No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Behavior, bears, and humans
... Thus, conditioning can be either positive or negative. After several experiences an animal associates a reward or punishment with its behavioral response to the stimulus and learns to repeat the behavior if rewarded or to avoid the behavior if punished (McCullough 1982). Positive conditioning of brown bears to humanprovided food sources occurs when either or both of two circumstances exist: ...
... Extinction.-This is the waning of a conditioned response once the reward or punishment is stopped (McCullough 1982). However, the conditioned response usually does not completely disappear, but typically revives if the stimulus occurs in a new situation. ...
... They are innate and express themselves early in life (Burghardt and Burghardt 1972). Young brown bears most often learn from their mothers, but learning can occur from any association among other bears (McCullough 1982). These behaviors carry over into their adult life so understanding them could help to evaluate and possibly predict outcomes of bear/human, bear/environment, and bear/management interactions (Bacon 1980, Garner andVaughan 1987). ...
... A good deal of the impetus for analysing incidents is in an effort to discern credible reasons for them to have occurred, so that, in turn, they might be better avoided or mitigated in management programs in the future (Penteriani et al. 2016). A commonly cited causal factor in relation to wildlife attacks is 'habituation', where it is usually taken to mean a loss of fear of human beings on the part of the animals involved (McCullough 1982;Fleming et al. 2001;Linnell et al. 2002;McNay 2002;Timm et al. 2004;White and Gehrt 2009;Geist 2011). Another commonly cited reason for attacks is food conditioning (McCullough 1982;Peine 2001;Mazur 2010). ...
... A commonly cited causal factor in relation to wildlife attacks is 'habituation', where it is usually taken to mean a loss of fear of human beings on the part of the animals involved (McCullough 1982;Fleming et al. 2001;Linnell et al. 2002;McNay 2002;Timm et al. 2004;White and Gehrt 2009;Geist 2011). Another commonly cited reason for attacks is food conditioning (McCullough 1982;Peine 2001;Mazur 2010). Hopkins et al. (2010: 157) defined a food-conditioned bear as one that '. . . ...
... How common such a phenomenon is in other species is difficult to ascertain. The role of habituation is arguably more contentious, with debate about its role in predicating bear attacks having considerable support both for (McCullough 1982;Geist 2011) and against (Jope 1985;Rogers and Mansfield 2011) the idea. ...
Wild predators that attack people represent a significant challenge to the management authorities charged with conserving populations whilst minimising human safety risk. Fraser Island is home to an iconic population of dingoes (Canis dingo). However, conflict stemming from negative human-dingo interactions (incidents), some resulting in serious human injury and in one case, a fatality, is an ongoing concern. In an effort to highlight important factors influencing incident dynamics, we investigated the most serious incident reports gathered by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service for the period 2001-15. We found a consistent pattern of incidents peaking in March/April and also July, corresponding with dingo breeding and whelping seasons (respectively). Monthly vehicle permit numbers (a proxy for visitation) were not positively correlated with incident rates, except during the breeding season. Male dingoes, particularly subadult males, featured heavily in incidents. Despite the fatality being highly publicised and the advent of copious on-site warning messages and other management interventions, serious incidents continue to occur annually, including some involving children. This suggests that risks are either not always understood, or are otherwise being ignored. While our results demonstrate that dingoes generally pose minimal risk to humans, some risk remains, particularly where poorly supervised children are concerned.
... Specific harvest practices of black bears, such as the use of hounds, longer seasons, and the number of years a population has been hunted, have also been linked to increased wariness in bears and have been associated with decreases in conflict (McCullough 1982, Conover 2000, Hristienko and McDonald 2010. ...
... These behaviors can include habituation to humans, food-conditioning, property damage, and aggressive behavior . Habituation is defined as the waning of a response (or muted response) when a reward or punishment is discontinued (McCullough 1982). Food-conditioning occurs when a bear that has learned to associate people, human activities, human-use areas, or food storage receptacles with caloric reward . ...
... The behavioral component of adaptability, which is interesting yet concerning surrounding future delisting, is habituation. In general, habituation refers to the waning or diminished innate flight response to people (McCullough 1982;Jope 1985). The reduction in the bears innate flight response, makes habituation an adaptive behavior through a means of conserving energy (McCullough 1982;Smith et al. 2005). ...
... In general, habituation refers to the waning or diminished innate flight response to people (McCullough 1982;Jope 1985). The reduction in the bears innate flight response, makes habituation an adaptive behavior through a means of conserving energy (McCullough 1982;Smith et al. 2005). The national parks represent a place where there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that visit annually. ...
The intent and purpose of this document is to summarize and synthesize preceding research and analysis providing a comprehensive policy analysis of Yellowstone grizzly bears, the Endangered Species Act and 2016 Conservation Strategy for Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The goal for this document is: (a) to provide a policymakers with a complete but succinct overview and background on the Yellowstone grizzly bears, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Conservation Strategy of 2016, and (b) provide convincing evidence that our proposed alternative and management recommendations are the best course of action.
... especially when expressed by predator species (McCullough 1982;Linnell et al. 2002;Inskip and Zimmermann 2009). Issues can arise in urban and suburban environments (Lewis et al. 2015;Baker and Timm 2017), but they also can do so in recreational settings (McCullough 1982;Schirokauer and Boyd 1998). ...
