Skinned out, headless and paw-less grizzly bear carcass dumped into Herman Creek near Haines, Alaska after being baited with spawned out salmon and shot and killed.
The previous night, Pete Johnson and I came across the two hunters who were in the process of butchering this grizzly bear beside the dirt road. They had thrown up spawned out salmon from Herman Creek onto the bank and used the salmon as bait to attract and then kill this bear. It wasn't even that large of a bear.
The following morning when Pete and I came across this scene, we drove into Haines and reported this to the Troopers thinking it was wanton waste. The Troopers told us that no it wasn't and that it was perfectly legal.
For myself, this absolutely killed the trip and we returned to Denali earlier than planned. Yet, it motivated me to use this image to educate against bear baiting and to advocate for bears. Although, I never expected that I would be doing so (twice now) against the National Park Service and their proposal to allow bear baiting within Alaska National Preserves. WTF???
Southeast Alaska/Fall 1994/Film
Comments can be submitted to NPS at: Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves on Regulations.gov
Date my comment submitted on: 4-6-26
Link to my comments:
Deadline for Comments: Thursday April 9, 2026
I wish to voice my strong opposition to the NPS proposal to allow bear baiting within Alaska’s National Preserves.
Allowing bear baiting contradicts common sense, logic, science, previous experiences with human food habituated grizzly bears, and ignores the consequences of property damage, past injuries and deaths. It furthermore, makes a mockery out of NPS’s own bear education efforts to visitors in keeping food/trash away from bears/wildlife at all times.
Human food conditioning by bears has been recognized by the scientific community (including NPS) since at least 1967. This is when two young women were killed in Glacier National Park in Montana by two grizzly "dump" bears in two different locations on the same night.
See: Wikipedia - Night of the Grizzlies by Jack Olsen
Quoting from Dr. Stephen Herrero’s book: Bear Attacks: There Causes & Avoidance
(1st edition - Chapter 4 - The Dangers of Garbage & Habituation)
P.51-52 - “Habituation combined with food association has been associated with a large number of injuries. Inside the National Parks it was probably the most frequent circumstance associated with injury.”
P. 54 - “The problem of habituated, food-conditioned grizzly bears is not superficial. In the worst cases these circumstances have been associated with grizzly bear-inflicted deaths. Between 1967 and 1980, nine deaths occurred in Glacier, Yellowstone, and Banff National Parks. Eight of these deaths were caused by seven different grizzly bears, all of whom were habituated and food conditioned. The ninth incident was caused by a habituated grizzly bear that didn’t have a known history of feeding on people’s food or garbage. These tragedies were probably avoidable.”
P. 63 - “This pair of grizzly bears seems to have had a history of only one week of feeding on human food and garbage, coupled with aggressive behavior toward people. This history began with their finding food carelessly left at an illegal camp on September 14 or 15.
They next encountered hikers who fled and left their packs for the bears. Soon they got garbage at the Many Glacier campground. By September 19 they began to be aggressive around people, presumably because they learned to associate humans with food. By September 23, one of the two bears, both of which were now well habituated to people, apparently treated Mary Pat MaHoney as prey.
The excellent precautions taken by the five women did little to deter the bear. Its prior experience had taught it that approaching people could lead to a meal.” End Quotes
P. 62 quote relevant to the above:
“Despite their precautions, at around seven on the morning of September 23, Mary Pat MaHoney was dragged from her tent, killed, and partly devoured by a grizzly bear. One-and-a-half hours later two young grizzly bear siblings, both males, were killed. One of them had human blood between its front claws.
Strong circumstantial evidence, including the similarity of the distance between puncture marks on MaHoney’s body and the distance between both bears’ canine teeth, suggested that one of these bears killed her.” End Quotes
NPS claims that there is a lack of data on human food conditioning of bears specifically from bear bait stations while at the same time ignoring human food conditioning from other sources including garbage dumps which is essentially what a bait station is.
This lack of acknowledgment of food conditioning from other sources is disingenuous and dishonest. It is another example of NPS gas lighting the public with the public taking on all of the additional risks.
NPS has not presented any evidence that contradicts Dr. Stephen Herrero’s findings or the 71 wildlife scientists and natural resource managers who voiced their opposition to bear baiting in comments to NPS dated March 6, 2023.
This letter was included with my submission to NPS.
Nor, has NPS contradicted the 14 NPS and 28 non-NPS bear research and management experts in their opposition to bear baiting.
