ArticlePDF Available

Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska

Authors:

Abstract

We present a comprehensive look at a sample of bear spray incidents that occurred in Alaska, USA, from 1985 to 2006. We analyzed 83 bear spray incidents involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 61 cases, 74%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 20 cases, 24%), and polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 2 cases, 2%). Of the 72 cases where persons sprayed bears to defend themselves, 50 (69%) involved brown bears, 20 (28%) black bears, and 2 (3%) polar bears. Red pepper spray stopped bears' undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters. All bear—inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required). In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases. In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71). Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):640–645; 2008)
Bear Spray Research – Published
2007 Highlights
Effective against brown/grizzly bears
92%
Effective against black bears 90%
Effective against polar bears 100%
98% of persons uninjured
3 persons suffered minor injuries – all
by brown/grizzly bears
14% of persons reported negative side
effects
... We recommend that all backcountry recreationalists in Yellowstone National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem carry a bear deterrent. Although the type of deterrent to carry is a personal choice, bear spray has proven easy to use and highly effective at stopping or reducing the length and severity of bear attacks (Herrero and Higgins 1998, Smith et al. 2008. (Kerry A. Gunther, Eric G. Reinertson, and Travis C. Wyman, Yellowstone National Park) Improvements in information and education efforts aimed at recreational safety in bear country are paramount in the face of significant increases in visitation to Yellowstone National Park. ...
Full-text available
Technical Report
This Annual Report summarizes results of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) research and monitoring conducted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during 2021. The research and monitoring program is focused on population estimation and demographics, food monitoring, and habitat monitoring. This report also contains a summary of grizzly bear management actions to address conflict situations and agency outreach efforts. This report is a summary of annual data collections. Data, analyses, and summaries presented in this report supersede those published previously and may be subject to change contingent on additional information, future manuscript publications, and the peer review process.
... Many riskreducing behaviors have been outlined in reports such as those by Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (2000) and Servheen et al. (2009). These and other reports recommend that hunters carry non-lethal self-protection such as pepper spray (Herrero & Higgins 1998;Smith et al. 2008Smith et al. , 2020; secure carcasses and other attractants at hunting camps; not leave carcasses unattended overnight; not hunt late in the day; hunt in parties of least two; be better educated about grizzly bear behavior; and not archery-hunt in areas occupied by grizzly bears. Although the effectiveness of these measures in isolation has not been rigorously addressed, each of these factors has been demonstrably linked to hazardous encounters between hunters and grizzlies. ...
Full-text available
Technical Report
For perhaps 30,000 years grizzly bears ranged throughout the mountains and riparian areas of what would eventually become the southwestern United States. But in a remarkably short 50-year period between 1860 and 1910 Anglo-Americans killed roughly 90% of the grizzly bears in 90% of the places they once lived. Most of the remaining grizzlies had been killed by the 1930s. This report provides a detailed account of natural history, relations with humans, and current and future prospects for grizzly bears of the Southwest, emphasizing the millennia prior to ascendance of Anglo-Americans. The report’s narrative is essentially chronological, starting with deep history spanning the late Pleistocene up through arrival of European colonists (Section 3.1); the period of Spanish and Mexican dominance (Section 3.2); and then the period of terminal grizzly bear extirpations that began with the political and military dominance of Anglo-Americans (Section 3.3). Section 4 examines current environmental conditions and related prospects for restoring grizzly bears to the Southwest. Section 5 completes the chronological arc by forecasting some of what the future might hold, with implications for both grizzly bears and humans. The background provided in Section 2 offers a synopsis of grizzly bear natural history as well as a summary of foods and habitats that were likely important to grizzlies. Throughout the Holocene there was a remarkable concentration of diverse high-quality bear foods in highlands of the Southwest, notably in an arc from the San Francisco Peaks of Arizona southeast along the Coconino Plateau and Mogollon Rim to a terminus in the White, Mogollon, and Black Range Mountains in New Mexico. Additional high-quality habitat existed in the Sacramento, San Juan, Jemez, and Sangre de Cristo Mountains of New Mexico and adjacent Colorado. Grizzlies in the Southwest survived remarkable extremes of climate and habitats for perhaps as long as 100,000 years. They also survived substantial variation in human-propagated impacts that culminated in the Crisis of 875-1425 C.E.