For a while now, I have considered writing about the controversy surrounding Dr. Lynn Roger’s black bear research and whether collared bears should be protected from hunting. I haven’t done so yet because I haven’t formed a solid opinion, can see both sides of the argument, and am not a bear hunter. But recently, Lynn Rogers made some comments that I can’t ignore.
Lynn Rogers and Black Bear
But first, a little background for anyone who is not familiar with the issue. Dr. Rogers is campaigning hard to make it illegal to shoot radio-collared bears during bear hunting season. He has studied bears for over 40 years and conducts his research through a non-profit organization he founded, the Wildlife Research Institute. He has published numerous scientific articles and other literature on bears, and documentaries such the BBC’s “Bearwalker of the Northwoods” have featured his research. Dr. Rogers has tried to get protection for collared bears in the past. But now, thanks to two of his research bears, Lily and Hope who became internet sensation last winter when Hope’s birth was streamed live on the internet from their den, Dr. Rogers has gained a large following campaigning right along with him.
Lily the Black Bear in Den last winter
At first, it might sound like a great idea to protect research bears from hunting. Researching wildlife costs a considerable amount of time and money, and one can learn more from a live bear than a dead bear. However, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has not been supportive of such a law, not because they don’t want hunters to spare the bears they research (which are separate from Dr. Rogers’ research), but because it is possible that a hunter may not see a collar or ear tag on a bear. Currently, it is legal to shoot a collared bear, but the DNR asks hunters not do so. If it were illegal to shoot collared bears, how would you sort out hunters that didn’t see the collar from those that did? If a hunter shot a bear illegally, would he or she destroy the GPS collar along with all the data it contained instead of turning it into the DNR?
Dr. Rogers believes he can solve this problem with his bears by attaching brightly colored ribbons to their radio-collars. Dr. Rogers can do this because he feeds the bears he researchers. These bears have become so accustomed to his presence that they will allow Dr. Rogers to touch them and even place a collar and ribbons around their necks without the need of being tranquilized. Some people consider this research controversial because it begs questions such as: are these really wild bears anymore, could this create problem bears that like human food and aren’t afraid of people, and does this encourage the public to feed bears? In contrast, the MN DNR does not feed bears and generally only visits collared bears in the winter when they are denning.
Lily and Hope with ribbons on their collars
Dr. Rogers has argued that the bears he researchers must be protected because of their value to science regardless of what the DNR wants to do with their bears. However, he has been criticized for his lack of recent scientific publications. In the last 10 years, Dr. Roger has co-authored one peer-reviewed scientific journal article. He responded in a recent post on Facebook by saying:
One comment we have seen from DNR officials is that we haven’t published much in peer-reviewed journals in recent years. We plan to do that. But it has not been a high priority, and here’s why. We have already senior-authored more peer-reviewed papers than anyone. According to a survey by the Journal of Wildlife Management, the average journal article is thoroughly read by 6 people. More people read the abstracts. We feel the papers we have published have done little to help bears. Sure, they contain facts and figures and expand the knowledge of bear biology, but they do little to change people’s attitudes about bears, and it is people’s attitudes that make the most difference for bears.
Is he saying that they haven’t worked on publishing any research findings in scientific journals because they aren’t that important and almost no one reads them?!
First of all, how can you educate people without facts? Dr. Rogers, himself often cites scientific papers to support his research and causes, including the one he cites to support that scientific articles aren’t all that important. I couldn’t find a reference to this survey (I would love to check it out if someone can point me in the right direction), but I find 6 people awfully low. What does “thoroughly read” mean and when/how was this survey conducted? If I don’t have the necessary background to really understand the methods or results of a scientific paper, I might only read the introduction and discussion. That doesn’t mean I’m not getting more out of it than I would by only reading the abstract.
Second of all, I feel his above statement does not follow the mission of Wildlife Research Institute, which is to:
Conduct scientific research on bears, other wildlife, and their habitat, and provide that information to decision-makers, the scientific community, students, and the public.
Peer-reviewed literature is necessary for wildlife management and conservation. In order for scientific research to be useful for the groups mentioned above, it needs to go through the rigors of peer-review as quality assurance for the methods and assertions of the research. While a scientific article may not be readable by the average person, it informs decision-makers and scientists, and is translated to the public by journalists, professors, educators, and even bloggers.
In his post, Dr. Rogers goes on to talk about how he and his organizations have focused on education and reaching the public instead of publishing research. I think that’s great if he wants to educate the public about bears, but are they really “research bears” if research is not a primary objective? He states how important the detailed data they have collected is to science, bear management and changing people’s attitudes about bears. Then why has he not been sharing it, when the sharing of information is vital to science?
I don’t understand how Dr. Rogers can proclaim how important his research is to science, then turn around and dismiss science and the process. While I still am unsure whether shooting a collared bear should be illegal, I do wish hunters would pass over the collared bears they come across, so that they can continue to benefit science, wildlife management, and education. However, I also do think Dr. Rogers is doing a disservice to science with his recent comments, especially when he has hundreds of thousands of fans.
Please tell me you think. Do you agree or think I am overreacting? How important do you think scientific papers are to conservation and educating the public on wildlife issues? Do you think the shooting of a collared bear should be punishable or just strongly discouraged?
