BEAR POLICY
“Under the conditions described in sections 4181 and/or 4181.1 of the Fish and Game Code, black bears that have damaged private property may be killed by the property owner or an agent (See II B and C). A depredation permit is not to be issued to kill a bear for public safety purposes. The procedures for disposing of bear taken under depredation permit will be determined prior to killing the bear. A Department employee will be responsible for disposal of, or to verify disposal of such bear.
Individual bears which stray into residential areas, or similar situations where human/bear conflicts are anticipated, may be moved to the nearest suitable habitat in the safest and most expedient manner. Bears which have become habituated to humans or human settlements are not candidates for moving. Removals will not be considered relocation for the purposes of this policy, since the purpose is to return such bears to the area they already inhabited.
Wildlife interests will be given priority over private interests on public lands.
II. Response Categories and Remedial Actions
Category 1 – A bear has strayed into a populated area and cannot readily return to bear habitat. In most situations, removal of the antagonists or distractions from the area will allow the bear to return to appropriate habitat and only phone contact will be necessary. Site response will only be necessary in cases where a bear does not leave or other factors indicate that either the safety of the bear or public are compromised. Techniques to remove the bear may include, but are not limited to the use of “bear busters” (rubber slug shot shells) or sling shot projectiles to drive the bear away and/or “bear” dogs to chase and haze the bear out of the area. Unless otherwise specified by a supervisor, a Department employee will accompany any persons using dogs to chase or haze bears. Tranquilizing and removing the bear can be used if other methods are determined to be unsafe or have been unsuccessful.
Category 2 – A bear has become habituated to humans and may be a nuisance problem (no property damage involved) by tipping over garbage cans, invading compost piles, walking across porches, etc. Bears which have been previously captured and returned to areas of human habitation are included in this category. The investigator should recommend reasonable corrective measures as a solution to the problem. Reasonable corrective measures shall include, but are not limited to: area clean-up, removal of trash or other food attractants, bear-proofing food storage areas, electric fencing, temporary closure of campsites, and/or the techniques listed in Category 1 above.
Category 3 – A bear has caused real property damage to a dwelling(s), structure(s), vehicle(s), apiaries, etc., or is a repeat offender (the bear has been previously captured or hazed by Department employees). If the damage is minor and there are no other previous reports of damage – the first action should be the implementation of reasonable corrective measures to remove the attractants as outlined for Category 2 bears. As the situation dictates, corrective measures shall be made prior to, or in addition to, issuing a depredation permit. In those cases where a bear has caused extensive and/or chronic damage to private property, such as livestock killed and/or injured, entries into a home(s) or cabin(s), repeated damage where corrective or bear-proofing efforts have failed, etc., the corrective action should be the issuance of a depredation permit.”

So the big question is, “Was there any history of this bear having become habituated to humans or a repeat offender that was previously captured or hazed by Department employees?” As far as we can determine there was no record of complaints about this bear being in that area prior to this occasion. Therefore, clearly this policy was NOT followed by Dept. of Fish and Game.

It has become clear over time that the DFG is not going to officially admit to any wrongdoing or reprimand Warden Takayama. Fortunately he has retired!

However, will we be able to be assured that in the future DFG will follow its own policy? We will work on creating that trust. But for now, I don’t think we can know that. It seems to be up to whatever Warden arrives on the scene to do whatever he or she wants.

Therefore, I think we need to organize an emergency response network in the event of this happening again. If you would like to be a part of this network, please email me at OWL and we will get in touch with you.

Sue Williamson