... especially when expressed by predator species (McCullough 1982;Linnell et al. 2002;Inskip and Zimmermann 2009). Issues can arise in urban and suburban environments (Lewis et al. 2015;Baker and Timm 2017), but they also can do so in recreational settings (McCullough 1982;Schirokauer and Boyd 1998). In some countries, these issues are more prevalent as top predators such as tigers (Panthera tigris) and leopards (P. ...
Although most predators usually avoid human activity, some individuals instead will habituate to it. Habituation to human presence and infrastructure by predator species such as wolves may lead to conflicts implicating serious risks for public safety and for the survival of the animals involved. Accordingly, this research project aims to shed light on the relationship between wolves and recreational structures using telemetry data from 10 wolves located in the Parc National du Mont-Tremblant (Québec, Canada) and its surrounding area. Using resource selection functions (RSFs), we observed wolf habitat selection in relation to these structures during three biological periods (denning: May–June; rendezvous: June–October; and nomadic: October–April). Our results revealed that wolves selected proximity to linear structures (roads and trails) during the denning and rendezvous periods, but this selection depended on the density of such structures in the surroundings (i.e., functional response in habitat selection): wolves selected proximity to linear structures when these structures were present at greater densities. Wolves avoided housing structures (campsites, cabins, park facilities), especially when these structures were present at greater densities, suggesting that wolves perceived them as a risk. These results suggest that conflicts between visitors and wolves were unlikely to occur in campgrounds during the time of our study. This could indicate that the management measures implemented by the park following the past episodes of conflict were effective. However, wolves’ use of linear structures could lead to increased tolerance to human proximity if left unmanaged.
... Although there were few conflicts in Yellowstone National Park, management of nonfood conditioned, human-habituated bears required considerable management effort. Habituation is the waning of a bear's response to people (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985, Hopkins et al. 2010. Habituation is adaptive and reduces energy costs by reducing irrelevant behavior (McCullough 1982 such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. ...
... Habituation is the waning of a bear's response to people (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985, Hopkins et al. 2010. Habituation is adaptive and reduces energy costs by reducing irrelevant behavior (McCullough 1982 such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. Habituation allows bears to access and use habitat in areas with high levels of human activity, thereby increasing habitat effectiveness . ...
This Annual Report summarizes results of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) monitoring and research conducted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during 2017. This report also contains a summary of grizzly bear management actions to address conflict situations. Annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information may be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. Data, analyses, and summaries presented in this report supersede previously published data and analyses and interpretations may be subject to change contingent on future manuscript publication and the peer review process.
... found grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) wary of human activity fed in suboptimal fishing areas of Brooks River where human activity was lowest. In contrast, habituated bears (habituation is defined as a diminution of responses to humans after several non-negative interactions; McCullough 1982, Gilbert 1989) exploited highly efficient fishing sites regardless of their proximity to human activity . At Anan Creek, Alaska, almost half of the black bears (u. ...
... found grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) wary of human activity fed in suboptimal fishing areas of Brooks River, Alaska, where human activity was lowest. In contrast, habituated bears (habituation is defined as a diminution of responses to humans after several non-negative interactions; McCullough 1982, Gilbert 1989) exploited highly efficient fishing sites regardless of their proximity to human activity . At Anan Creek, Alaska, almost half of the black bears (u. ...
Wildlife-based ecotourism is rapidly increasing in popularity, especially when featuring large mammals in their natural environment. Researchers have questioned the sustainability of wildlife-based ecotourism because it may compromise the survival and reproduction of focal animals. I investigated the potential spatio-temporal effects of bear viewers on grizzly bears at a proposed bear viewing site along the Fishing Branch River, Yukon. Spatial river use of grizzly bears was largely explained by habituation status. Bears consumed 24% less salmon when viewers were present, posing serious energetic consequences if spatio-temporal compensation does not occur. Dominance status had no measurable effect on bears' fishing behaviour presumably because abundant salmon and few conspecifics minimized resource-driven competition. However, dominance status could influence feeding behaviour in years with reduced salmon abundance, which would compound viewer-induced reductions in fish consumption. I recommend further investigation into spatio-temporal compensatory behaviours of grizzly bears along the Fishing Branch River.
... In turn, this has increased encounters and conflict, sometimes with well demonstrated upturns in attack rates and even fatalities, frequently sensationalized by the public media 24-27 . In many cases, increased aggression has been linked with intentional and unintentional human feeding of the predators, resulting in consequent loss of fear [38][39][40] . Despite all the above, very few studies have examined the conditions that may predispose certain individuals to attack humans, and most of them have focused on mammals in rural areas 7,41-43 . ...
... This study confirmed and extended current knowledge on the drivers of human-attacks by vertebrate animals. First, habituation to human proximity and animal feeding have been frequently reported as drivers of aggression on humans by mammalian carnivores and primates [38][39][40]42,67 . Our findings support these views, extend them to avian predators and thus suggest that they may represent generalized drivers of potential aggression across distantly related taxa. ...
Growing urbanization is increasing human-wildlife interactions, including attacks towards humans by vertebrate predators, an aspect that has received extremely scarce investigation. Here, we examined the ecological, landscape and human factors that may promote human-aggression by raptorial Black kites Milvus migrans in the 16-millions inhabitants megacity of Delhi (India). Physical attacks depended on human activities such as unhygienic waste management, ritual-feeding of kites (mainly operated by Muslims), human density, and presence of a balcony near the nest, suggesting an association between aggression and frequent-close exposure to humans and derived food-rewards. Surprisingly, while more than 100,000 people could be at risk of attack in any given moment, attitudes by local inhabitants were strikingly sympathetic towards the birds, even by injured persons, likely as a result of religious empathy. These results highlight the importance of socio-cultural factors for urban biota and how these may radically differentiate the under-studied cities of developing countries from those of western nations, thus broadening our picture of human-wildlife interactions in urban environments. The rapid sprawling of urban and suburban areas with their associated food-subsidies is likely to increase proximity and exposure of large predators to humans, and vice versa, leading to heightened worldwide conflicts.
