State Rep. Charisse Millett seems to be a reasonable person, who’s trying to address the concerns of her South Anchorage/Hillside area constituents, many of whom are apparently frightened of bears. A “common sense” sort of woman – that seems to be one of her favorite phrases, along with “common ground” – she unfortunately has decided to address Anchorage’s periodic bearanoia with legislation (HB281) that is both unnecessary and, by my way of thinking, bad policy. Unless, of course, her wish is to return Anchorage to the “good old days” when human residents routinely blasted any bear that happened to wander into town.

There are certainly folks who prefer those frontier days, with their less tolerant attitudes toward wildlife. One in particular, Larry Kaniut (not coincidentally the best-selling author of many bear-attack books that present a stereotyped and sensationalist view of bears as blood-thirsty killers) has been among the loudest voices for Anchorage’s return to a bear-free zone. As Larry puts it, this is our turf now and bears don’t belong here. Not so much because they’ve been on a rampage, but because people are afraid. Apparently everyone in Kaniut’s neighborhood is “scared to death, petrified of bears.” Let me be clear: I am not making light of people’s fears. But people often fear that which they don’t know or understand. I have fears of my own that don’t make sense. Once upon a time, I too had an irrational fear of bears; for years I had nightmares about them. Those eased and eventually disappeared as I got to know the animals better. (That’s a whole story in itself, which I’ve recounted in the essay, “In the Company of Bears.”)

My fear nowadays is not bears, which in real terms present a small danger to Anchorage residents when compared to, say, drunken drivers, gangbangers, homelessness (you’ll recall that more than a dozen homeless people were found dead in Anchorage last year), neighborhood parties that get out of hand, or even moose and dogs. My fear, in the context of this particular local debate, is that Millett is listening too closely to the hysterical and/or the intolerant among us, people who have no desire to share the Anchorage-area landscape with large and powerful wild critters, especially those who survive, in part, by eating other, smaller critters, for instance fish and moose calves. Yes, bears can do great harm to people, but that almost always occurs when bears are acting in self-defense, in response to careless or arrogant human behavior. The two maulings that sparked our city’s most recent bout of bearanoia occurred because people – supposedly the more intelligent species – took unnecessary chances in an area known to be frequented by large numbers of brown bears.

Contrary to what Millett, Kaniut, and many other Anchorage residents seem to believe, we are not under siege by bears. Yes, more bears roam city neighborhoods now than when Kaniut settled here in the early 1970s. But the Department of Fish and Game’s estimate of bears in the greater-Anchorage area has not increased substantially over the past 10 to 15 years. Bears are more visible, but that doesn’t necessarily equate with a huge influx of the critters. As local wildlife manager Rick Sinnott and researcher Sean Farley have pointed out, a few widely traveling and human-tolerant bears may account for many of the sightings.

Millett seems especially worried about the bears that wander through neighborhoods with kids and elderly folks, and rightly so. But she needs to be reminded that those bears are almost always black bears, which by nature are much more timid – that is, less aggressive – than their grizzly/brown bear relatives. Though it’s never wise to mess with a mom, even a black bear sow with cubs is much more likely to choose flight over fight when her family is threatened, unlike a grizzly mother. The presence of a black bear in a residential area should be treated with respect and caution and, yes, common sense. But it’s no reason to automatically kill the animal, and that’s the way Millett seems to be leaning.

Those who clicked the link to HB281 above may be saying “what’s the big deal?” It seems innocuous enough. In fact it makes perfectly good sense that the police department should be allowed “to take [i.e., kill] game when the taking serves to protect human life from immediate harm from the game.” Who could argue with that? Not me, certainly. But as several people – including those in the Department of Fish and Game – have pointed out, Anchorage’s police already have the authority to kill a bear or moose or other wild animal if it presents a danger to people. So what’s the point? From this perspective, HB281 seems perfectly unnecessary. In fact that’s one of the points recently emphasized by Jennifer Yuhas, Fish and Game’s legislative liaison: “Most of the bill is unnecessary. The rest of it won’t accomplish what sounds like is the sponsor’s intended purpose.”

Which raises the question: what, ultimately, is Millet’s purpose? Like wildlife biologist Vic Van Ballenberghe, I’d like to know “What is the goal? You’re never going to reduce the risk to zero” even if you start killing as many bears (or moose) as possible.

