Is further research needed?

The 5 August "Wisconsin Outdoor News" had a front page story on the strong bear populations in Wisconsin. I recalled the nadir of bears in Wisconsin. It was bad enough that the government closed the season for one year and there after instituted a carefully managed hunt. Today 30-40,000 bruins roam the Badger State.
Last week the "Startribune" ran a story about declining bear population in north-central Minnesota. I read the headline and thought, "maturing forests: less berry and mast production." I read on, and that was what the biologists hypothesized.
Curious, I returned to the "Wisconsin Outdoor News" piece to review the details of the Wisconsin success. Ah, the hand of man is strong in Wisconsin. Wisconsin bear hunters can place bait piles of food for bears 145 days before the September season opener. Minnesota allows only 17 days of bait.
Well fed sows are more likely to have cubs through hibernation. Really well fed sows have triplets. Wisconsin has a lot of well fed bears. The DNR estimated that hunters placed over 4.6 million pounds of bait in the woods - that's a lot of chow!
Wisconsin has an abundance of bears, Minnesota is anxious of decline. Seems like food is a cause. To turn the favorite phrase of researchers on its heels, "Is further research needed?"