... When bears or other wildlife experience nonthreatening human activities frequently enough that they become expected, they learn to show little overt response (Aumiller and Matt 1994, Knight and Cole 1995. The waning of a bear's flight response to repeated neutral interactions with people is an example of habituation (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985. Human-habituation (hereafter referred to as habituated) is adaptive and conserves energy by reducing unnecessary behavior (McCullough 1982 such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. ...
... The waning of a bear's flight response to repeated neutral interactions with people is an example of habituation (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985. Human-habituation (hereafter referred to as habituated) is adaptive and conserves energy by reducing unnecessary behavior (McCullough 1982 such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. Habituation allows bears to access and use habitats near areas with high levels of human activity, thereby increasing the availability of resources. ...
The negative impacts on bears (Ursus spp.) from human activities associated with roads and developments are well documented. These impacts include displacement of bears from high-quality foods and habitats, diminished habitat effectiveness, and reduced survival rates. Additionally, increased public visitations to national parks accompanied with benign encounters with bears along park roads have caused more bears to habituate to the presence of people. In some contexts, habituation can predispose bears to being exposed to and rewarded by anthropogenic foods, which can also lower survival rates. The managers and staff of Yellowstone National Park located in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, USA, and Grand Teton National Park in northwestern Wyoming, USA have implemented several proactive strategies to mitigate the negative aspects of bear habituation. These strategies include providing park visitors with educational information on bear viewing etiquette, managing roadside viewing opportunities, installing bear-resistant infrastructure, hazing bears from developments, enforcing food and garbage storage regulations, and making human activities as predictable as possible to bears. Under the current management strategies, thousands of visitors are still able to view, photograph, and appreciate bears while visiting these parks each year. The opportunity to view bears provides a positive visitor experience and contributes millions of dollars to the local economies of park gateway communities. Positive bear viewing experiences also help build an important appreciation and conservation ethic for bears in people that visit national parks. For many years, managers were concerned about decreasing and threatened bear populations. Now more jurisdictions are facing new challenges caused by increasing bear populations. This paper highlights a successful attempt to address these issues.
... Although there were few conflicts in Yellowstone National Park, management of nonfood conditioned, human-habituated bears required considerable management effort. Habituation is the waning of a bear's response to people (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985, Hopkins et al. 2010. Habituation is adaptive and reduces energy costs by reducing irrelevant behavior (McCullough 1982 such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. ...
... Habituation is the waning of a bear's response to people (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985, Hopkins et al. 2010. Habituation is adaptive and reduces energy costs by reducing irrelevant behavior (McCullough 1982 such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. Habituation allows bears to access and use habitat in areas with high levels of human activity, thereby increasing habitat effectiveness . ...
... U. americanus is much less dangerous than U. arctos or U. maritimus (Herrero and Fleck 1990). Coexistence of U. americanus and humans may lead to problems, especially when bears habituated to human foods lose their fear of humans (McCullough 1982). Relocation of U. americanus is rarely successful because they readily return to their initial home range, even without familiar landscape cues (Fies et al. 1987;McArthur 1981;Rogers 1986Rogers , 1987b. ...
... Relocation of U. americanus is rarely successful because they readily return to their initial home range, even without familiar landscape cues (Fies et al. 1987;McArthur 1981;Rogers 1986Rogers , 1987b. Aversive conditioning may be an answer where problems with American black bears are frequent (Mc-Carthy and Seavoy 1994;McCullough 1982), but the best management strategy is to reduce availability of human foods and garbage (Gunther 1994). ...
... When animals experience a non-threatening human activity frequently enough that it becomes expected, they show little overt response (Knight and Cole 1995 ). Therefore, habituation is the waning of a bear's flight response to people (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985). Habituation is adaptive and conserves energy by reducing unnecessary behavior (McCullough 1982 ), such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. ...
... Therefore, habituation is the waning of a bear's flight response to people (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985). Habituation is adaptive and conserves energy by reducing unnecessary behavior (McCullough 1982 ), such as fleeing from park visitors that are not a threat. Habituation allows bears to access and use habitat near areas with high levels of human activity, thereby increasing habitat effectiveness (Herrero et al. 2005). ...
Grizzly bears are often thought to be incompatible with high numbers of people, however in National Parks where bears are protected from human causes of mortality, bears adapt to high densities of visitors to gain access to high quality roadside habitats.
... The distance a cracker shell detonates from a polar bear can influence the outcome of the deterrence action; the closer it explodes to the polar bear, the more likely it is to scare the polar bear away. Polar bears that are repeatedly exposed to an audio deterrent such as a cracker shell without receiving additional consequences (i.e., pain) can habituate to the noise (McCullough 1982) and quickly learn to reduce risk by moving just outside of the effective range of a cracker shell. The bear's avoidance behavior was reflected in patrollers' comments in the data such as "the bear is resting just outside of cracker shell range". ...