Published Study Relays Expert Opinions on Bear Baiting
Quoting from this study:
"Their consensus is that baiting: is functionally equivalent to feeding bears; can lead bears to defend a bait station as they would a carcass; may condition animals to associate humans with food; alters bear natural behavior and the broader ecosystem, including impacting other wildlife species that consume the bait; and increases the likelihood bears will be killed in defense of life and property. The NPS experts considered the risks to human visitors in the moderate to high range." End Quote
The above scenarios and similar ones that have occurred with food conditioned bears are what we should be purposefully trying to avoid. Bear baiting is essentially gambling with the health and safety of Preserve/Park visitors with the bears paying the ultimate price as well.
Quoting from Mountain Journal’s article: Baiting for Black Bears
“Since the Forest Service gave states the power to allow bear baiting in national forests, scientists have established a significant body of research showing baiting causes harmful and irreversible grizzly bear conditioning to human food and disrupts grizzlies’ behavioral dynamics.
Beyond that, it borders on lunacy that agencies preaching “leave no trace” camping or citing campers for leaving coolers unattended also allow bear hunters to litter the woods with food-garbage piles meant to attract bears.
Those bears that aren’t shot then learn that the smell of human food means an easy meal and pass along that habit to their young. The saying that a “fed bear is a dead bear” applies as much to a grizzly drawn to a bait station as it does to a bear unintentionally drawn to a camper’s cooler or a careless homeowner’s garbage can or chicken coop.” End Quotes
From a bear’s point of view, it doesn’t matter whether human foods are found in a garbage dump, are carelessly left on a picnic table, are unconfined bagels in a backpack, grease and donuts found in a bear bait station, a direct handout, or any other easily made available human foods. Human scent is the commonality in all of the above situations leading to human food conditioning.
Bears are always keyed into easily found food sources whether natural or human. Furthermore, they have the capability of learning human food conditioning either directly or indirectly (meaning no human presence necessary). This is due to human scent being left on the foods and garbage (example: food association developed at garbage dumps).
NPS - Ignoring Bear Biologists & Natural Resource Managers While Relying on the State of Alaska
NPS’s bear baiting proposal ignores the advice of experts throughout North America who support a ban on bear baiting.
The proponents of bear baiting within NPS ignore previous fatal attacks from human food conditioned grizzly bears in a number of locations including Yellowstone, Glacier and Banff National Parks going back to at least 1967.
Furthermore, NPS does not differentiate between black and grizzly bears and their different temperaments which is especially important when it comes to human food conditioning. Nor, does NPS acknowledge that grizzly bears have a more volatile disposition or past, food habituated, fatal grizzly bear attacks.
NPS relies on the State of Alaska who has repeatedly demonstrated extreme bias against bears, wolves and other predators and is actively opposed to naturally regulating ecosystems with the natural ebb and flow of predators and prey.
This bias has taken the form of extending hunting/trapping seasons, increasing bag limits, promoting unethical hunting/trapping practices, and even shooting and killing black/grizzly bear males, females, females with cubs and subadult bears from helicopters during the three years of the Mulchatna Massacre.
There was no justification for this massacre as Alaska Fish & Game hadn’t conducted any previous or current scientific studies of the Mulchatna bear population, population dynamics, natural mortality level or to what degree bears were preying upon caribou calves from the Mulchatna caribou herd.
Nor, were there any efforts to determine what was a sustainable grizzly bear population or studies to determine habitat quality to support large numbers of caribou.
Consequently, there was no scientific justification for this action.
The State of Alaska has actively resisted public participation, comment, opposition and even court decisions regarding the Mulchatna Massacre. These are hardly the actions of a impartial party but one that is biased and obsessed in reducing both bear and wolf populations even onto Federal lands.
This is a perfect example of State overreach into Federal management of Federal lands. It should be intensely resisted as this State overreach will not end here but like a malignant cancer will spread elsewhere into Federal management.
NPS relying on the State of Alaska for justification of bear baiting doesn’t even meet the level of “pseudo science” but is a continuing form of gas lighting the public.
This is especially the case when NPS uses ambiguous language throughout their bear baiting proposal. At no point, does NPS definitively guarantee the safety of Preserve/Park visitors from human food conditioned grizzly bears if bear baiting is allowed.
The safety of Preserve/Park visitors should be the Number 1 priority no matter the remoteness of the National Preserve/Park.