—a period typified by episodic drought and the highest human population densities prior to recent times. In contrast to relatively benevolent attitudes among indigenous populations, there is little doubt that the terminal toll taken on grizzly bears by Anglo-Americans after 1850 C.E was driven largely by a uniquely lethal combination of intolerance and ecological dynamics entrained by the eradication or diminishment of native foods and the substitution of human foods, notably livestock, that catalyzed conflict. More positively, the analysis presented here of current habitat productivity, fragmentation, and remoteness—as well as regulations, laws, and human attitudes—reveals ample potential for restoration of grizzlies to the Southwest, including three candidate Restoration Area Complexes: the Mogollon, San Juan, and Sangre de Cristo, capable of supporting around 620, 425, and 280 grizzlies each. Major foreseeable challenges for those wishing to restore grizzly bears to these areas include sanitation of human facilities, management of livestock depredation, education of big game hunters, coordination of management, and fostering of accommodation among rural residents. Climate change promises to compound all of these challenges, although offset to an uncertain extent by prospective increases in human tolerance. But the evolutionary history of grizzly bears also provides grounds for optimism about prospective restoration. Grizzly bears have survived enormous environmental variation spanning hundreds of thousands of years, including many millennia in the Southwest. Grizzlies survived not only the inhospitable deeps of the Ice Ages in Asia and Beringia, but also the heat and drought of the Altithermal on this continent. It was only highly-lethal Anglo-Americans that drove them to extinction in the Southwest, which is why human attitudes—more than anything else—will likely determine prospects for restoring grizzly bears.
... [ [46][47][48] Remove bears ...
Full-text available
Article
Personal injury and property damage caused by wildlife can worsen the relationship between humans and wildlife. In recent years, conflicts between herders and Tibetan brown bears (Ursus arctos pruinosus) (human–bear conflicts; HBCs) on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau have increased dramatically, severely affecting community motivation for the conservation of brown bears and other species. Understanding the types, effectiveness, and flaws of current HBC mitigation measures is critical to develop effective strategies to alleviate HBC. From 2017 to 2019, we conducted a systematic field survey regarding HBCs on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. In addition, we invited bear specialists and multiple interest groups to hold an HBC seminar and proposed some potential mitigation strategies. We surveyed 312 families via semi-structured interviews and documented 16 types of HBC mitigation measures. A total of 96% of respondents were using more than two mitigation measures simultaneously. The effectiveness evaluation of HBC mitigation measures showed that: (1) removing food from winter homes while herders were at their summer pastures and asking people to keep watch of winter homes were effective at protecting food and houses; (2) traditional grazing methods (human guarding of livestock all day) and solar soundboxes (attached to livestock) were effective at protecting free-range livestock; (3) solar street lights had a deterrent effect on brown bears and were effective in protecting livestock, houses, and people; and (4) due to the unstable power supply of photovoltaic cells and improper installation of ground wires, electric fences were not ideal in practice. Evaluation of the potential mitigation measures at the seminar showed that upgrading electric fence technology, expanding electric fence pilot areas, installing diversionary feeders, and introducing bear spray were the most optimal solutions. This study provides a scientific basis for creating human–bear coexistence plans on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.
... We recommend that all backcountry recreationalists in Yellowstone National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem carry a bear deterrent. Although the type of deterrent to carry is a personal choice, bear spray has proven easy to use and highly effective at stopping or reducing the length and severity of bear attacks (Herrero and Higgins 1998, Smith et al. 2008. 85 Table 37. ...
Full-text available
Technical Report
This Annual Report summarizes results of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) research and monitoring conducted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during 2020. The research and monitoring program is focused on population estimation and demographics, food monitoring, and habitat monitoring. This report also contains a summary of grizzly bear management actions to address conflict situations and agency outreach efforts. This report is a summary of annual data collections. Data, analyses, and summaries presented in this report supersede those published previously and may be subject to change contingent on additional information, future manuscript publications, and the peer review process.
