Dan and the Bear – A Play in One Act
Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan is an idiot.
I know this is not news to you, but sometimes it feels good to say something even though it doesn’t need to be said. He’s done lots of idiotic things, but here’s the latest.
There’s been a bear mauling on the Rover’s Run trail in Far North Bicentennial Park. A bicycle commuter was attacked and injured. It’s a horrible thing that seems to happen too frequently. Salmon are in the stream, mother grizzlies are protective of new cubs, and this… is Alaska. Bears are a fact of life, and love them or hate them, they are worthy of deep respect. If a bear is out to get you, you will probably lose. So the best thing when there are irritated bears on a trail is to close it so nobody else gets hurt, or worse. We did it last year, and the year before. Makes sense, right?
Only if you’re not Mayor Dan Sullivan. He’ll go so far as to say that you shouldn’t actually go on the trail, but closing it? Nah.
Fish and Game biologist Rick Sinnott wants the city to close the trail as it has when brown bears have been in the area during the last two years. Mayor Sullivan refuses. He’s agreed to warning signs, but doesn’t want to close the trail in part because there’s no budget for enforcement and in part because he argues that Far North is an urban park, where people should be able to go for recreation.
See, those bears just don’t get it. We should be able to use those trails. This is an “urban park” after all. Who do those ursine spoil sports think they are, anyway? They’re interfering with our libertarian recreating ways. And can you imagine the budget it would take to pound a sign in to the ground that says “CLOSED?” Outrageous.
But wait, there’s more…
Asked about the routine practice of national and state park officials in closing trails when bear danger is high, the mayor said Wednesday that those are national and state parks with different purposes than city parks.
I’m sure that after the mayor takes the appropriate paperwork explaining the difference in intended function of national vs. state vs. city parks, and sits down with the bears to explain, that they’ll do the right thing and relocate.
Let’s imagine the scene in a moment of Mudflats Theatre…
Dan and the Bear – A Play in One (Very Short) Act
(As the scene opens we see a trail in the woods. A man in a suit and tie walks in from stage right, slightly hunched and shuffling through a small pile of papers. He reads as he walks.)
Man: (muttering)…. Where is that reference? I just saw it….
(He looks up from the papers to see a large brown bear who has wandered out on the trail. He smiles and sits on a large fallen tree by the side of the path.)
Man: Hey there! I was hoping I’d see you. (He pats the log next to him) Have a seat.
Bear: Grrrrrr….. (he looks suspiciously at the man, and ambles over to the log)
Man: I heard about the mauling the other day, and to be honest, I think we have a problem. You see, this here is what we call an “urban park.” It’s a city park. It isn’t like a national park or a state park, and if you’ll look here, (indicates paper) you’ll see that I’ve highlighted where it says that the purpose
(Bear eats man)
(Curtain)
i wonder why in the world the trail was developed in a location that has obviously been bear country for a long time? I say, close that trail or reroute it, so we can live with the bears and they can avoid us.
I hate to use Arizona as a good example here, but what the heck, they could use something positive said about them. During monsoon season, the cities put out do-not-enter signs at low spots during heavy rains. That was never enough though, because some dummy always drove into the low spot anyway and then got swept away by flash floods. The floods are a seasonal hazard, and they occur commonly at certain locations. Gee, kinda sounds like the bears. So I guess Arizona is being a nanny state when it closes those locations during heavy rains. Citizens should be able to make their own crappy decisions about driving into danger, right? (eyerollery) Well, the state finally had its fill of dumb, freedom-loving motorists who risked the lives of rescue workers and cost the cities millions. It passed the stupid motorist law which states that all idiots who ignore road closed signs are responsible for the entire cost of their rescue, assuming they get rescued and don’t drown. Personal responsibility through legislation is what we are forced into, because the reality is that there are a lot of really stupid people in this world. I fully support this law, because one rescue worker is easily worth more than 5 dumb idiots, and the law at least makes sure there is money to keep the rescue workers trained and available to bail out the stupid idiots. The cheap first step is the signs that tell people not to expose themselves to an obvious danger. That keeps some of the idiots alive. The next step is to force the rest of the idiots to accept retroactive responsibility for their stupidity.
Sounds like a good law. Anchorage could use something like that to allow them to pay the rescue workers, whose jobs have just been phased out.
