In late August, a British Columbia man pled guilty in a Fort Nelson courtroom to hand-feeding grizzly bears along the Alaska Highway in northeastern B.C.
I鈥檓 sorry, you might say, can you repeat that?
Yes. Hand-feeding grizzly bears along the Alaska Highway.
The man, Randy Scott,听had apparently been posting photos of himself feeding roadside bears to social media since at least 2017. In a photo released by the B.C. Conservation Officer Service, an adolescent grizzly can be seen taking a Timbit鈥擟anada鈥檚 answer to the donut hole鈥攆rom a human hand, presumably Scott鈥檚.
That鈥檚 a violation of B.C.鈥檚 Wildlife Act, in addition to being a mind-bogglingly stupid and dangerous thing to do. , 鈥淎ttracting Dangerous Wildlife,鈥 the act reads: 鈥淎 person must not intentionally feed or attempt to feed dangerous wildlife.鈥
, the charges stemmed from last October, when a conservation officer happened by while Scott and a woman were in the midst of feeding a bear from their car. (The woman was originally charged too, but her charges were stayed during the same week that Scott pled guilty.)
Scott was fined $2,000 (a little over $1,500 in the U.S.)听and ordered to stay 50 metres (which converts to about 164 feet)听away from bears for the next six months.
鈥淗opefully it sends a message and deters people that this is not wise, it鈥檚 not lawful, and it should never happen in the first place,鈥澨齛rea conservation officer Shawn Brinsky told the CBC.
I hope so too. But while I鈥檓 glad that the COs pursued the case, to me the consequences don鈥檛 match the crime.
Fifty metres听seems like a bare minimum distance to try to stay from any bear, any time, for anybody, regardless of whether or not you鈥檝e been convicted of delicately placing a sour-cream-glazed听into a grizzly鈥檚 open mouth. That鈥檚 not a punishment鈥攖hat鈥檚 just common sense!
In its , the National Park Service鈥檚 top tip is that visitors should 鈥渞espect a bear鈥檚 space鈥; they recommend the use of binos or a spotting scope in lieu of trying to get anywhere close. Some parks have specific requirements, and they鈥檙e stricter than Scott鈥檚 restraining order: 300 feet in Yellowstone, 200 feet in Shenandoah National Park.
British Columbia鈥檚 on staying safe around bears reminds drivers viewing roadside animals to 鈥渞emain a respectful distance鈥 and to stay in their vehicles at all times. The pamphlet warns drivers that any bear who approaches their vehicle 鈥渕ay have been previously fed by people and could be dangerous.鈥
And that to me is the heart of the issue. Scott didn鈥檛 just endanger himself, and the bears he fed鈥攚ho are now at much higher risk of being put down by the COs for aggressive or nuisance behavior鈥攈e also endangered all the people who like to walk, hike, run, bike, or otherwise enjoy the wilderness in that stretch of northern British Columbia.
It鈥檚 easy to joke around about Scott and his Timbits, or in Haines, Alaska, a few years ago and then charged into the proximity of听a feeding grizzly sow and her two cubs. Their stories go briefly viral, people make their jokes online, and then we all move on. And I鈥檓 not against a !
But when I think about the other kinds of bear stories that go viral, the ones about human-bear encounters that end in death, it鈥檚 harder for me to laugh. Randy Scott鈥檚 actions could have gotten people killed鈥攊n fact, they still could, as the bears he fed are still roaming around. In that context, two grand and a laughable restraining order seems like a slap on the wrist.