A warming climate is negatively affecting Arctic species that rely on sea ice to perform their life history activities. Changing sea ice dynamics have led polar bears in many subpopulations to spend more time on land, increasing the potential for human‐polar bear interactions. In Alaska, high polar bear densities have been observed at Barter Island, where subsistence whaling by the community of Kaktovik attracts polar bears during the open water period. Community‐based polar bear patrols have been established to respond to polar bears that enter or attempt to enter the community, conducting hundreds of hazing events annually. Information on the polar bears involved, deterrents used, and incident outcomes are recorded. Given the limited information on efficacy of deterrence methods for polar bears, our goal was to use incident records from 2018 to 2019 to quantify polar bear responses to hazing. We also evaluated whether factors such as deterrent type, time of year, social class, body condition, and feeding would affect 1) the probability that a polar bear would move away, and 2) the amount of effort required to move a polar bear. We found that 96% of incidents where deterrents were used resulted in successful outcomes (polar bear moved away), indicating that polar bear patrols are an effective means for deterring polar bears. Deterrent type and time of year were the factors that most affected the probability of a successful outcome. All‐terrain vehicles were the most effective deterrent used and were 4–5 times more effective than cracker shells or beanbags. Use of cracker shells and beanbags did not significantly improve the probability of a successful outcome. Polar bears in average and above average body condition took 15% less effort to move compared to bears in below average body condition. Similarly, less effort was required to move polar bears later in the season, with a 6% decrease in effort for each additional day in autumn that an incident occurred. Our study provides insights about factors that may affect human‐polar bear interactions involving the use of deterrents in developed areas, hopefully benefiting both human safety and polar bear conservation in the future.
... Over 300 million people annually access lands administered by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) (2024), and this visitation can have significant negative impacts on natural resources (Manning & Anderson, 2012). Wildlife feeding, in particular, remains a persistent issue (Beckmann & Berger, 2003;Cole, 1971;Gunther, 2022;Madison, 2008;Marion et al., 2008;Martin & McCurdy, 2009;McCullough, 1982;Schwarzkopf, 1984). Human-provided food resources for purposes of eco-tourism have been shown to have harmful impacts on wildlife in 85% of studies (Murray et al., 2016), yet continues to occur worldwide for the benefit of wildlife viewing. ...
... Bears often exhibit human habituation and food conditioning as a result of repeated exposure to humans and their food sources (Herrero et al., 2005;McCullough, 1982). Human activities or settlements can provide a shelter for juvenile bears and females with offspring, protecting them from dominant conspecifics (Mueller et al., 2004;Steyaert et al., 2013;Wielgus & Bunnell, 1994). ...
The existence of bears in Himachal Pradesh contributes significantly to the region's biodiversity. However, rising confrontations between bears and people pose substantial concerns. In Himachal Pradesh; Himalayan brown bears are reported in 10 protected areas. The Asiatic black bear is often distributed at elevations of 70 to 3000m asl. Recorded data on the presence of Asiatic black bears in Lahaul Valley, Rupi-bhaba WLS, Daranghati wildlife sanctuaries Himachal Pradesh, and genetic analysis identifies 307 unique Black bear, with the highest numbers in Kinnaur (n=90) and Kullu (n=76). Intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence conflict occurrence: older male brown bears often prey on younger conspecifics, particularly cubs. Younger bears and females with cubs are more likely to be near human settlements to protect themselves from older males. Extrinsic drivers like anthropogenic food sources and habitat loss from human activities. Climate change also influences the occurrence of Himalayan brown bears as they mostly prefer places with relatively low minimum and maximum surface temperatures during the hottest (7 to 12°C) and coldest (-6 to -1°C) months., The wettest quarter was most associated with brown bear incidence between 45mm and 85mm.Himalayan brown bear favors regions with little permanent snow or ice, and their probability of occurring significantly decreases when snow or ice levels exceed 5%, also Climate change may shorten hibernation, and Rapid development leads to habitat degradation and increased human-bear conflicts. The Himalayan brown bears are the most commonly recorded animal to cause livestock harm. Because of the secretive character of Himalayan brown bears and Asiatic black bears and the rough terrain, it has received little research attention. There is limited information on the species distribution ranges, with only a few range reports and short-term research on bear-human interaction leading to a lack of scientific knowledge needed for conservation and habitat management.
... In North America, polar bears (Ursus maritimus), grizzly bears (U. arctos), and American black bears (hereafter, black bear [U. americanus]) do occasionally injure people and in rare incidents kill and consume humans (McCullough 1982, Herrero and Fleck 1990, Herrero et al. 2011, Stirling 2011, Penteriani et al. 2017. In Yellowstone National Park (YNP), USA, most grizzly bear-inflicted human injuries occur in backcountry areas and involve unintentional encounters at close distances when bears react defensively to protect themselves, their offspring, or their food from perceived threats (Gunther and Hoekstra 1998). ...
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.
... Regardless of the specific mechanisms, animals in urbanized environments tend to exhibit increased aggression compared to their counterparts in rural or natural areas (Miranda 2017). As seen in mammals (McCullough 1982;Thompson et al. 2003) and highlighted in some studies in our review (McPherson et al. 2016;Kumar et al. 2018bKumar et al. , 2019, aggression sometimes is linked with intentional and unintentional human feeding of the predators, resulting in consequent loss of fear of humans. ...
