There is no scarcity of resources for the bears because here bears use a form of violent authoritarianism to ensure resource (salmon in your example) availability for themselves. A dominate bear will kill weaker bears to ensure food, mates, and territory are established. In that sense, it mirrors the human reaction. Again, that points away from a non-violent benevolent society of a workable shared commons.

Are you an expert on Bear behavior? How do you know this? How do you explain Bears co-existing nearby while feeding on Salmon without killing one another?

You seem to be absolutely convinced the lens you see reality with is not a lens but reality itself and you are wrong.

You’re pointing out a temporary state, not an enduring condition.

Well yes, everything is temporary, but it is much easier for a system to decisively enter abundance and stay there than for it to oscillate back and forth between scarcity and abundance. If everyone has enough resources until ever after there is no reason to fight so bringing up any such example of a system would be less relevant to the argument. The reason I brought up the examples of systems that despite that manage to move between the two states without shared commons being destroyed is because they are more thorough demonstrations of the possibility of stability and shared wealth without needing the kind of violence and control you axiomatically assume is necessary.