It may have been as simple as once the Bear got into the zoo...hazing the animal out of the zoo became impossible. Even the hazing (which is stressful, although not harmful) of the bear successfully and getting it out of the zoo peremiter fence, would have placed the animal next to a very busy road, in an established neighborhood a couple of miles from edge of the city. The possibility of that going wrong had to be considered. The bears (black and brown) in the area use these neighborhoods all the time, and occasionally the city (under guidance by state authorities) or the state itself will remove a “problem” bear that has started to add human associated food sources to its foraging routine. Next to the zoo is a large horse stable. Domestic goats, horses, chickens, and even Alpacas are not too uncommon on the southeast side of town. Neither are dog walkers, bike riders, and school bus stops. Local bears which pass through the area and feed on moose calves (spring), salmon (summer), or berries (fall) in the streams and woodlots and are not conditioned to human sourced foods are generally tolerated; to the point where a popular trail is often closed down in the summer months due to increased bear activity near a creek running through it.
This bear even if safely hazed out of the zoo, had already demonstrated a level of habituation that probably was going to manifest itself in later confrontations as the animal used similar food sources in the area (horse stables/chicken coops), or broke into the zoo again in the future (as it had already successfully hunted in the area).
Regarding the fact that bears are, well bears large potentially dangerous wild animals, in the Anchorage area this summer we have had one fatal mauling of a dog walker near the town of Hope to our south. A few years back a teenager participating in a trail race was killed by a black bear and Another person using a trail near their house who was killed by a grizzly/brown bear defending a moose carcass.
That said Alaskan’s show a fair deal of tolerance for bears on the edge of town (where those incidents occurred) and where bears are expected to be. Bears are not (even in the city) shot on sight.
For this bear the fact that it was inside the perimeter of the zoo itself must have been the deciding factor on how to deal with the animal. Though, again, I imagine that once predation of domestic animals starts occurring, where all reasonable precautions have been taken, removing the bear (which is now also demonstrating an ability to access human facilities {I’ve seen Brown bears open doors before} ) becomes the default response.
As to relocation. I think the expense and logistics vs the effectiveness as a solution is calculated. In many cases the bears simply return. In other cases, where geographical distance or features ensure the bears are unlikely to return, sometimes you have just relocated the problem.
A few years back a family of black bears were causing problems in the Government Hill neighborhood of Anchorage. The bears (a sow and cubs) were captured and relocated to the Kenai peninsula south of Anchorage. Four of the five bears were later killed when the ventured into the town of Hope and took up their old foraging habits.
Then of course there is always the factor of relocating an animal to a area already inhabited by bears and the disruption within bear society itself, as the newcomer (stressed and unfamiliar) adjusts to its new environment, new food sources, and new (and somewhat territorial) neighbors. This last point is probably not the deciding factor, but it does have something to say about the success of translocations.
Lastly I think it’s important to remember that neither Brown Bears or Black Bears are endangered in Alaska, or the Anchorage city limits for that matter, and that animals are generally managed (and in this case the bear thrust the mantle of management upon us) with the idea of supporting healthy populations, rather than focusing on individual animals.
Removing this bear, simply made room for another who may have more success living on the edge of a city of 300,000 people.
And in the end, I think it really was as simple as the bear’s location following the kill. Although I would not be surprised if the animal was tagged and collared and it’s exact location known to area biologist the entire time. They may have had some background knowledge and history on the bear already. Had the bear killed the alpaca and then left the zoo grounds, the state would have kept an eye out for repeat behaviors, and been prepared to respond, but probably would not yet have expended the resources trying to track the bear down for a single incident.
Unfortunately with bears, once conditioned to forage in human sourced foods, and showing a willingness and ability to breach human containment, the likelihood is that the animal will continue the behaviors, leading to conflict.
Not to dismiss the idea that it’s relatively unfair to bears as individuals.
I do not know if the bear was actually killed on zoo grounds or not. It seems likely it might have been.