In an increasingly urbanized world, some raptors successfully colonize and thrive in urban environments, leading to more frequent interactions with humans. These interactions can be either positive, such as providing ecosystem services, or negative, resulting in human-wildlife conflicts. Despite growing literature on these interactions, a comprehensive review focusing on urban environments has been lacking. This study aimed to address this gap by conducting a systematic review using Google Scholar and the Scopus bibliographic database. A total of 45 studies met the search criteria, with a predominant prevalence of the northern hemisphere. Accipitriformes was the most studied order of raptors (50%), followed by Strigiformes (37%), Falconiformes (8%), and Cathartiformes (2%). Positive interactions studied included cultural services, pest control, positive perception, carrion removal, while negative interactions involved safety damage, property damage, negative perception, disease transmission, livestock damage, nuisance and superstitions. Pest control and cultural services were supported by the evidence, although only for specific orders. Carrion removal and aggressiveness appear to decrease with urbanization, although more studies are needed to verify this premise. Both positive and negative perceptions were evident, influenced in part by the knowledge or closeness that people had towards urban raptors. We discuss how the interactions studied influence the daily lives of citizens and, in turn, how human activities shape and influence these interactions. Finally, given that cities are socio-ecological systems, we advocate for methodologies that integrate the social aspects of human-predator interactions along with ecological ones to promote coexistence.
... Bears could potentially perpetuate disease transmissions to human and livestock, given that they often explore anthropogenic habitats in agroecosystems due to their behavioral plasticity, intelligence, and omnivorous food habits (12)(13)(14). Additionally, the current trend of increased interactions might make bears essential vectors or intermediate hosts for several zoonotic pathogens (15)(16)(17), as they could predate or scavenge an infected host (18-Rev. ...
Parasites are part of the natural processes that help regulate populations and maintain ecosystems balanced. There is a growing recognition of parasites as important factors in the conservation of species, mainly those vulnerable to extinction in a changing environment. Bears are good biological models for monitoring infectious agents in wildlife, given their life cycle, broad home range, and severity of interactions with humans and their domestic animals as a result of their behavioral plasticity, intelligence, and omnivorous food habits. In the Andean region, the only bear species listed as vulnerable is the Tremarctos ornatus. To determine the sampling gap and prioritize the approach for understanding parasite diversity in bears, I performed a systematic review and metanalysis of the documented parasites of bears across the world and discussed the possibility of the parasites recorded in these other species being present in the T. ornatus in the Andean region, specifically Colombia. In 283 relevant references, 647 records were found of 189 parasites in 37 countries. Of the bears with parasites recorded, Ursus americanus had the most numerous and complete records. The tropical species H. malayanus, M. ursinus, and T. ornatus showed the smallest parasite diversity and unseen species estimate, despite being the region where the greatest diversity of parasites was expected. Of interest are around 80 parasites that have been recorded in seven non-Colombian bear species but are documented in other species in this country.
... We use the term salt-conditioning in the same sense that managers of bear populations use food-conditioning (i.e., the development of an expectation that a reward will follow from close association with people; McCullough 1982, Herrero 2002, Smith et al. 2005, Hopkins et al. 2010, except that we believe goats much more commonly seek mineral salts than calories. Attraction to and use of naturally occurring minerals (e.g., particularly concentrated in soils in what are termed licks) is a well-known characteristic of goat biology (Singer 1978, Ayotte et al. 2008, Poole et al. 2010, Rice 2010. ...
Interactions between humans and wildlife include a number of consumptive and non-consumptive forms. In some cases, the increased demand for wildlife viewing can precipitate new human-wildlife conflicts. Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus; goats) are native to a number of North American mountain ranges from southeastern Alaska to southwestern Montana, USA. Goat habitat typically consists of steep terrain and cold weather habitats, which has left them particularly vulnerable to climate change. Their alpine environments also make them vulnerable to disturbance by aircraft and land-based motorized human activity. We reviewed and characterized situations in which goats in close proximity to humans on foot may become a nuisance or dangerous to people. We identify how such interactions might occur, focusing on the array of intensity observed in different settings. We summarize and evaluate interventions that have been attempted and may warrant additional research. Goats that tolerate people along hiking trails, perhaps through a habituation-like process, can typically be kept at a safe distance simply by shouting, clapping hands, or vigorous gestures. Goats that have learned to associate people with a salt reward (e.g., typically urine deposited on the ground, less frequently sweat obtained directly by licking) are more likely to be successfully hazed by tossing small stones, hitting the animal in the flank or rear. Salt-conditioned goats sometimes come within touching distance of humans; we strongly advise against prodding or poking these animals with sharp objects such as trekking poles. The recreating public that ventures into goat habitat is the ultimate source of these conflicts. Education, compliance, and possibly some infrastructure improvements can lessen the potential for conflicts and provide new and safer opportunities to view goats.
... In our case study, people's attitudes are affected by direct interactions with bears (e. g. encounters, damage) and often differ substantially among municipalities. HBC is challenged by bear presence in human settlement areas, which can be exacerbated by habituation of bears to urban areas and conditioning to human food resources (McCullough, 1982;Herrero et al., 2005;Marley et al., 2017). However, this effect interacts with social factors, and human attitudes can be mutually reinforced within communities (Scherer and Cho, 2003). ...