Objection! I am a search and rescue volunteer. Most of the rescue personnel here (in Alaska) are unpaid volunteers like me. Sullivan cut a crew of 4 paid fire department backcountry rescuers . . . the unpaid volunteers are still responding. See 20.1.1 above
I was just up at the trailhead at Hillside Park to see if there are any signs about the bear incident Tuesday: nope. No Right to Know. BLM has bear-awareness signs at all their trailheads in the BLM park of Bi-C park. The city is shameful. So people are encouraged by our Mayor to go on walks or bike rides with “big guns” and that is messed up. It’s an outrage. I think we need to do our own signage and RTK campaign at the trailheads… these sows and cubs lives are in danger, not to mention people.
I’m more worried about seeing a guy walking with a big gun on the trail than seeing a brown or black bear.
Is this the same city I see on Discovery Channel with bears and moose in the yards of everyday people? I think I have only seen two people trying to control animal/people conflicts. There is one man and a younger woman trying to catch moose calves and scare blackbears and grizzlies out of the garbage. If only politicians took their jobs as seriously, and did as much useful stuff. Maybe you can tranquilize the dipstick in lipstick and put her in a zoo exhibit.
I would be in the tourist catagory. First, cutting the rescue personnel. Then, this.
How does Mr. Sullivan think this news is going to be taken by tourists? We don’t know about bears, except they are big. This frightens me. I want to come back to Anchorage and spend a couple weeks doing nothing but exploring and learning about the city. I want to examine the glorious parks, the trail system, and take my knowledge home to our town. I want to know about the waterfront. I want to know. I am thinking I will just stay in the car.
Sounds like Dano the Mayor, doesn’t give a flying squat for the people he serves. Seems like being Mayor is just to serve himself, secret contracts and doin’ run of the mill cronyism and back street thuggery.
Apparently Dan Sullivan is prepared to kick in his own personal funds when another person gets mauled and sues the city because they failed to close the trails. It doesn’t matter if there is not a guard posted on every trail, a sign saying “closed, do not enter, danger” would suffice to cover the city against any liability for a person’s injury.
It’s a good thing the city is saving so much money by reducing the number of emergency personnel. They’re going to need it to pay costs and damages to the next person who gets mauled.
If, after eating an Alaska City Mayor, an Alaska Brown Bear becomes ill and requires medical treatment, can the bear then sue the city? What if the bear dies from the overload of toxins? Can his or her family sue the city?
Just asking…
Am firmly with you here AKM…
For a variety of reasons.
The personal responsibility argument has some merit but generally assumes all who enter into an agreement with THEMselves to be personally responsible are in possession of the same facts, information and ability to make decisions. This is demonstrably untrue. Having been part of a cliff rescue team for years I can say that peoples’ perceptions of what warning signs, their own abilities, and suchlike are, are very often completely askew with reality.
There are accepted risks in everything we do, from the potential timebombs we keep under our kitchen sinks or garage shelves, in the form of chemical weapons to combat mold or weeds, to entering the stream of traffic on the highway on an icy day ( or a Friday when all are heading out for a weekend of fishing/camping…) to presenting ourselves for work in an office, oilfield, or on a fishing boat. There are also unaccepted risks … leaving poisons where small children may get to them, weaving in and out of traffic with one’s mind everywhere but on the road, and skimping the line on maintenance of equipment or facilities to increase profits to the point of endangering workers…
The tension between what we accept as risk and what we don’t, far too often, revolves around fears that we will fall fully into becoming a “nanny” state or that we will abandon ourselves as a community in favor of all these personal little islands of responsibility when the conversation really ought to begin somewhere else.
Our assumptions are always that we , whatever our views are, are on the high ground and conceding any point means we will topple downhill…
This fear of slippery slopes obscures the reality that most of our American existence is lived slogging along on a sidehill slant working towards better ways to ease the tension between individual and collective interests… sometimes one is a more compelling argument model, sometimes the other… sometimes we arrive at solutions which cherish both…
All that being said and looking at the 4 articles and 1 opinion piece in the ADN regarding the recent mauling, the biologist’s call for trail closure, and Mayor Sullivan’s remarks, I’m thinking the problem with this mayor is deeper than stupidity.
His implied definition of “urban” ?
His attitude about what can be called “common sense”?
His foolishness about what can be afforded ?
His remarks about salmon?
Anchorage-
Do you have an urban bear plan?
Do you have a park plan?
Do you celebrate your unique urban existence in the midst of the wilds with an understanding of what you are and want to be…
or are you letting clueless- city-boy-danny set your policies for yourselves by default?
