Black bear (Ursus americanus) depredation in agriculture has become an increasing concern in Massachusetts. Complaints from apiarists, corn growers, and livestock producers have increased 167% during the period 1980 to 1990, but whether this increase truly represents more depredation, response of bears to other factors, or simply better reporting/record keeping has not been determined. The bear population in Massachusetts from 1984 to 1989 increased 50°/a to approximately 700-750 animals statewide. Subsequent estimates (1995) have placed the bear population around 1,200 animals. Concurrent encroachment of human development into prime bear habitat also increased contact between bears and humans. During years when natural foods (primarily hard and soft mast) are limited, bears search for alternate foods in nearby agricultural and suburban areas and may damage hives, crops, or livestock. All these factors enhance the potential for conflicts that could jeopardize human-bear co-existence

Jonker, Sandra A.

Parkhurst, James A.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 7 - Seventh Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1995) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences 11-5-1995 SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS Sandra A. Jonker University of Massachusetts, Amherst James A. Parkhurst University of Massachusetts, Amherst, jparkhur@vt.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc7  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Jonker, Sandra A. and Parkhurst, James A., "SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS" (1995). 7 - Seventh Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1995). 16. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc7/16 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 7 - Seventh Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1995) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTSSANDRA A. JONKER and JAMESA. PARKHURST, Department of Forestry and wildlife managementUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst MA 01003ABSTRACT: Black bear Ursus americanus) depredation in agriculture has become an increasing concern in Massachusetts. Complaintsfrom apiarists, corn growers, and livestock producers have increased 167% during the period 1980 to 1990, but whether this increasetruly represents more depredation, response of bears to other factors, or simply better reporting/record keeping has not beendetermined. The bear population in Massachusetts from 1984 to 1989 increased 50°/a to approximately 700-750 animals statewide.Subsequent estimates (1995) have placed the bear population around 1,200 animals. Concurrent encroachment of human developmentinto prime bear habitat also increased contact between bears and humans. During years when natural foods (primarily hard and softmast) are limited, bears search for alternate foods in nearby agricultural and suburban areas and may damage hives, crops, or livestock.All these factors enhance the potential for conflicts that could jeopardize human-bear co-existence.A self-administered mail-back questionnaire, distributed to 1,598 producers of corn (n = 207), bees/honey (n546), livestock/dairy (n = 481), or unspecified agricultural commodities (n = 364) throughout Massachusetts in late December 1990,was used to collect data on 1) demographic characteristics of Massachusetts agricultural producers, 2) bear distribution, 3) type, extent,and economic impact of bear depredation, 4) deterrents used and ratings of their effectiveness, and 5) producer tolerances of andattitudes about black bears in Massachusetts.Both corn and livestock producers considered the impact of black bears on the production of commodities statewide to betolerable whereas beekeepers rated the impact as unreasonable. However, most (70%) producers stated that individually they would nottolerate any level of damage or only light levels. This seems to indicate that tolerance of bear depredation decreases dramatically whenproducers are affected directly. Yet, producers believed that bears have value, should remain an integral part of our natural heritage, and,even though they can be an inconvenience, could be tolerated. If producers can learn how to deter problem bears, they may be morelikely to maintain their positive attitude and learn to co-exist with bears.Results from this study and others suggest the following needs 1) effective education programs for agricultural producers; 2)strengthened working relations between producers and the state fish and wildlife agency, 3) incorporation of producers' suggestions intobear management planning, 4) verification of the existence and location of reported damage before controls are implemented, 5)preparation with knowledge of bear deterrent options for individuals who have not yet experienced bear damage, but are located withinknown bear range, and 6) development of long-term solutions to bear depredations for different commodity groups.Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Manage. Conf. 7:108. 1997.108

SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS

Black bear (Ursus americanus) depredation in agriculture has become an increasing concern in Massachusetts. Complaints from apiarists, corn growers, and livestock producers have increased 167% during the period 1980 to 1990, but whether this increase truly represents more depredation, response of bears to other factors, or simply better reporting/record keeping has not been determined. The bear population in Massachusetts from 1984 to 1989 increased 50% to approximately 700-750 animals statewide. Subsequent estimates (1995) have placed the bear population around 1,200 animals. Concurrent encroachment of human development into prime bear habitat also increased contact between bears and humans. During years when natural foods (primarily hard and soft mast) are limited, bears search for alternate foods in nearby agricultural and suburban areas and may damage hives, crops, or livestock. All these factors enhance the potential for conflicts that could jeopardize human-bear co-existence

