To the Editor of the Tahoe Daily Tribune:

I am deeply concerned about the current response to a bear at Kingsbury Manor Trailer Park and, in particular, the decision by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) to place a bear trap at the property.

I have photographs documenting the trap and the conditions surrounding it, and I believe the public deserves to see them.

What concerns me most is the apparent location of the trap in relation to readily available food odors. The trap is situated near Forest Service land where there has been substantial commercial logging associated with fuels-reduction work. It is also reportedly within approximately 50 feet of a large meat smoker. There are boxes of firewood nearby labeled “mahi-mahi,” suggesting that fish is being smoked in the immediate area.

If a bear is being trapped because it is attracted to food odors, shouldn’t we first eliminate those attractants?

According to what I have been told, this bear entered a mobile home through a screen door and then followed its nose through another door where unsecured garbage was accessible. A screen door is designed to keep out mosquitoes—not a hungry, determined bear.

This sounds like a classic human-wildlife conflict that could potentially have been prevented with basic bear-resistant practices.

Why isn’t the first response to provide the residents with a bear-resistant garbage container and an electrified bear mat or other proven deterrent? Why trap the bear before all reasonable nonlethal measures have been attempted?

I am particularly troubled by the possibility that this bear could be removed from its Tahoe habitat and relocated to unfamiliar, dry high-desert country. A Tahoe bear has evolved to live in a forested mountain environment with access to water and natural cover. Relocation is not necessarily a simple solution, and it can place an animal in an environment it does not know how to navigate.

There is also a larger concern. Nevada has a bear hunt that utilizes hounds. If a bear that is trapped and relocated eventually finds itself in an area where it can be pursued by hounds, the consequences could be devastating. I believe the public has a right to understand what happens to bears after they are trapped, where they are taken, and what protections they have from subsequent harm.

I also question whether the trap’s placement is appropriate given the surrounding circumstances. If there are significant food odors immediately nearby, are we truly addressing the cause of the conflict—or are we simply setting a trap in an area where a bear has already demonstrated that it is attracted to food?

I understand that property owners have legitimate concerns. Bears can damage fences, enter buildings and create expensive problems. I understand that the owner of Kingsbury Manor is frustrated by the cost of repairing fences and wants the bear gone.

But frustration and property damage should not automatically result in a death sentence for a wild animal.

There are many Tahoe residents who believe that coexistence is possible and preferable. We need wildlife management that emphasizes prevention: secure garbage, removal of food attractants, bear-resistant containers, electric mats, education and reasonable barriers.

Most importantly, we need our state wildlife agency to ask a simple question before setting a trap:

Have we done everything reasonably possible to prevent this conflict without removing the bear?

Tahoe’s bears are part of the ecosystem that makes this place special. They should not be punished simply because humans have created easy access to food.

I am asking NDOW, local property owners and our community to choose coexistence whenever reasonably possible. And I am asking the Tahoe Daily Tribune to bring public attention to how this particular bear is being handled.

A bear breaking through a fence or following the smell of unsecured food should not become a death sentence.

We can do better for Tahoe’s wildlife.

Staci Baker, DVM
Stateline, Nevada