Seems to me this situation is like closing the swimming pool because there is lightning in the area. At this time of year, bears are attracted to the suddenly abundant food supply (salmon) so there are more bears in the area and more food and young’ns to protect, making chance human-bear encounters more likely. Not rogue bears, or bears grown accustomed to humans, or hungry bears seeking human food, but a known gathering storm of bears. Best not to swim in the pool (or the lake, or the ocean) during a thunderstorm; best not to walk or bike in the midst of feeding bears. If the city built the trail (or the pool) for the good of the people, then the city also has the responsibility — for the good of the people — to close the trail (or the pool) in times of imminent danger.
Sullivan is an idiot. Trail should be closed.
Closure sign should read “Use at your own risk. Emergency personnel will not enter this area to get you out”
The risk you take also puts emergency responders at risk.
If you want to take risks, you should be prepared to self-rescue.
Objection! See 20.1.1 above. Unpaid search and rescue volunteers will respond.
I’m loath to admit it, but I agree with the Mayor on this one. A warning sign is adequate. Let me know the risk is there, let me take the responsibility. We know climbing Denali is a huge risk, and a big expense when accidents happen, but no one actually wants the mountain closed off to climbers. Commercial fishing is the most dangerous profession yet I do not want anyone to say I cannot do it. I will personally assess for myself the risks and take it from there. The trail exists for use, “use with caution”, not unlike any trip down the Seward or Glenn highway. Now those are some seriously dangerous trails!
No, and for two main reasons.
First, you can’t expect teenagers, old enough to use the trails unchaperoned to follow a cautionary sign. Most of the time an ‘Enter At Your Own Risk’ sign just begs to be disobeyed from our youth. Adolescence isn’t refered to as ‘the rebellious years’ for nothing. Being mauled by a bear is a tad over the top as punshment for being young, in my opinion.
Second, as an adult, your ‘personal’ decision to throw caution to the wind endangers the very people you would expect to come to your aid should the walk ‘not go well’.
If you’ve ever been on the other end of ‘search and rescue’ you’d get how much of a taxpayer burden it is for adults to be allowed to be stupid in the wild. Emergency services and hospitals all too often get stuck with unpaid bills which they have no way of recovering (especially from tourists who have left the state or country) except to use the losses as tax breaks, and the emergency personnel risk personal injury, accident, death and being mauled themselves while trying to find and bring you to safety.
This first mauling was an accident. The next one wll be on the mayor’s head. Not only does he refuse to close the trails while the bear season is upon Alaskans, he’s shut down most of the responding search and rescue services so he could maintain a nice smooth ice rink for his hockey team.
If this goes pear-shaped, he’s got no way out.
Objection!
I am the agency representative this weekend for a search and rescue team which would respond to an injured person (read “bear attack”) in Far North Bicentennial Park. Or anywhere else in a wide area — Anchorage bowl, Kenai, MatSu, Glenallen. I have an Alaska State Trooper pager on the kitchen table. It could go off at any moment. We will respond.
Sullivan may have cut funding for the 4-person paid fire department backcountry rescue team, but we unpaid volunteers are still on the job.
Volunteers are amazing people!
But OzMud has a valid point: emergency care isn’t cheap. But hospitals are constantly having to write off extraordinary costs when they can’t find former patients (and they have already spent time and money trying to find them, trying to get paid for the services rendered) and then they pass the costs along to everyone else. They have to do so or they have to shut their doors.
I do hope the person who was recently hurt fully recovers.
Just wanted to pipe up and say let’s keep our thoughts also with the person who was injured. Someone I knew was mauled by a brown bear a few years ago. Serious case. He had multiple reconstructive surgeries, but eventually was almost himself again. It’s good that the biker in this case escaped that kind of experience. I hope he recovers quickly.
Apparently some folks in the “Last Frontier” are philosophically opposed to acting as their “brother’s keepers,” even though there are some brothers who do require a little keeping.
Go ahead, assume the risk for your own actions. Society applauds you….and hopes you remain as stoic and philosophical after your own pas de deux with Ursus.
However…..it’s a pity that it has to be pointed out that the impulse to assume personal responsibility for risk is NOT any more worthy, moral, or laudable than the impulse to protect others who may (through ignorance or inattention) be unaware of the scope of the risk. There’s a time and place in human society for both impulses.
