EAGLES NEST—While black bear researcher Lynn Rogers and the Department of Natural Resources battle in the courts over the future of Rogers’ research, residents in Eagles Nest Township are engaged in a debate of their own over the merits of living with bears that have come to recognize people as an occasional source of food.

On the one side are township residents who say Rogers’ research methods, which include hand-feeding bears in order to build trust, have created a nuisance and a potential public safety hazard. On the other are residents who say they enjoy seeing bears, and don’t believe that Rogers’ research is creating a nuisance, much less a danger.

The differing views have become a fault line in a normally fairly tight knit community—the kind of divide that can strain friendships and spoil otherwise civil conversations. “This has divided people in the township,” said one resident, who asked not to be named for fear of angering friends on the other side. “Some people won’t attend the annual township picnic anymore because of concern that the subject might come up.”

Opponents of Rogers’ methods say they’ve been intimidated against speaking up in the past, but some are starting to voice their concerns— and they say they are encouraged by the reception they have received from some neighbors. “We have been called and stopped by dozens of people in the community urging us to continue to speak out about it,” said Barb Soderberg, a longtime resident of Eagles Nest.

Rogers’ detractors say some of his actions are conditioning bears to seek food near houses, particularly on decks, where many residents have bird feeders or outdoor grills that can be an attractant to bears. Resident Jeff Szalapski said one of Rogers’ study bears broke a pole off his deck earlier this summer while trying to get at a bird feeder.

“If he’s going to feed, why not do it a couple miles away from houses?” asked Soderberg. “He feeds bears from a deck, near second floor windows. That really encourages them to engage in nuisance activity.”

In other cases, Rogers’ critics have had close encounters with bears that refused to leave when shooed, and they blame Rogers for the loss of fear by some bears in the township. They say it’s left them, as well family members, afraid to spend time in the woods. “We’ve had to change the way we enjoy the area,” said Soderberg. “These animals are some sort of cross between wild and tame, and they’re unpredictable.”

“We tried to be good neighbors,” said Andy Urban, who noted that he’s been helpful in the past to Rogers. “But when some of us have taken the time to talk to Lynn, he does not consider anyone else’s observation about collared bear behavior as valid,” Urban continued. “The whole premise of his research is observational. Yet he discounts what we observe. We’re not novices in the woods, and we’ve all had experience with bears.”

Critics contend that Rogers’ defenders can be too aggressive at times, engaging in tactics against critics that border on harassment. Rogers himself is tone deaf to their concerns, and does not seem to understand that his suggestions for addressing bear problems— such as the use of pepper spray— are not practical for most people. “I tried pepper spray on a bear once, but you have to be only a few feet away,” said Soderberg. “Who wants to get that close to a bear?”

Urban agreed. “Lynn’s concept of how comfortable you should be with bears is so out of line with most people’s thinking. He just dismisses our concerns as ignorance and irrational fear.”

Rogers’ critics aren’t the only ones who have noticed that the longtime scientist often appears to relate better to bears than to his human neighbors. “Sometimes it seems that if it isn’t something about his research or what he’s doing, he’s not too interested,” said former Town Board Chair Dan Humay, who counts himself as neutral on the issue of Rogers’ research. Humay, who taught psychology for 30 years, said he’s concerned that opinions on both sides may be hardening, and he recognizes that Rogers’ research has become an unfortunate dividing line in the community. “It creates a feeling of separation, of us versus them,” he said.

Humay believes Rogers has become a lightning rod with many, and that complaints about bears may actually be more reflective of animosity towards Rogers and his style, rather than the actions of his bears.

“If you took Lynn out of the equation, what would you have?” Humay asked. “Bears walking around. I don’t think bears are the issue at all.”

Other Eagles Nest residents agree that the bears aren’t much of an issue. Dennis Burns, who lives on Trygg Road, said his views on bears have evolved in recent years, thanks in part to Rogers’ work. A couple of years ago, Rogers approached him about placing a den cam on his property, and Burns agreed. While he said he had been somewhat skeptical of Rogers’ work up until then, he was excited to keep track of the bears on the den cam. “I thought it was a pretty neat deal,” he said. “I’ve learned a lot.” Burns said he’s no longer afraid of close encounters with bears and their presence has not changed the way he spends time in the woods.