And that leads to a bigger problem with HB281: it changes Fish and Game’s mandate in Anchorage, to make public safety its top priority. There are some who believe this change – or the bill’s directive to the Board of Game – would be unconstitutional. Over and over, the BOG has emphasized that public safety can’t enter into its deliberations or regulatory decisions. More worrisome, notes Yuhas, is that this legislation seems to direct Fish and Game to reduce bears (and perhaps moose) to the smallest numbers possible.

Millett insists that HB281, as proposed, is only a rough, initial draft and is likely to change substantially before done. But I worry that HB281 in any form will initiate a new and troubling war on bears. It’s likely some folks don’t like the use of “war” here, but what term would you suggest? How about pogrom? Or ursine cleansing? I’m sure some Alaskans would prefer “control,” with its more antiseptic, blander implications (much like predator control).

If nothing else, HB281 sends the wrong message. It would make it easier, I believe, for not just police or troopers or Fish and Game personnel, but also ordinary citizens to kill bears simply because they’re passing through town; because someone imagines the bears present an imminent danger by their very presence.

In her sponsor statement for HB281 Millett notes “there’s an opportunity and a responsibility in front of applicable agencies to focus on the problem [of increased bears in Alaska’s communities],” while referencing recent bear maulings in Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.

It’s hard to argue with her statement that “The habits of bears have changed since Anchorage has urbanized. The increase of people and therefore trash has changed how and what the bears eat.” True enough. But then she adds, “From going through trash cans to walking through garages, bears are no longer scared of people and WILL USE WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO GET TO FOOD [my emphasis].” Here she begins to exaggerate the problem, perhaps to enhance her argument for change. Sure, bears that have learned to associate food with people often lose their innate fear of humans, thus becoming “problem bears.” But to suggest they use “whatever force necessary” overstates the case and, I would argue, is a form of fear mongering. Millett’s statement implies bears will use “lethal force,” if necessary. Well, that just hasn’t been the case. The maulings that occurred locally two years ago had nothing to do with food. The most dangerous situations have continued to be sudden, close encounters between people and bears, in which the bears defended themselves against a perceived threat, perfectly normal bear behavior.

Still, recognizing that food-conditioned bears do potentially present some degree of danger to humans (even if small), Rick Sinnott has continually chosen to be overcautious. In Anchorage, as a rule, it has been true that “a (human) fed bear is a dead bear.” Sinnott and other Fish and Game employees, as well as Anchorage police and state troopers, will kill any bear that even seems to be acting in a bold, aggressive way. If anything, bears are already being killed needlessly, usually because of bad human behavior.

If there’s a need for change locally, it’s for our city’s human residents to behave more responsibly, to clean up after themselves and do what’s necessary to share the landscape with bears and moose. Yes, we could direct Fish and Game, the police, and state troopers to kill any bear that wanders into a neighborhood, though by my way of thinking that would be an awful solution. But because Anchorage borders large wildlands (think Chugach State Park) and also includes many wild areas (parks and greenbelt corridors) within the city itself, we’ll never entirely rid ourselves of bears. They’re a fact of life here. And life would be considerably poorer if we began routinely eliminating them from our local landscape whenever they appear.

Fish and Game, in alliance with many local organizations, other state and federal agencies, and the municipality, have already done much to educate Anchorage-area residents and make us more “bear aware.” There’s been a substantial effort to get people to store their garbage more responsibly, though many residents remain willfully ignorant or simply don’t want to be told how to behave.

So while the likes of Larry Kaniut see bears as the problem, I and many others see people as an equal or greater problem, if in fact we wish to co-exist with bears and moose and other sometimes-intimidating critters. Anchorage’s wildlands and wildlife are a big part of what distinguishes our community from other cities of its size, a grand part of what makes it appealing. How many people brag about our malls or big-box stores or roadways when we talk about why we love to live here?

Though she talks about seeking common ground, Rep. Millett also has admitted that she’s trying to find a way to keep bears out of Anchorage’s residential neighborhoods, simply because their mere presence seems to pose a danger. Her implication is clear: they need to be removed somehow, the sooner the better. Because Fish and Game rarely moves bears (that presents its own set of problems), the obvious solution would be to kill the animals and that’s that. I hope she will reconsider her reasoning and approach and withdraw this flawed bill, or that others in the Alaska Legislature will recognize this is not the way to go. It’s not the best way or right way to address either people’s fears or bear-human conflicts. We’re the smarter species. We can come up with better solutions than to kill an animal simply because of our own fears.