He probably thought it was just Sarah.
We have shark attacks in Hawaii. Well, they are hungry. And it’s their territory. But every time it happens (rather rarely), people go nutz and set out in boats to kill some sharks. Right. Like the sharks will stop and think, “hey, maybe I should not bite humans cuz these boat people will try to kill me.”
When there are sightings of sharks in an area, we close the beaches. But random attacks are not avoidable.
We just this week had a fatal grizzly attack here in Wyoming, near Yellowstone National Park. Luckily, this doesn’t happen too often, but it does happen. I’ve lived nearly all of my close to 60 years in Wyoming and Montana, and for 40 years of that I was lucky enough to be able to consider Yellowstone as my own personal stomping grounds, and the mountains north and south were my main recreational area. Yes, I have had bear encounters, but mercifully they were smallish black bears and we never came to any serious grounds for argument.
Having said that, though, I see two big changes over the years here in bear country. First, we get a LOT of idiots. Idiots who either cannot read signs and observe warnings, or who simply don’t think they should bestir themselves to heed them. And they aren’t always tourists, either. Some locals can hear of a documented bear issue in a particular area, and go merrily out there anyway, because…. I don’t know, maybe they feel especially lucky or maybe their psychic told them they will die from too much sex or environmental anguish but certainly not from excessive grizzly love.
The second big change relates to the bears themselves. Down here, we have more and more settlements encroaching on bear habitat, and I’m quite sure the same is happening in Alaska. But those danged bears, they get smarter all the time, but not smart enough to read signs or study maps. So when we have encroached on their habitat, they may just move a little further down the line looking for new turf, and they wander into areas they never thought to visit before. I haven’t done a scientific study (although I’m sure somebody has), but it seems like a fair number of the bear attacks we have had in the last 5-10 years happened in areas where there hadn’t been much historical bear activity. I’m sure that had the bears known we would be distressed, they would have chosen more wisely. Same with the mountain lions, by the way.
None of this takes away from the fact that your mayor is apparently a slow learner who wakes up in a brand new world every morning.
In Yosemite, I think they’re now up to having to kill several bears a year. Virtually all of them have learned that the presence of humans means the presence of food in the vicinity. Personally, I think they may be teaching the cubs. Every so often, one of them becomes so unafraid of humans that it goes after food while humans are around., and that’s a death warrant, because it could swat a two-year-old on its way to the cooler.
As you say, the problem is exacerbated by idiots who will not bother to follow bear-safe food/trash rules, or stay out of warning zones. And by the fact that, smart as bears are, they don’t seem to be good with abstract concepts, like “some of the hairless midgets have rifles”. So it’s really tough to retrain them not to encroach on human areas once they have learned to do so.
Agree Thisby – lots of idiots out there – and although they disregard signs & warnings – they still sue because some park employee did not tell them specifically “don’t do that”.
I recall being @ Yellowstone and signs warning ppl about staying X feet from the buffalo – some idiot father had his young child out in the field about 30 feet away – with his back to the buffalo – while the father took pics of child with buffalo in the background. He was putting his child in danger!
When we walked the boardwalks around the hot springs & mud pots … we hooked a dog leash on a jean loop of my high energy nephew. Looked idiotic – but knowing him – he’d reach out to touch. We kept him safe & close while enjoying the sites.
warning; coffee is hot, it will burn you if you spill it on yourself or drink it to fast.
now because we think that we know whats best for you and we do not want to be sued , er i mean we want to “protect you”, and we do not think you can think for yourselves, we are hereby banning all coffee. and abortions, and cigarettes, and motorcycles, and voting for demarcates and anything else that we think we need to protect you from.
really ?
Remember what happened in the court case with the hot coffee spilled and who won that case and it was not the place that served the coffee.I could not believe anyone bought that the woman would not know the coffee was hot and would burn her if spilled.And people wonder at the high cost of living!!!
I just wanted to point out that the coffee wasn’t just hot, it was hot enough to MELT her labia and clitoris. That’s wicked hot.
Gentlemen, that’s hot enough to MELT very delicate and portions of the head of your penis. The parts with all the nerve endings.
