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 also recommend that all backcountry recreationists in YNP and other areas inhabited by grizzly bears carry a bear deterrent. Although the type of deterrent to carry (bear spray, air horn, bear bells, firearm) is a personal choice (Smith et al. 2008(Smith et al. , 2012, bear spray requires little training, has proven easy to use, and has been highly effective at stopping or reducing the length and severity of most grizzly bear attacks, while also conserving the lives of grizzly bears (Herrero and Higgins 1998, Herrero 2002, 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 human occupation and recreation, combined with increasing grizzly bear numbers and distribution in the GYE. ...
... We also recommend that all backcountry recreationists in YNP and other areas inhabited by grizzly bears carry a bear deterrent. Although the type of deterrent to carry (bear spray, air horn, bear bells, firearm) is a personal choice (Smith et al. 2008(Smith et al. , 2012, bear spray requires little training, has proven easy to use, and has been highly effective at stopping or reducing the length and severity of most grizzly bear attacks, while also conserving the lives of grizzly bears (Herrero and Higgins 1998, Herrero 2002, 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 human occupation and recreation, combined with increasing grizzly bear numbers and distribution in the GYE. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
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 2022. 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.
... Casi siempre las explicaciones y los estudios sobre de su comportamiento no pueden calmar el miedo de la sociedad (Smith, 2008), puesto que es uno de los mamíferos más inteligentes y fuertes de Sudamérica a continuación se enuncian las siguientes recomendaciones en caso de que se llegue a tener un encuentro directo con un oso andino especialmente en las zonas más profundas de áreas con amplias extensiones de bosque donde algunos de estos ejemplares no reconocen al ser humano como una amenaza. ...
Book
Full-text available
PRESENTACIÓN Desde el año 2002 se conoce sobre reportes de ataques de oso andino hacia el ganado vacuno que han ocurrido en varias localidades de 10 provincias de la Sierra y Amazonía ecuatoriana. Geográficamente, los ataques ocurren en las estribaciones de los bosques altoandinos entre 2500 a 3500 msnm. Cifras oficiales del Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador señalan que, durante los años 2009 a 2018 se reportaron 168 casos de interacción entre la gente y la fauna silvestre; de ellos, el 38% corresponden a ataques de oso andino. Después de Napo, Imbabura es la segunda provincia más afectada por esta problemática (Laguna, 2018 y Molina, 2019). La causa principal se atribuye al avance acelerado de la frontera agrícola y ganadera (incluyendo su mal manejo), cacería de presas naturales, introducción de perros (que se vuelven asilvestrados y ferales), iniciativas locales de turismo (sin criterios de conservación) y los incendios provocados que generan el desplazamiento de estas especies de amplios requerimientos de hábitat a espacios heterogéneos cada vez más alejados de su hábitat natural. En un contexto de pandemia por el COVID 19, la interacción del ser humano con la fauna silvestre parece agravarse; por cuanto, la pérdida de empleo en las grandes ciudades a forzado el retorno de varias familias que hace tiempo migraron del campo a la ciudad. Con la repoblación rural, los paisajes altoandinos están perdiendo su verdor natural debido al cambio de uso del suelo para fines agrícolas y ganaderos, acelerando la fragmentación de hábitats —que son el hogar de muchas especies silvestres como el Oso Andino—que al no contar con la despensa natural de alimento tratan de calmar el hambre con maíz o ganado que se encuentra a su paso. La articulación interinstitucional entre el Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua y Transición Ecológica (MAATE) y el Gobierno Provincial de Imbabura (GPI) ha sido una estrategia para responder las emergencias derivadas de la interacción de los grandes carnívoros y los asentamientos humanos, mismas que en su mayoría ocurren en áreas asociadas a los Parques Nacionales Cayambe-Coca y Cotacachi-Cayapas; por lo cual, se presenta el documento: “Protocolo de atención y respuesta a las interacciones gente-fauna silvestre, vinculada con grandes mamíferos (Oso Andino, Puma y Jaguar) en Imbabura Geoparque Mundial de la UNESCO”, que tiene como objetivo prevenir, controlar y mitigar las interacciones en el marco de las competencias con la fauna silvestre, sumando la participación comunitaria.
... Another method that originates from North America, but is today increasingly used in Europe (although still to a much lower extent), is the use of bear sprays for self-protection in close encounters with bears. Capsaicin-based spray repellents have proved to be very effective in deterring bears from attacking (Smith et al 2008). But, more important for preventing attacks on humans is educating residents and visitors to bear areas about proper behaviour, which can considerably reduce the probability of finding oneself in a dangerous situation. ...
... Specifically, such measure would be the most transferable (i.e., suitable to the context) in the Trentino area, given that it is the one respecting the majority of the parameters taken in consideration by the Suitability, Feasibility and Acceptability (SFA) framework (Neri, 2021). Other studies showed how this measure may strongly reduce the risk of injury in case of close contact with a bear (Smith et al., 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
The killing of a runner in Northern Italy by a brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) and the subsequent investigation of such matter highlighted a Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) that has been present in Trentino since the introduction of bears for conservation during the Life Ursus Project. Such conflict may be exacerbated as both human and bear populations get bigger. In this paper, I summarize the information we have about the WHC in Trentino, the attacks on humans and the legal procedures available. Several trends (e.g., increase of problematic bears) were already noticed and predicted in the past. The current legal instruments do not strictly define what a "dangerous bear" is, which lead to very subjective measures. Unless mitigation solutions are adopted (e.g., bear spray) or expanded (e.g., communication on the subject), WHC may disrupt the work done until now for bear conservation in the Italian Alps, due to a negative perception from the local population, which seems to be amplified by local politicians.