... It is important to effectively deter brown bears in situations where ranchers cannot use firearms. Anti-bear spray which contains capsaicin is a good choice for the ranchers to stimulate the nose and eyes of the bear,rendering the bear incapable of attacking (Smith et al., 2008). (3) Improve the economic compensation system (especially the house damage compensations), simplify the application procedures, shorten the inspection period, and determine the compensation standard according to the market value of goods and lost livestock. ...
Full-text available
Article
Human-bear conflicts (HBC) impact the livelihoods and safety of local communities in underdeveloped areas and challenges local governments and wildlife conservation agencies. We conducted a systematic analysis of HBC in the Sanjiangyuan National Park, which is a core region of the Qinghai Tibet Plateau. This study consisted of semi-structured interviews with 81 stakeholders in October 2020, including local families and government departments. We qualitatively assessed the dominant characteristics and causes of bear damage in the region and proposed various mitigation strategies. The results revealed that recent implementations of biodiversity conservation and ecological restoration policies have increased the number and severity of HBC. Livestock depredation, attack on humans, and house break-ins were the most common and damaging conflict types. We discuss the challenges of HBC mitigation in the region and propose possible mitiga-tion strategies based on the results of the interviews.
... The apparent link between the number and location of casualties and road density highlights the importance for wildlife managers to reduce human access into areas with resources for both bears and humans, when possible, by closing or removing appropriate unpaved roads. Managers should also consider promoting the use of bear deterrent spray, which has proved to be effective in North America (Smith et al. 2008), and to initiate public education campaigns on carnivore behavior. For instance, guidelines for human behavior in bear country should recommend not entering the forest alone (Penteriani et al. 2016), avoiding dense vegetation (Ordiz et al. 2013) and keeping dogs on a leash (Penteriani et al. 2016;Støen et al. 2018). ...
Full-text available
Article
Threat to human safety is the most dramatic conflict between humans and large carnivores. Although carnivore attacks are generally rare, bears are relatively often involved. Here, we reveal an association between human encroachment into the landscape, that is, increasing road density, and brown bear-caused human casualties (injuries and fatalities) in Russia. In European Russia, the frequency of casualties correlated positively with bear population size and negatively with the presence of Siberian pine, a crucial bear food in the predenning period and a commonly gathered human resource. In Siberia, however, the number of casualties was not related to the number of bears, but it was positively associated with both road density and the presence of Siberian pine. Increasing casualties there were seemingly linked to increasing access to areas where both humans and bears concentrated simultaneously to harvest the same resource, edible pine seeds. The latter are more often collected commercially in Siberia than in European Russia. Our study shows the link between habitat degradation and human-wildlife conflict. Indeed, interacting effects of habitat change and coexistence with large carnivores deserve further attention, as we illustrate here for Russian forests; a wide boreal ecosystem where human encroachment can have severe repercussions for wildlife and ecosystem functioning at multiple spatial levels.
... Oleoresin capsicum is a viscous, oily substance that contains 1-2% capsaicin and related capsaicinoids, the active ingredients in bear spray that elicit intense burning sensations, involuntary blepharospasms, and restriction of airways (Herrero andHiggins 1998, Miller 2001). It is this chemical effect on a bear's senses that makes the product effective as a deterrent (Rogers 1984, Herrero and Higgins 1998, Smith et al. 2008. Because OC is an oil-based, syrupy substance, it must be thinned so it disperses into small droplets when discharged from the bear spray canister. ...