Puma attacks aren’t pleasant–how do California, Arizona, etc. handle the individual trail, or trail system, following a particularly serious puma attack?
the seat belt argument is not remotely the same , know one but the cyclist was affected by his actions . he did not drive his family into an oncoming car. he paid taxes for the emt’s , police etc. they are paid to respond to these things. if accident never happened then we would not need them.
sharks attack people to eat them, you can not see them. the bear was minding her own business when a fast and dangerous threat approached her and her cub, she did what she was supposed to do. if it was an agressive bear attack then i would say yes close the trail until the threat is past.
you are saying that that it is the city’s fault if i put myself in harms way , it is my fault , my responsibility , i live in Alaska , i know bears are in far north park . if i get mauled its because i made a poor decision or was careless. if i bring a frivolous and moronic lawsuit against the city than i should be punished for that.
How do you know the cyclist was a taxpayer? How do you know the next one will be?
Sharks do attack people. When they do, the authorities CLOSE THE BEACHES until they can evaluate the ongoing risk.
Loved the one act play. Why are there so many unfettered idiots running around believing that bears (mama grizzlies included) to have good old-fashioned common sense?
Has anyone seen a line item deletion for the reduction of enforcement on such a trail? I don’t think there is one. I think the Mayor is making this ” lack of funds” thing up because he simply is not interested in it. I hope nobody gets killed because we have a lazy Mayor and protective bears.
Anyone who spends any significant time in FNBP knows it is NOT wilderness. Dan is making the right call here. ADN is whipping up a frenzy by demonizing Rover’s Run when in fact tens of thousands of people use it every year without incident, and only ONE attack actually occurred on Rover’s Run itself. The latest incident did not occur on Rover’s Run – not even close. People keep talking like it was some dark tiny trail through the woods but it was on one of the bigger, well-traveled, VERY well-used trails.
From a legal standpoint, closing the trail actually exposes the City to MORE liability than leaving it open. Closing the trail suggests that it is the only place where bear danger exists, and should someone be attacked by a bear on another trail or away from the closed trail, they could make the argument that they had the expectation that the City closes unsafe trails.
The city doesn’t close dangerous roads or intersections, doesn’t shut down sleazy bars, and doesn’t hold your hand crossing the street. You’re in far bigger danger driving to the park than you are riding around in it; it is just your limited perceptions of risk that lead you to believe otherwise.
Sullivan is right on the money this time. For once.
I don’t live in Anchorage, so I have no idea about the physical situation. Based on California experience, I’d say that warning signs would be the normal response in a semi-rural area.
You seem to say that this attack occurred on a high-usage trail. If that is the case, you may have a bear that has stopped being wary of humans (happens in Yosemite every couple of years), in which case you close the trail until you can kill the bear. Nobody is happy about this, but bears are smart enough that when one figures out that humans are prey, you cannot re-educate him or her.
But, on another point, your legal assertions do not hold water. Closing the trail suggests that bear danger exists on that trail. It doesn’t make any implications about bear danger elsewhere. If Alaskan case law is different, please cite an example.
BTW, Anchorage may not do these things, but many cities close dangerous roads or intersections until they can be fixed; and most cities close down sleazy bars that have an abnormal amount of crime associated with them. I’ll admit that I’m not aware of any city that holds your hand while crossing the street (how would that work?), but many of them do renovate their walk signals to be more visible and/or audible.
I don’t know if the subject trail should be closed, but your arguments against it are weak.
Do you know which trail is rovers run? It’s pretty out of the way and hard for rescue folks to get to. Tens of thousands a year? Not likely. An “urban trail” that’s debatable (really), and yes it opens the city to HUGE liability. Court: “why didn’t you close the trail if you knew it was dangerous?” “we didn’t want to”. That does not go over well with a judge.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can drive a vehicle to within 100 yards of Rover’s Run at both ends, and the trail is only a little over 1 mile long.
I suspect Dan may have a life insurance contract with the city for all deaths caused by one or more bears. U-betcha.
Good Grief – do you suppose just because the warning signs are up
(unless they say AT YOUR OWN RISK ) – instead of closing –
someone could sue?
Yes, I do. That was my first thought. Moronic mayor Sullivan may be exposing the city taxpayers to a huge liability risk.