Coexistence with wildlife is becoming a key challenge in Europe as populations of large carnivores recover in human-dominated landscapes. Modeling the spatial distribution of conditions for human-bear coexistence can help support conservation by identifying priority areas and measures to support coexistence, but existing models often only address risks either to humans or to large carnivores. In this study, we developed a participatory modeling process that incorporates both human-centered and large carnivore-centered perspectives on coexistence and applied it to a case study of coexistence between humans and the endangered Apennine brown bears (Ursus arctos marsicanus) in Italy. Local and expert knowledge, as well as available data on bear habitats and land use, were integrated into a spatially explicit Bayesian network. This model is used to predict and map the tolerance to bears from the human perspective and the risk of fitness loss from the bear perspective. We found that conditions for human-bear coexistence vary between human communities and are spatially heterogeneous at the local scale, depending on ecological factors, social factors influencing the level of tolerance in community, such as people's emotions and knowledge, economic factors, such as livelihoods, and policies such as damage compensation. The participatory modeling approach allowed us to integrate perceptions of local people, expert assessments, and spatial data, and can help bridge the gap between science and conservation practice. The resulting coexistence maps can inform conservation decisions, and can be updated as new information becomes available. Our modeling approach could help to efficiently target measures for improving human-large carnivore coexistence in different settings in a site-specific manner.
... Many of these responses to human-related activities are the result of learned cultural responses transmitted from mothers to offspring (Cole, 1976;Gilbert, 1999;Mazur & Seher, 2008;Meagher & Fowler, 1989). Thus, we see bears whose avoidance response to human presence over time is reduced by habituation (Aumiller & Matt, 1994;Herrero et al., 2005;Jope, 1985;McCullough, 1982) or bears that have obtained human-related foods either through intentional feeding or careless human behavior who become food conditioned and begin to seek human use areas for feeding opportunities (Herrero, 2002;Mazur & Seher, 2008;Meagher & Phillips, 1983). Such behaviors represent human-influenced bear cultures, which are often productive for bears in the short term (Can et al., 2014;Craighead et al., 1995) but maladaptive in the long term (Gilbert, 1999;Mazur & Seher, 2008;Meagher & Fowler, 1989). ...
Culture is widely accepted as an important social factor present across a wide range of species. Bears have a culture as defined as behavioral traditions inherited through social learning usually from mothers to offspring. Successful bear cultures can enhance fitness and resource exploitation benefits. In contrast, some bear cultures related to response to humans and human‐related foods can be maladaptive and result in reduced fitness and direct mortality. In environments with minimal human influence most bear culture has evolved over generations to be beneficial and well adapted to enhance fitness. However, most bears across the world do not live in areas with minimal human influence and in these areas, bear culture is often changed by bear interactions with humans, usually to the detriment of bear survival. We highlight the importance of identifying unique bear cultural traits that allow efficient use of local resources and the value of careful management to preserve these adaptive cultural behaviors. It is also important to select against maladaptive cultural behaviors that are usually related to humans in order to reduce human–bear conflicts and high bear mortality. We use examples from Yellowstone National Park to demonstrate how long‐term management to reduce maladaptive bear cultures related to humans has resulted in healthy bear populations and a low level of human–bear conflict in spite of a high number of Yellowstone National Park visitors in close association with bears. Bears have a culture as defined as behavioral traditions inherited through social learning usually from mothers to offspring. Successful bear cultures can enhance fitness and resource exploitation benefits. We highlight the importance of identifying unique bear cultural traits that allow efficient use of local resources and the value of careful management to preserve these adaptive cultural behaviors.
... Grasses are available through all seasons, but bear garlic (Allium ursinum) is mainly restricted to spring, when it is highly abundant. Addition-ally, subadults, as well as adult females with offspring, are the cause of more conflicts with humans (Inslerman et al. 2006 than are adult males because they approach closer to human settlements as a strategy to avoid dominant bears (Elfström et al. 2014b), to overcome food shortage (McCullough 1982, Gunther et al. 2009, Rogers 2011, or even because they lack experience with humans as compared with older conspecifics (McLellan et al. 1999, Kaczensky et al. 2006, Elfström et al. 2014b). The subadult bear group showed more dependency on the feeding sites. ...
Management of free-ranging wildlife may include the capture of animals, with the implication that the capture process is optimized, both logistically and economically and in a way that avoids animal suffering, injury or accidental mortality. Studies targeting the optimization of trapping techniques are scarce, especially when focusing on large European mammals. Therefore, to fill this knowledge gap, we aimed to evaluate key factors that help determine brown bear capture success. This was done by analysing a complete data set from 23 years of capturing free-living Eurasian brown bears in Croatia by using Aldrich-type foot snares. Results showed significantly higher capture efficiency when traps were located at permanent feeding sites when compared to temporary feeding sites. Also, the use of a trail trap design was significantly more efficient in capturing bears than using a cubby set. Finally, results showed that trapping was more efficient when we bait the traps more frequently and when we implemented longer trap-sessions, with at least 14 days.
... Many of these responses to human-related activities are the result of learned cultural responses transmitted from mothers to offspring (Cole, 1976;Gilbert, 1999;Mazur & Seher, 2008;Meagher & Fowler, 1989). Thus, we see bears whose avoidance response to human presence over time is reduced by habituation (Aumiller & Matt, 1994;Herrero et al., 2005;Jope, 1985;McCullough, 1982) or bears that have obtained human-related foods either through intentional feeding or careless human behavior who become food conditioned and begin to seek human use areas for feeding opportunities (Herrero, 2002;Mazur & Seher, 2008;Meagher & Phillips, 1983). Such behaviors represent human-influenced bear cultures, which are often productive for bears in the short term (Can et al., 2014;Craighead et al., 1995) but maladaptive in the long term (Gilbert, 1999;Mazur & Seher, 2008;Meagher & Fowler, 1989). ...