Full-text available
Presentation
Several studies have documented the effectiveness of bear spray in protecting users from aggressive bears. However, bear spray failures have also been reported along with speculation regarding the influences of temperature, wind, repeated canister use, and canister age on spray efficacy. We designed lab and field experiments to document the influence that temperature, wind, repeated discharges from the same canister, and canister age have on bear spray performance. To determine the influence of temperature on spray performance we recorded canister head pressures at temperatures ranging from -23 deg C to + 25 deg C and found a strong, positive linear relationship. Even at the lowest temperature tested (- 23 deg C), bear spray had a range > 4 m, though the plume was narrow and spray not well aerosolized. As canister temperature increased, head pressure, plume distance and dispersion increased. Using computational fluid dynamics modeling, we simulated the effect that headwinds, crosswinds, and tailwinds of varying speeds had on spray performance. We found that even under high headwind and crosswind scenarios (> 10 m/s), sprays reached targets that were ~ 2 m directly in front of the user. Crosswinds affected spray plume distance similar to headwinds but was not as pronounced. As expected, tailwinds improved spray performance with respect to speed and distance. By weighing unused canisters of various ages (18 years old to present), we found that brands tested lost weight ranging from 0.65 to 1.92 g/year, presumably due to propellant that escaped canister seals. We also documented that bear spray head pressure declines in a logarithmic, not linear, fashion with over half of a new (seven second spray time) canister’s pressure lost in the first one second of spray. We discuss these findings in the context of bear safety implications as well as commonly cited reasons for lacking confidence in this deterrent’s ability to deter aggressive bears.
... Karelian Bear Dogs are moreover probably one of the most challenging tools to deploy for hazing purposes given the training demands placed on both dogs and handlers. 42 For example, there is good evidence supporting the efficacy of pepper spray in situations where a person is not carrying a firearm suited to firing non-lethal projectiles (Section 2.2;Hunt [1984];Rogers [1984];Herrero & Higgins [1998];Smith et al. [2008Smith et al. [ , 2012;Smith & Herrero [2018]), or rubber projectiles if a person is carrying and trained to use the requisite shotgun(Stenhouse et al. , 1984. ...
Full-text available
Technical Report
Bear managers are increasingly using non-lethal methods to resolve human-bear conflicts—largely because the public is demanding that wildlife be treated more humanely and with greater regard for their intrinsic value. Hazing or a fixed infrastructure designed to inflict pain and discomfort are the most common non-lethal means employed by managers to drive bears away from people and human facilities or, even more ambitiously, teach them to indefinitely avoid roads, residences, and campgrounds. The 2021 technical report entitled “Teaching Bears: Complexities and Contingencies of Deterrence and Aversive Conditioning” focuses not only on the uses of deterrents to haze bears away from conflict situations, but also, more importantly, on the complexities that bedevil efforts to educate wild bears under field conditions. Aversive conditioning—a general term for pain-based fear-instilling learning processes—is probably the most complex endeavor that a manager can undertake with a bear. “Teaching Bears” delves into the many facets of aversive conditioning, including terminology and concepts relevant to understanding the basics of how animals learn about their world. However, most of this report is devoted to describing what it is that individual animals bring to a learning process, and how these internal complexities along with the particulars of a given context largely dictate whether efforts by managers to deter and aversively-condition bears are likely to be successful or not. The report concludes that aversive conditioning will almost invariably have a limited role in non-lethal management of human-bear conflicts, especially in contrast to efforts focused on people. At its most useful, hazing can be used to temporarily drive bears away from a conflict situation, providing a respite during which managers can then address human-related elements such as the availability of attractants or problematic behaviors of people.
Full-text available
Article
Background: The human-opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) conflict has increased during the last decades mainly due to natural habitat loss, and mediated by generalist and opportunistic habits of opossums. A potential solution to reduce this conflict is to discourage the presence of opossums in human settlements without affecting the welfare of either part. Objective: To develop an artisanal odor device and test three chemical substances (citronella, ammonia, and creolin) for their separate effectiveness to drive away opossums. Methods: We first attracted local opossums using fruits or canned sardines as bait in an urban natural park (n=2 sites) and a peri-urban forest reserve (n=4 sites), both located in the Municipality of Envigado, Province of Antioquia, Colombia. Then we installed odor devices containing one of the three chemicals on each site and let them there during two weeks. The test was repeated with each of the chemicals in all sites. The number of opossum visits per night was recorded daily using camera-traps with bait and bait+chemical. Results: We found that ammonia and creolin were associated to fewer opossum visits per night. Citronella did not reduce the presence of opossums. In addition, the number of opossums/per night was higher in the urban park compared with the forest reserve. Conclusion: We suggest to further test the repellent effect of ammonia and creolin on real human-opossum conflict scenarios; however, caution is warranted given their irritant, flammable, and corrosive properties.