Isn’t this the same place that two other people were mauled severely? Wasn’t one of them a child? If you put up signs saying the trail is closed then the responsibility falls back on the individual. If the city just puts up warning signs and someone gets injured then it is a serious gray area. When it goes to court (now days everything goes to court) couple of facts will come out, one being the previous maulings, salmon running in the stream attracting the bears. Then the big one, if the city didn’t know they should have known the dangers. Courts will not accept ignorance in tort cases.
let me say this up front , i think Dan is a moron, a hypocrite and many other things. now it pains me to admit it but i agree with him on this. personal responsibility , its seems to be lacking in most conservatives in this town and most litigious happy Americans; as a cyclist who rides in far north i understand that i am in bear country. it is my my responsibility to let the bears now i am there. it not my governments place to tell me i cant cycle there, ( they should tell me about recent bear activity ) . as far as i am concerned the guy on the bike is at fault here not the trail, not the city, not the bear. i can not see how a progressive minded person can say lets close the trail because its the city place to think for me. i know there are bears there. if i ride it after reading the warnings and get mauled than its my fault and i am not going to be looking to blame the government because they did not close it. it is a wild forested park in an urban location, if you don’t know that going in then that is you ignorance. i love you AKMuckraker but i disagree with you on this one. how can you say do not tell me i can not have an abortion but please tell me i can not ride my bike on public land. i do not get it.
pardon the typos, in my fervor i did not proof read thoroughly : have a nice bike ride.
Same reason there’s a seat belt law. There are others affected, not just the person. Police were called, emergency services, medical treatment, etc. All of these things are provided at public expense and if people expect to be assisted in such circumstances, I think that the assisting entity should have the ability to assess when the risk is too great.
Public beaches are closed all the time due to dangers like sharks, or medical waste (NJ in the 80s) because living in a society means that others are bound to go try to save you if you get eaten by a shark, or a bear. As libertarian as we like to be, we still depend on each other.
And it IS the city’s place (if not to think of you) to think of itself. If you put up a closed sign, it reduces the city’s liability. If someone still uses the trail despite the closure, they’re the ones at fault and less likely to sue the city for lack of fair warning.
Just my thoughts.
You’re actually wrong about the liability issue – see my comment a few comments below. Closing trails creates more liability for the City.
If your argument is that there are “others affected” then why let anyone leave their house at all? People who get in car wrecks cost money, people who have kids cost money, people who slip on the ice and fall cost money; why do they get a free pass to cost money but mountain bikers on trails are demonized?
Emergency responders were called and there was public expense. But they were called into an area with a dagerous bear, and asked to put themselves at risk.
I agree with you as well (though I don’t think the biker is “at fault”). It is a personal choice. It’s not up to the city to close trails every time there is a bear.
Frankly I think it’s time to thin the urban bears out, but that is another argument. I will say that I grew up in the bush where we didn’t have bear problems – when a bear became a problem, it was shot and that was that. No messing around with 1,000 lb predators.
There are plenty of places in the state for bears to be.
Call me crazy, but the bears were there before we were. Thinning out “urban” bears and assuming that bears should know what places in the state they should be is ridiculous. I’m pretty sure a bear does not know if it is “urban” or rural. I’m biting my tongue a bit here.
We must provide the bears with maps and a GPS, Seattlefan. Problem solved. 🙂
Again, thinning = kill. Predator control=kill. Why don’t people ever say what it is instead of using less offensive terms?
Locals may get it, but tourists may not. I can’t think of a worse headline than: “NYC family, dog, killed by a mamma grizzley in Anchorage, AK” Sometimes people really do need to be protected from their own stupidity.
I’m all for Dan visiting the parks these bears are in. Let’s hope he visits one soon. As the bear mauls him, he will cry how unfair it is because, after all, it’s a city park.
Film at eleven would be the icing on the cake.
Dan, you look like you need a little exercise. Hey, how about running or biking at Rovers Run.
Alaska is such a unique wonderful place because of its wildlife so be sure to take your camera.
Lol! That mayor of yours is a piece of work. Damn those bears for not respecting your “urban park” paths.
Seriously, when will humans realize that WE are the ones encroaching on wildlife habitats and not the other way around? I feel for the person who got mauled, but in reality we are invading their space. The bear’s and other wildlife’s instinct is to protect, hunt/forage and survive . They have no concept of parks, boundaries set aside for humans, or rules.
So what are Dan’s signs going to say….Please Don’t Feed the Bears?
WTF???? He’s calling Far North Bicentennial Park an URBAN park????? What has he been smoking –cuz I want some! That’s the bloody Chugach foothills for cryin’ out loud!
He most definitely needs to take up hiking 🙂
Or, from what I’ve learned of the man… thinking!
But, good luck with that.
Soooooo, one of the purposes of a city park is to provide bear bait?
If only
You took the words out of my mouth.