Burns said he has been disappointed that he has not seen any bears this year. “I’ve even gone looking for them, but have yet to see one on Trygg Road,” he said. Actually, bear complaints are down sharply this summer across the region, as a good crop of wild foods has kept bears mostly in the woods.

Other residents of the township share Burns’ views on bears. “The only problem we have is that my wife likes her bird feeders,” said Charlie Meyer, who lives on Eagles Nest Lake One. “We put a little electric fence around the feeders and that’s taken care of it.”

Meyer said he enjoys seeing bears and doesn’t understand why others are so concerned. “We’ve been here 15 years and we’ve never had any problem. We really enjoy the bears.”

That view is shared by Darnell Stage, who lives just 90 yards from Rogers’ Wildlife Research Institute field station. “I can’t say we’ve ever had any trouble with them [the bears],” said Stage. “Once I left the garage door open and they got into the garbage, but that was my fault.”

Stage said he takes his bird feeders down in the summer, which he figures keeps bears from visiting his yard. “I think my dog probably helps keep them away, too,” he added. Stage said he has fewer bears in his yard now than he did before Rogers began feeding bears in the area.

Stage said he’d be disappointed if the DNR follows through on its plans to shut down Rogers’ research.

Business or science?

One of the flash points for some of Rogers’ critics is his occasional mixing of science and commerce. Rogers has clearly benefitted from the publicity he’s generated over the years, particularly from his use of den cams, which went viral on the Internet a few years ago when the bear cub named Hope was born. The Hope saga, which Rogers promoted online, generated tremendous public interest and hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations towards Rogers’ research. In recent years, he has generated substantial revenue from black bear study field courses, for which guests spend $2,500 apiece to spend four days at the institute, observing bear research close up. The courses are sold out, often months in advance.

The Minnesota DNR, which has similar concerns about Rogers’ fundraising ventures, has since put restrictions on Rogers’ activities, including prohibiting his course participants from approaching within 150 feet of bears. The agency has also prohibited Rogers from broadcasting den cams live, which will presumably limit the fundraising appeal of those broadcasts.

Such revenue-generation has rankled some in the Eagles Nest area, who feel they have to deal with the consequences of Rogers’ activities, without seeing any of the benefits. They also question whether Rogers is making some of his research decisions based on science, or profit.

Humay agrees that Rogers could do more to improve his image in the local community. “I would make some type of gesture to the community. He could show more appreciation,” he said.

Ending research may not resolve concerns

Whether or not Rogers loses his bid to maintain his right to radio collar wild black bears, the DNR has no current authority to prohibit Rogers from continuing to feed bears, possibly as a way to keep tabs on some of his research animals. And Rogers isn’t the only person in Eagles Nest Township who has regularly fed bears, which means habituated bears will likely remain in the area whether Rogers has a research permit or not.

“It concerns us that he can still feed the bears even without a permit,” said Kurt Soderberg.

Even if Rogers and others stopped feeding bears tomorrow, critics wonder how long the effects of bear-feeding in the township are likely to linger. “With all the learning and taming, how many years or generations will it take for that behavior to disappear?” asked Szalapski.

And conditions could get worse before they get better, particularly if Rogers is correct about the effect of what’s known as diversionary feeding. Based on Rogers’ hypothesis, providing food to bears during periods of natural food shortage should reduce the level of nuisance activity by bears. He’s even published study results that provide evidence of that from his former research with the U.S. Forest Service.

That concept was one reason that operators of the Vince Shute Wildlife Sanctuary opted to continue a feeding operation there after Vince Shute died.

Rogers has made a similar point to critics. Barb Soderberg recalls one conversation with Rogers during which she complained about his feeding of bears. “He said, ‘well, if you think you have problems now, wait until I stop feeding bears. Then you’ll really have problems.’”