Full-text available
Article
We examined the reasons bears are reported killed in defense of life or property (DLP) in Alaska as an index to causes and frequency of conflicts between humans and bears, and compared the sex and age composition of DLP kills with that of sport-killed bears. Data came from standardized questionnaires filled out by persons shooting the bears. Numbers of sport-killed brown bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (U. americanus) and number of DLP-killed brown bears increased during 1970-96, but number of DLP-killed black bears did not increase. Overall, bear deaths in DLP circumstances were a small proportion of total deaths for both brown bears (5.2%) and black bears (3.1%). In urban areas, however, DLP deaths represented up to 22.3% of total brown bear mortalities and 6.1% of total black bear mortalities. Compared to sport kills of brown bears, DLP kills contained relatively more subadult males (P < 0.001) and more older (age 11-19) females (P < 0.001). More DLP brown bears were shot because the shooter considered them an immediate threat (40.8%) or a potential threat (30.1 %) than to protect property (29.0%). Only 11 % of DLP black bears were considered an immediate threat; 48.9% were considered a potential threat, and 35.3% were shot to protect property. Adult brown bear females accompanied by offspring were much more likely to have been shot because they were an immediate threat (84.4%) than solitary adult females (40.7%) (P< 0.001). The type of property most often damaged or threatened by both brown bears and black bears killed in DLP circumstances was a dwelling, but most respondents indicated no property damage occurred. For both species, most DLP bears were killed when the shooter was at home or in a dwelling, but a larger proportion of brown bear (32.1 %) than black bear (4.9%) DLP deaths occurred when the shooter was hunting. Based on newspaper accounts collected during 1985-96, brown bear attacks resulted in 2.75 human injuries and 0.42 deaths per year in Alaska. Black bear attacks in Alaska resulted in 0.33 human injuries/year during this same period. Only 1 human death caused by a black bear in Alaska is known to the authors during a period that encompassed >25 years.
Full-text available
Article
The number of brown bears (Ursus arctos) killed in defense of life or property (DLP) on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, has been of increasing concern for natural resource managers. During the 1960s, 8 bear deaths were recorded (<1 bear/yr). From 1990 through 1999,50 bear deaths were recorded (average of 5 bears/yr). This increase concerns natural resource managers because they have very little control over kills resulting from DLP, and the brown bear population may not be maintained if this increasing trend in mortality continues. In an effort to provide information to managers needed to reduce DLP related kills of brown bears, we quantified the relationships among DLP kills, human activities, and landscape characteristics. Most brown bears were killed at residences or by hunters. Brown bears were killed at residences to protect property (i.e., depredation of domestic animals) or because they were perceived to be a threat to humans. Landscape models of the probability of DLP kills of brown bears provided insights to relationships and interactions among kill locations, landscape features, and human developments. As the density of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) streams, trails, roads, and recreation sites increased, so did the probability of DLP kills of brown bears. Natural resource managers will be able to use this information to guide management of human use patterns and development activities on the Kenai Peninsula to minimize additional DLP kills of brown bears.
Full-text available
Article
Between 1960 and 1998, bears caused 42 serious or fatal human injuries in the Province of Alberta-29 (69%) by grizzly (brown) bears (Ursus arctos) and 13 (31%) by American black bears (U. americanuś). Considering Alberta's estimated bear population-about 1,000 grizzly bears and 38,000-39,000 black bears-these numbers suggest that the grizzly bears are the more dangerous of the 2 species. Serious and fatal bear-inflicted injuries increased in number in Alberta, including its national parks, each decade, from 7 during the 1960s to 13 during the 1990s, an increase proportional to the province's human population growth during that period. Of all bear-inflicted serious injuries and fatalities, roughly half (52%, 22 of 42) occurred in Alberta's national parks, and 95% of these (21 of 22) were caused by grizzly bears. All but 1 black bear attack (92%, 12 of 13) occurred outside the national parks. Two factors characterized grizzly bear-inflicted injuries in the national parks: (1) large numbers of visitors in grizzly bear habitat, and (2) difficulties in managing human food and garbage (particularly before the mid-1980s). The grizzly bear population found outside Alberta's national parks is estimated at about 4 times that found within park boundaries, but these bears on provincial lands inflicted only 28% (8 of 29) of the serious or fatal injuries. These data point to 2 primary needs: (1) the disproportionate occurrence of grizzly bear incidents within the national parks and the association of these injuries with high visitor numbers and food and garbage management difficulties highlight the continuing need to address these challenges in Alberta's national parks; and (2) the location of nearly all black bear attacks outside the national parks underlines the need for improved communication to people using black bear habitat regarding the rare but potential danger from attempted predation on people by black bears.