American Black Bear near Orr, MN
Related Articles
I think what he’s saying is that it’s the public relations battle they have to focus on, rather than the scientific publication battle. It may be a rationalization of sorts because I know of several recent black bear publications that were at the least of interest to me (I’m obsessed with bears). Regarding his feeding of the bears…obviously, that’s a confounder and against accepted practice. Perhaps that’s one reason his research isn’t making the journals? Has he addressed whether he’s submitted papers and they’ve been declined, or is he not submitting at all? Are they really research bears if he’s feeding them, anyway?
As for the collar controversy… if the hunters can’t see the collars, they shouldn’t be held accountable for accidentally shooting a collared bear.
Thanks for bringing up some great points and questions! I also am a little obsessed with bears
As for public relations, I think he generally gets pretty positive media attention. It seems to me that wildlife biologists and managers, bear hunters, and some local residents are the groups of people he would need to improve relations with the most. I supposed he has worked on this by bringing in tourism and other dollars to the local community, including helping the DNR win a $100,000 grant. But he still has a long ways to go if he wants good relations with the majority of those groups.
As for whether he’s submitted any papers, he also said in his post, “the time has come to crunch some data and write some peer-reviewed papers. Getting some of those published will be a challenge because most of the scientific reviewers will be mired in misconceptions we will have to overcome.”
This and other comments he’s made gives me the impression that they haven’t tried to submit anything and possibly haven’t examined much of the data to look for results. I could be wrong though. But if that is the case, I think 10 years is an awfully long time to just let data accumulate.
Although I don’t feel qualified to give my opinion on this topic, I’m so glad you’re tackling it–or at least trying to. Important stuff! And I can’t wait to cruise around the rest of your site and check back in often. Citzen Science is a GREAT term, and I feel a bit sheepish that I haven’t heard of it before. I’ll be adding you to my blogroll, Zoologirl. You’re doing great work!
Thanks so much for both comments (it took me forever to pick a title haha)! I’ve been meaning to add your blog to my blogroll as well. Your writing and photography is excellent. I hope nothing I wrote made you feel unqualified to give your opinion. I myself am not a genuine scientist or anything (hopefully one day though) or a hunter. But I understand if you don’t want to share for other reasons too. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing more from you, and maybe you can add a citizen science project to your 30 by 30- I just had to add one more
Citizen Science project! I love it! I’ve just updated my list, so I didn’t see this in time, but maybe I’ll add it in on one of my random adventures. And no–nothing you said made me feel unqualified at all. I just like to think about topics and know a good deal about them before I let my voice get too loud. That’s just me.
Congrats on your blog post getting picked up by a carnival!
Oh, and I loved the title for this post.
Zoogirl while I respect your opinion, I as a biologist, have to provide a difference of opinion. For one, there is a tremendous amount of educational data that Dr. Rogers and his staff provides and will be writing as he said, a journal article in the near future. Also, one needs to recognize this is a non-profit- and therefore, he gets no funding for research like those that work at universities and therefore, other activities must be done to raise resources…and there is only so much time in a day. Also, you will note there are plans to expand the educational focus of educating students…this includes those in higher education not just that for young students in k-12. Nothing wrong with this, at some point all researchers and educators altering their workload or pursue a different direction which after 40 years and a prolific publishing career he should be able to do if he wants too! Have you even watched any of the “research videos” on bear behavior or the research? There is plenty of information and videos available at http://www.bearstudy.org and bear.org.
As for feeding, the reseachers do not feed these bears at the level some of the media and the DNR has tried to portray — what they are given is a handful of nuts which is part of bear diet — to allow them to take their heart rate and do physical exams. Doc was trained early on in biomonitoring and there is a need for this kind of data in wildlife. Unfortunately, there are few that can do this kind of collection data because of the need for such close and continuous proximity. This continual kind of monitoring also provides a researcher and biologist a keen sense of what is going on with the animal’s “health” and its environment through this kind of day to day monitoring — a once a year visit to a den can not do this….!
Also, while you find fault with Doc Rogers’ research, I have to find more fault with the activities of the MN DNR which you obviously respect. I want to ask — are you aware they use antibiotics in their baiting to determine the state of the bear population? While this is heralded as being a good method for population research one must pose an opposing view from the standpoint of public health. Have you ever thought about the issue of antibiotic resistance in wildlife and how this method devised by the MN DNR is contributing to the problem and why they use such methods when the antibiotics they use are contra-indicated in pregnant human females? So why are they using them in potentially pregnant females? Has anyone considered how this effects people that eat the bear meat? I find these important questions considering that several states and the CDC are critically looking at the overuse of antibiotics and that is has become a potentially major health threat.
I guess at this point, I think it is safe to say as yet, there probably no “perfect method” for bear research. However, considering that Doc’s research is humane and provides important data that has never been able to be collected before…there is no reason why it should not continue!
Thank you for commenting Kimberly. Because my blog has moved since this was originally posted, I copied your comment and replied at my blog’s new address. You find this post and my reply here:
http://zoologirl.southernfriedscience.com/?p=420