Culture is widely accepted as an important social factor present across a wide range of species. Bears have a culture as defined as behavioral traditions inherited though social learning usually from mothers to offspring. Successful bear cultures can enhance fitness and resource exploitation benefits. In contrast, some bear cultures related to response to humans and human-related foods can be maladaptive and result in reduced fitness and direct mortality. In environments with minimal human influence most bear culture has evolved over generations to be beneficial and well adapted to enhance fitness. However, most bears across the world do not live in areas with minimal human influence and in these areas, bear culture is often changed by bear interactions with humans, usually to the detriment of bear survival. We highlight the importance of identifying unique bear cultural traits that allow efficient use of local resources and the value of careful management to preserve these adaptive cultural behaviors. It is also important to select against maladaptive cultural behaviors that are usually related to humans inorder to reduce human-bear conflicts and high bear mortality. We use examples from Yellowstone National Park to demonstrate how long-term management to reduce maladaptive bear cultures related to humans has resulted in healthy bear populations and a low level of human-bear conflict in spite of a high number of Park visitors in close association with bears.
... 24 As I point out in Section 3.9, goals can be vagarious as well as under-specified. McCullough (1982), for example, offers the goal of "stalemate" through "reinforcement of mutual fear and respect." It is unclear to what extent the last part of this statement was meant to apply to people as well as bears and, if so, whether people should be subject to hazing as part of a larger aversive conditioning program. ...
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.
... Bears are independent (i.e., individualistic social behavior), adaptable, intelligent, and highly mobile (McCullough 1982;Durner and Amstrup 1995;Deecke 2012;Ordiz et al. 2012). As a result, they encounter and exploit a wide range of resources and their tolerance for (or naïveté towards) humans and their associated activities are ...
Otters are a semiaquatic clade that stands out among carnivorans. Of 13 otter species, only three are known to cooperate, although most species exhibit some form of sociality. The observed variation in social structure among species, especially those in marine environments, makes this taxon suitable for studying the proximate and ultimate factors underpinning sociality. Here we review evidence for social behavior in otters with an emphasis on two species: the North American river otter (an inland and coastal generalist) and the sea otter (a marine specialist). In addition, we provide new information on a marine population of river otters in coastal Alaska using telemetry, camera traps, and social network analysis. Our results provide new insight into the contexts for river otter social behavior, confirm previous observations on individual variation in social behavior, and highlight differences between males and females. We additionally review the published data on sea otter social behavior. We discuss potential directions for hypothesis testing in otter social systems with an emphasis on drivers of individual variation in social behavior, especially potential insights from the fields of sociogenomics and proteomics.
... Bears are independent (i.e., individualistic social behavior), adaptable, intelligent, and highly mobile (McCullough 1982;Durner and Amstrup 1995;Deecke 2012;Ordiz et al. 2012). As a result, they encounter and exploit a wide range of resources and their tolerance for (or naïveté towards) humans and their associated activities are influenced by demography and nutritional condition. ...
Human-wildlife interactions (HWI) are driven fundamentally by overlapping space and resources. As competition intensifies, the likelihood of interaction and conflict increases. In turn, conflict may impede conservation efforts by lowering social tolerance of wildlife, especially when human-wildlife conflict (HWC) poses a threat to human safety and economic well-being. Thus, mitigating conflict is one of the most consequential components of a wildlife management program, particularly for large carnivores. However, unlike other large carnivores, the causative factors and conservation consequences of interactions between humans and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are poorly understood. Historically, mitigation of human-polar bear conflict has been a low management priority with the exception of a few locations where conflict had been a chronic concern. In part, this was because of low human densities in most of the Arctic and sea ice act as a physical barrier regulating the frequency of human-polar bear interactions. However, as the Arctic has warmed, anthropogenic activities have increased, and polar bears have become more reliant on land. As a result, mitigating interaction and conflict between humans and polar bears has become a growing concern. In this chapter, we explore the nexus of polar bear and human behavior and environmental change in driving the nature and intensity of human-polar bear interaction and conflict. We first provide an overview of behaviors that contribute to the occurrence of interactions and conflicts. We then review historical and contemporary drivers of interaction and conflict and examine how climate-mediated changes to Arctic marine and terrestrial environments are likely to influence distribution and types of future incidents. We close by proposing a conceptual framework that conservationists and managers can use to mitigate the likelihood of future human-polar bear conflict in a rapidly changing Arctic.
... Having grizzly bears on a landscape can affect how people live (McCullough 1982). Those who live in grizzly country tend to take precautions against adverse encounters, and some live in a constant or frequent state of increased vigilance. ...
Efforts to reintroduce species to portions of their historic ranges are growing in number and kind. These include proposals and projects to reintroduce large carnivores in areas where these species have been absent for decades. Reintroductions, like all conservation efforts, involve not only empirical and logistical problems, but also complex normative questions. So, what are the obligations, values, permissions, restrictions, and demands that citizens, conservationists, wildlife managers, and other impacted parties must address? This paper attempts to organise, summarise and briefly analyse the diverse suite of common normative arguments concerning large carnivore reintroduction. Clarifying arguments as a methodological approach grounded in environmental ethics sheds light on many implicit ethical presuppositions that underwrite reintroduction efforts. As an example, we use the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), whose populations have grown in recent years in both Europe and North America. Whereas past efforts to recover grizzlies in the lower 48 U.S. states focused on the Northern Rockies and North Cascades, research, legal proceedings, and other proposals have emerged to return the species to other portions of its historic range, including California. Clarifying ethical arguments that may arise from large carnivore reintroduction can contribute to a more civil public discourse and effective decision-making processes.