Article
We analyzed 66 cases of field use of capsicum sprays between 1984-94. In 94% (15 of 16) of the close-range encounters with aggressive brown (grizzly) bears (Ursus arctos), the spray appeared to stop the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. In 6 cases, the bear continued to act aggressively; in 3 of these cases the bear attacked the person spraying. In 1 of these 3 cases, the bear left after further spraying. In all 3 injurious encounters, the bear received a substantial dose of spray to the face. In 88% (14/16). of the cases, the bear eventually left the area after being sprayed. While we do not know how these encounters would have ended in the absence of spray, the use of spray appears to have prevented injury in most of these encounters. In 100% (20 of 20) of the encounters with curious brown bears or bears searching for people's food or garbage, the spray appeared to stop the behavior. The bear left the area in 90% (18 of 20) of the cases. In only 2 of these 18 cases was it known to have returned. In 100% (4 of 4) of the encounters with aggressive and surprised, or possibly predacious black bears (Ursus americanus), the spray appeared to stop the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. However, no bears left in response to being sprayed. In 73% (19 of 26) of the cases associated with curiosity, the spray appeared to stop the behavior. The bear left the area in 54% (14 of 26) of the cases, but in 6 of these 14 cases it returned. In 62% (8 of 13) of the incidents where the black bear received a substantial dose to the face, it either did not leave the area or left the area and returned. Sprays containing capsicum appear to be potentially useful in a variety of field situations: however, variable responses by bears occur. Because the database is composed of diverse field records, the results should be viewed with caution.
Article
There is controversy in British Columbia regarding how dangerous bears are. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population estimates range from 10,000-13,000; black bears (U. americanus), 120,000-160,000. From 1960-97, significantly fewer grizzly bears inflicted about 3 times as many serious injuries (N = 41 versus 14) but the same number of fatal injuries (N = 8) as black bears. The trend in terms of average number of bear-inflicted injuries/year increased each decade from the 1960s through the 1990s, as did the human population in British Columbia. It is likely that more people in bear habitat affected this increase in the number of injuries. In 88% of serious or fatal grizzly bear attacks, those injured were engaged in hunting, hiking, or working, typically in back-country areas. In 77% of black bear attacks, those injured were either hiking, watching the bear, working, or recreating, typically in front-country areas. Eighty-one percent of parties injured by grizzly bears and 69% of parties injured by black bears were composed of 1 or 2 people. Bear access to human food or garbage was associated with a relatively small number of incidents for each species. In grizzly bear incidents where the age and sex class were known, adult females were identified in 79% of incidents. All incidents where the gender of an attacking black bear was known involved males. These incidents were equally divided between adults and subadults. Poor health of the bear was identified in 16% of black bear and 7% of grizzly bear incidents. Sixty-two percent of the serious or fatal grizzly bear incidents, where the bear's motivation could be inferred, were categorized as involving a bear being startled at close range (
Article
Education programs designed to reduce conflicts between American black bears (Ursus americanus) and humans are often implemented by diverse groups of wildlife practitioners who may devote significant resources to these programs, yet little has been done to characterize the content, structure, and effectiveness of these programs. We review 6 education programs in North America. We build on a common performance indicator used in 5 of 6 programs—a reduction in the number of bear–related complaints to wildlife authorities—and suggest that practitioners incorporate other explanatory variables such as human dimensions, weather, natural food, or number of bears harvested. Some of these explanatory variables draw on potentially existing databases; others require new databases. If education programs are to remain an integral part of bear conservation and management, evaluation is essential to understand the ability of such programs to reduce conflict and encourage coexistence between people and bears.