Article
Full-text available
In North America, polar bears (Ursus maritimus), grizzly bears (U. arctos), and American black bears (U. americanus) occasionally injure or kill humans. Although bear-inflicted human injuries are uncommon, they generate media attention that can lead to fear and unreasonable perceptions of the risk of bear attacks. Information on the behavioral responses of grizzly and black bears during interactions with people can provide a factual basis regarding the risks associated with recreating in bear habitats and assist land managers in developing and prioritizing bear safety messages. To address those objectives, we collected 17,171 reports of grizzly and black bear reaction behavior during interactions with people in Yellowstone National Park, USA, between 1991 and 2022. We used Bayesian Multinomial Logistic Regression models to examine the odds of attack, agitation and/or warning, flight, or curious behavioral reactions versus neutral responses in bear–human interactions. We found that reaction behavior depended on both the species involved and the location of the interaction. In developed areas and along roadsides, neutral responses were most likely for both species. On front-country trails, odds of curious or flee reactions were greater than neutral responses for both species. The odds of agitation and/or warning reactions from grizzlies were also greater in this setting. In backcountry campsites, there were marginally higher odds of black bears attacking; whereas, grizzlies had marginally higher odds of attacking during off-trail backcountry interactions. Although bear attacks were uncommon in all locations, grizzlies were ∼3.9× more likely than black bears to injure people in backcountry areas. Bear interactions with people were generally predictable; grizzly and black bears exhibited neutral behaviors or fled during most interactions. Curious approaches, agitation and/or warning behaviors, physical contact, and attacks were uncommon. Safety messages encouraging calm, confident responses during bear–human interactions are warranted, and may have better efficacy than those that generate fear and apprehension.
Article
Wild animals eating agricultural products and coming close to people's residences are primary causes of human–wildlife conflict worldwide. When carnivores eat anthropogenic foods and cause human safety concerns, it often results in the removal of the animals and public demand for reduced wildlife populations. The use of remote methods, such as scare devices, to deter carnivores has been touted in the literature; however, efficacy evidence remains thin. I test the efficacy of a widely available motion‐activated solar alarm lamp to deter grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) from farms in Montana, USA. When scare devices were activated, there was a 46% reduction in the odds bears would access an attractant. For every additional scare device, there was an additional 44% reduction in the odds of a bear getting the food. Additionally, scare devices caused bears to be more vigilant and increase movement behavior. More bears in a group led to loss of deterrence efficacy, and there was no evidence for habituation to the aversive stimuli. This deterrence method was most effective in August and for fungicide‐treated wheat. Out of 21 farms, scare devices stopped bears from returning to 11 sites. Overall, scare devices can be a cheap and easy first step to preventing, or resolving, some grizzly bear issues in the use‐of‐force continuum, which hierarchically organizes conflict responses from non‐lethal to more severe.
Article
Full-text available
Three fatal bear (Ursus spp.) attacks in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), USA, from 2011 to 2015 were a catalyst for YNP managers to evaluate the circumstances of bear-caused fatalities as well as the bear safety messages it distributes to park visitors. I reviewed records of all fatal bear attacks that occurred in YNP from 1872 to 2018. Seven of the 8 fatalities were caused by grizzly bears (U. arctos horribilis). The per capita risk of being killed by a grizzly bear was 1 fatality for every 26.2 million park visits. Most fatal bear attacks in YNP involved surprise encounters and/or bears conditioned to human foods. Only 1 fatal bear attack was classified as predatory. Most fatal bear attacks involved men (75%), small party sizes of <3 people (88%), and occurred in remote backcountry areas (75%). Although the frequency of fatal bear attacks appears to have increased in recent years, the per capita risk of fatal bear attacks has declined. A few human behavioral modifications for recreating in bear country, including hiking with minimum group sizes ≥3 people, remaining on designated trails when hiking, not running from bears during encounters, and carrying bear spray when recreating in bear country have the potential to reduce the risk of fatal bear attacks in the park. Preventing bears from becoming conditioned to anthropogenic foods and garbage is another important factor in reducing bear-caused human fatalities.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
The sex, age, and other characteristics of 668 brown bears (Ursus arctos) killed in nonsport circumstances in Alaska during the period 1970-85 were examined. These data represent an unknown fraction of total nonsport kills as not all kills were reported. Both sport harvests and nonsport kills are increasing in Alaska. Nonsport harvests averaged 5.1% of total sport and nonsport kills. Areas with the highest human density had the highest ratio of nonsport to sport harvests. Nonsport harvests are most common during periods when most people are in remote areas to hunt or fish. Males predominate in the nonsport kills of younger bears and females in the nonsport kills of older bears. Regulations and other factors make adult male bears more vulnerable to sport hunters than adult female bears. Partially as a result, nonsport kills contain more adult females than sport kills. An analysis based on affidavits from 224 persons killing bears revealed that bears were shot to avoid perceived danger (72%), to protect property (21%), and to eliminate nuisances (7%). Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:51-58 Human presence in bear habitat usually leads to conflicts between bears and people, frequently with fatal consequences for the bear but rarely leading to injury or death for the person (Herrero 1985). In all of the United States except Alaska, brown-grizzly bears (hereafter brown bears) are so rare that the incidence of such contacts is too small to permit thorough analyses of the characteristics of the bear subpopulation that comes into conflict with humans. Herrero (1985) studied circumstances in which brown bears caused injuries to humans, and others examined circumstances where bears caused depredation prob- lems (Murie 1948, Johnson and Griffel 1982, Jor- gensen 1983, Knight and Judd 1983). Greer (1981) investigated deaths of Montana and Wyoming grizzly bears in nonsport circumstances. Jope (1983) pre-
Article
Full-text available
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 (