DigitalCommons@USU

SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS SANDRA A. JONKER and JAMES A. PARKHURST, Department ofForestry and Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 ABSTRACT: Black bear (Ursus americanus) depredation in agriculture has become an increasing concern in Massachusetts. Complaints from apiarists, com growers, and livestock producers have increased 167% during the period 1980 to 1990, but whether this increase truly represents more depredation, response of bears to other factors, or simply better reportinwrecord keeping has not been determined. The bear population in Massachusetts from 1984 to 1989 increased 50% to approximately 700-7 SO animals statewide. Subsequent estimates (1995) have placed the bear population around 1,200 animals. Concurrent encroachment of human development into prime bear habitat also increased contact between bears and humans . During years when natural foods (primarily hard and soft mast) are limited, bears search for alternate foods in nearby agricultural and suburban areas and may damage hives, crops, or livestock. All these factors enhance the potential for conflicts that could jeopardize human-bear co-existence. A self-administered mail-back questionnaire, distributed to 1,598 producers of com (n = 207), bees/honey (n = 546), livestock/dairy (n = 481), or unspecified agricultural commodities (n = 364) throughout Massachusetts in late December 1990, was used to collect data on 1) demographic characteristics of Massachusetts agricultural producers, 2) bear distribution, 3) type, extent, and economic impact of bear depredation, 4) deterrents used and ratings of their effectiveness, and S) producer tolerances of and at+.itudes about black bears in Massachusetts. Both corn and livestock producers considered the impact of black bears on the production of commodities statewide to be tolerable whereas beekeepers rated the impact as unreasonable. However, most (70%) producers stated that individually they would not tolerate any level of damage or only light levels. This seems to indicate that tolerance of bear depredation decreases dramatically when producers are affected directly. Yet, producers believed that bears have value, should remain an integral part of our natural heritage, and, even though they can be an inconvenience, could be tolerated. If producers can learn how to deter problem bears, they may be more likely to maintain their positive attitude and learn to co-exist with bears. Results from this study and others suggest the following needs 1) effective education programs for agricultural producers; 2) strengthened working relations between producers and the state fish and wildlife agency, 3) incorporation of producers' suggestions into bear management planning, 4) verification of the existence and location of reported damage before controls are implemented, S) preparation with knowledge of bear deterrent options for individuals who have not yet experienced bear damage, but are located within known bear range, and 6) development of long-term solutions to bear depredations for different commodity groups. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Manage. Conf 7:108. 1997. 108 

Survey of Black Bear Depredation in Agriculture in Massachusetts

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
7 - Seventh Eastern Wildlife Damage 
Management Conference (1995) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences 
11-5-1995 
SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN 
MASSACHUSETTS 
Sandra A. Jonker 
University of Massachusetts, Amherst 
James A. Parkhurst 
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, jparkhur@vt.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc7 
 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons 
Jonker, Sandra A. and Parkhurst, James A., "SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN 
MASSACHUSETTS" (1995). 7 - Seventh Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1995). 16. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc7/16 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 7 - Seventh Eastern Wildlife 
Damage Management Conference (1995) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska 
- Lincoln. 
SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS
SANDRA A. JONKER and JAMESA. PARKHURST, Department of Forestry and wildlife management
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA 01003
ABSTRACT: Black bear Ursus americanus) depredation in agriculture has become an increasing concern in Massachusetts. Complaints
from apiarists, corn growers, and livestock producers have increased 167% during the period 1980 to 1990, but whether this increase
truly represents more depredation, response of bears to other factors, or simply better reporting/record keeping has not been
determined. The bear population in Massachusetts from 1984 to 1989 increased 50°/a to approximately 700-750 animals statewide.
Subsequent estimates (1995) have placed the bear population around 1,200 animals. Concurrent encroachment of human development
into prime bear habitat also increased contact between bears and humans. During years when natural foods (primarily hard and soft
mast) are limited, bears search for alternate foods in nearby agricultural and suburban areas and may damage hives, crops, or livestock.
All these factors enhance the potential for conflicts that could jeopardize human-bear co-existence.
A self-administered mail-back questionnaire, distributed to 1,598 producers of corn (n = 207), bees/honey (n
546), livestock/dairy (n = 481), or unspecified agricultural commodities (n = 364) throughout Massachusetts in late December 1990,
was used to collect data on 1) demographic characteristics of Massachusetts agricultural producers, 2) bear distribution, 3) type, extent,
and economic impact of bear depredation, 4) deterrents used and ratings of their effectiveness, and 5) producer tolerances of and
attitudes about black bears in Massachusetts.
Both corn and livestock producers considered the impact of black bears on the production of commodities statewide to be
tolerable whereas beekeepers rated the impact as unreasonable. However, most (70%) producers stated that individually they would not
tolerate any level of damage or only light levels. This seems to indicate that tolerance of bear depredation decreases dramatically when
producers are affected directly. Yet, producers believed that bears have value, should remain an integral part of our natural heritage, and,
even though they can be an inconvenience, could be tolerated. If producers can learn how to deter problem bears, they may be more
likely to maintain their positive attitude and learn to co-exist with bears.
Results from this study and others suggest the following needs 1) effective education programs for agricultural producers; 2)
strengthened working relations between producers and the state fish and wildlife agency, 3) incorporation of producers' suggestions into
bear management planning, 4) verification of the existence and location of reported damage before controls are implemented, 5)
preparation with knowledge of bear deterrent options for individuals who have not yet experienced bear damage, but are located within
known bear range, and 6) development of long-term solutions to bear depredations for different commodity groups.
Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Manage. Conf. 7:108. 1997.
108


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&amp;context=ewdcc7

SURVEY OF BLACK BEAR DEPREDATION IN AGRICULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

DigitalCommons@USU

UNL | Libraries