NPS succumbing to the State of Alaska on bear baiting and other abhorrent hunting/trapping practices is a fundamental abdication of NPS’s responsibilities and mandates.
The fact is, is that NPS’s “Don’t Feed the Wildlife” campaign along with bear proof food lockers, dumpsters, garbage cans, bear proof food canisters and educational outreach has been successful for decades in reducing/eliminating human food habituated black/grizzly bears and making Preserves/Parks safer for visitors.
This is the standard which the proponents of bear baiting cannot match and don’t even mention in their proposal.
Questions to the Proponents of Bear Baiting Within NPS
With NPS approving the 2020 bear baiting rule (which was later overturned), they accepted a certain, unnecessary amount of risk for Preserve/Park visitors, to private property, to the bears themselves, and to the public perception of bears.
Which begs the question: Why???
Why is NPS willing to increase the risk to Preserve/Park visitors from food conditioned grizzly bears by allowing bear baiting?
Why is NPS willing to dismiss decades of scientific, factual and historical evidence that demonstrate beyond doubt the danger to humans from food conditioned grizzly bears?
Why is NPS willing to contradict its own educational campaign to not feed wildlife, including bears?
Why is NPS willing to reject its own mandates for naturally regulating ecosystems with natural predator/prey dynamics and of preservation and visitor enjoyment and…….visitor safety?
Why is NPS willing to rely on the State of Alaska, the Alaska Board of Game and Alaska Fish & Game when the State has demonstrated consistent bias against predators (grizzly & black bears, wolves, etc) by expanding predator control, methods of killing predators and increasing seasons and bag limits?
Furthermore, the State of Alaska has done the above without scientific justification. Why is NPS relying on the State of Alaska when due to the State’s consistent decisions against predators (without scientific basis - example: The Mulchatna Massacre) the State lacks credibility?
During the 2020 comment period, 99% of comments were opposed to bear baiting and other abhorrent hunting practices within Alaska National Preserves.
Why did NPS reject the overwhelming opposition to bear baiting and abhorrent hunting/trapping practices for the 2020 rule?
Bear Baiting is Usually Associated with Black Bears; Not Grizzlies
Usually, bear baiting is associated with black bears; not grizzlies. In NPS’s bear baiting proposal, NPS uses the term “bears” without differentiating the differences in temperaments between black and grizzly bears.
This is a serious failure on NPS’s part to acknowledge and recognize the danger from food conditioned grizzly bears. In doing so, the proponents of bear baiting within NPS betray the public’s trust and endanger the public’s safety by their support.
Conclusion
Having worked in Denali National Park as part of Denali’s educational outreach, I can say with certainty that bear baiting undermines that effort of not feeding wildlife. There must be consistency and accuracy in all educational efforts.
I feel that appeasing the State of Alaska, Safari Club, the Alaska Outdoor Council and the Alaska Trapper’’s Association while increasing the risk for visitors is a betrayal of NPS’s fundamental responsibilities to Preserve/Park visitors.
NPS’s fundamental mission is not to appease these various entities but to protect the Preserve/Park, its wildlife populations and naturally regulating ecosystems.
While hunting/trapping can take place within Alaska National Preserves, it is not meant to manipulate wildlife populations upwards or downwards or to favor any species over another. These activities must take place within the broader framework of preservation; not exploitation.
By protecting the Preserve and Park, NPS sets the stage for visitors to safely experience and enjoy the Preserve/Park and its wildlife.
I urge NPS to reject this bear baiting proposal and reconsider the other abhorrent hunting/trapping practices such as: flash lighting and killing denning black bears, using dogs to hunt black bears, killing female black bears with cubs, killing wolf/coyote pups, extending seasons for adult wolves when wolf pups are still dependent and when their coats are worthless, and killing swimming caribou from motor boats in lakes, ponds, rivers and streams that NPS previously approved.
I urge NPS to honor its own mandates in keeping visitors safe and continuing the most positive values that make our National Park System (including National Preserves) America’s Best Idea.
Sincerely,
Bill Watkins
Denali Park/Anchorage, Alaska
Additional References:
PLOS Biology - Large carnivores under assault in Alaska
June 19, 2020 - Letter from THE COALITION TO PROTECT AMERICA'S NATIONAL PARKS
Alaska Wildlife Alliance - Preventing Unethical Sport Hunting in Alaska's National Preserves
National Geographic - Why the US Government is Allowing Bear, Wolves to be Hunted in their Dens