we don’t have a well thought out publicly decided transparent plan for fire management ecosystem reconstruction for the whole state of Florida. We need such a comprehensive plan to balance the needs of a complex web of species.
The problem with bears is that they are a top predator species and will compete with humans if driven to do so. This is not like say Red Cockaded Woodpeckers that just go about their business being woodpeckers making nest cavities in old Longleaf Pines and feeding in Longleaf Pine Wiregrass habitat that needs annual fires. It’s the same for Bobwhite Quail, Turkeys, Deer, Rabbits, Fox Squirrels, Cotton Rats, Rattlesnakes, Gopher Tortoises, songbirds and a host of plant and animal species dependent on frequent light fires. So we have a conundrum as I see it, either we cut back or backside on prescribed fire use or we somehow have got do what Karl dislikes very much is “ranch the bears”.
The only way that I can see out of this conundrum is a compromise. I think it’s going to come down to mostly “ranching the bears” and to find prime bear food habitat and enhance that habitat. It may come down to permaculture for bears with berry and fruit orchards, not that different than what the native peoples once achieved with cultural burning and sweat. Critical planting and management of food in “bear reservation areas” could be used to lure them away from human populations. I can tell you right now Karl and his activists are not going to like this idea at all, let alone any of Indian heritage. Without any serious predators besides man, I think there will still be a bear overpopulation problem in regards to a limited supply of bear habitat on the reservation. I think I will just sit back and observe the fireworks.
Since writing and publishing the above Karl and some of his associates seem to have shown themselves to be a throwback to an earlier time in history and while advocating for prescribed fire, seem to be in fact a modern variation of fire exclusionists masquerading as fire advocates. The following statement made by Karl on his Facebook page and the reaction to some of his associates on that page has caused him to lose credibility by fire scientists and fire managers.
In my opinion to suggest such a ban, with little or no scientific basis, would set back good fire management in Florida and the statement severely hurts his cause and credibility. Karl states, "The ban would have to be from October to May to be sufficient to protect the Vaccinium in the Flatwoods, that's not gonna happen, my goal here is to get the Bears off the table, Forever. If we can get a burn ban in the Flatwoods from October to May that would be really incredibly cool. you burn in any month in that timeframe, you burn the buds no fruit in spring and the cycle would have to be every 4 to 7 years in late May early June only."
Some more reasonable comments showed up in Southeastern Grasslands Ecology. History and Biodiversity. Andy VanderYacht said: "Mosaic. Mosaic. MOSAIC.
1) Bear populations have increased to a 100 year high despite the increased use of fire. Perhaps they are adapted to historical fire regimes, which were even more frequent than thst being applied today. The entire premise of this article is wrong...the bears are doing great! Regardless, a local mosaic of fire frequency should be designed into management plans so that at any one time their is plenty of bear food. The fact that populations are growing, to a 100 year high, suggests this is being adequately achieved. A May-Oct burn ban would limit already difficult to achieve restoration.
2) "Thickets" are important, but a simple understanding of succession argues they are easier to restore. This is supported by trends it biodiversity (more grassland associated are imperiled than scrub shrub). An herbaceously dominated understory takes a substantial investement of management, and this perhaps explains the disparity in attention. Lets not forget the thickets, but continue to conserve grasslands."
Solomon Abbay Gamboa said: "This article also relates to the native thicket decline in a sense that shrub/thicket species that produce an abundance of both bear and bird food such as wild plum, hawthorn, dogwood, Hazelnut etc etc are excluded in a landscape that is burned annually. It isn’t just bears that suffer from an absence of native thicket mast but being the largest consumers its most obvious with them i Imagine.
Indigenous landscapes has been trying to bring light to this issue; these thicket species evolved in grasslands, wetlands, and Savannas - not on the man -made wood edges that are being overcome with invasive species. And their is a biological consequence of excluding the entire shrub/thicket layer of these ecosystems in favor of the herbaceous layer. Many pioneer journals and original land surveys described shrubby prairies, and thickets that stretched for miles too thicket for horses to pass through. Today, native thicket species are treated nearly like invasive species as if they didn’t co-evolve with Prairie-Wetland-Savanna environments which denies their biological value- a lot of fauna utilize the mast and micro-environment they create. This following article is written from a Midwest perspective still relates to the biological degradation of fully excluding native thickets from the only natural environments they evolved in:"
Keep in mind this is a work in progress and can be added to and amended as I receive comment and input from all stake holders. This article is simply a conceptual framework that we all can flesh out together. It’s simply a small move toward publically creating a long term management plan for all plant and animal species in the state of Florida. That I think we can agree on. Those that have an interest in prescribed fire please join with us at the Association of Fire Management Activists group on Facebook. Those that have a interest in Southeastern vegetation identification and management may want to join Edwin Bridges group, Florida Flora and Ecosystematics Facebook group.