... Grasses are available through all seasons, but bear garlic (Allium ursinum) is mainly restricted to spring, when it is highly abundant. Addition-ally, subadults, as well as adult females with offspring, are the cause of more conflicts with humans (Inslerman et al. 2006 than are adult males because they approach closer to human settlements as a strategy to avoid dominant bears (Elfström et al. 2014b), to overcome food shortage (McCullough 1982, Gunther et al. 2009, Rogers 2011, or even because they lack experience with humans as compared with older conspecifics (McLellan et al. 1999, Kaczensky et al. 2006, Elfström et al. 2014b). The subadult bear group showed more dependency on the feeding sites. ...
The diet of free-ranging bears is an important dimension regarding their ecology, affecting their behavior, population structure, and relation with humans. In Croatia, there has been no recent study on the natural food habits of brown bears (Ursus arctos) or the influence of artificial feeding sites on their diet. During 2017, we collected 53 brown bear stomachs from bears in 2 regions of Croatia-Gorski Kotar and Lika-to assess their diet. Plants-Allium ursinum, the Poaceae family, Cornus mas, berries (i.e., Prunus avium, Rubus plicatus), beechnuts (Fagus spp.)-and various plant parts (i.e., dry leaves, buds, conifer needles, and twigs), as well as mushrooms, made up 80% of the percentage of the volume (%V) of all consumed items. Corn (Zea mays) from the feeding sites made up 37% of the bears' diet (%V), whereas 20% (%V) was meat and 14% (%V) was pome fruits. Scavenged or preyed animal species, such as wild boar (Sus scrofa), horse (Equus caballus), domestic pig (S. scrofa domesticus), cattle (Bos taurus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and small mammals comprised >66% of %FO (frequency of occurrence), but only 20% of %V. Our results showed that food resources (i.e., livestock such as horses, cattle, and pigs, and corn) found at supplemental feeding sites were more frequently chosen by bears than natural food in 2017, a year characterized by almost no beechnut crop. The results showed that subadult bears obtained most food from feeding sites. These 2 patterns suggested that bears may focus on artificial feeding sites to find food in years when natural food sources are depleted, although this should be tested using diet and food availability data collected from several years.
... Human habituation and food conditioning are common responses by bears due to frequent exposure to people and human-derived foods (McCullough 1982;Herrero et al. 2005). However, human activity or settlements may also provide a refuge (sometimes termed human shield) for young bears and females with young against dominant conspecifics (Wielgus & Bunnell 1994;Mueller et al. 2004;Steyaert et al. 2013). ...
Conflicts between humans and bears have occurred since prehistory. Through time, the catalogue of human–bear conflicts (HBC) has been changing depending on the values and needs of human societies and their interactions with bears. Even today, conflict situations vary among the eight species of bears and geographically across these species’ ranges. This results in a broad range of interactions between bears and humans that may be considered as conflicts, including: (1) predation of domestic or semiwild animals, including bees, hunting dogs, and pet animals; (2) damage due to foraging on cultivated berries, fruits, agricultural products, and the tree bark in forest plantations; (3) economic loss due to destruction of beehives, fences, silos, houses, and other human property; (4) bear attacks on humans causing mild or fatal trauma; (5) bluff charges, bear intrusions into residential areas; and (6) vehicle collisions with bears and traffic accidents. In this chapter we aim to outline the principal types of HBC and geographical differences in the occurrence of conflicts and the coexistence between people and bears.
... Human habituation and food conditioning are common responses by bears due to frequent exposure to people and human-derived foods (McCullough 1982;Herrero et al. 2005). However, human activity or settlements may also provide a refuge (sometimes termed human shield) for young bears and females with young against dominant conspecifics (Wielgus & Bunnell 1994;Mueller et al. 2004;Steyaert et al. 2013). ...
The media and scientific literature are increasingly reporting an escalation of large carnivore attacks on humans, mainly in the so-called developed countries, such as Europe and North America. Although large carnivore populations have generally increased in developed countries, increased numbers are not solely responsible for the observed rise in the number of attacks. Of the eight bear species inhabiting the world, two (i.e. the Andean bear and the giant panda) have never been reported to attack humans, whereas the other six species have: sun bears Helarctos malayanus, sloth bears Melursus ursinus, Asiatic black bears Ursus thibetanus, American black bears Ursus americanus, brown bears Ursus arctos, and polar bears Ursus maritimus. This chapter provides insights into the causes, and as a result the prevention, of bear attacks on people. Prevention and information that can encourage appropriate human behavior when sharing the landscape with bears are of paramount importance to reduce both potentially fatal human–bear encounters and their consequences to bear conservation.
... Although there were few conflicts in Yellowstone National Park, management of non-food conditioned, human-habituated grizzly bears required considerable effort. Habituation is a bear's diminishing overt response to people following frequent benign encounters (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985, Hopkins et al. 2010. Habituation allows bears to access and use habitat in areas with high levels of human activity, thereby increasing habitat effectiveness . ...
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 2019. 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.
... Although there were few conflicts in Yellowstone National Park, management of non-food conditioned, human-habituated bears required considerable effort. Habituation is a bear's diminishing overt response to people following frequent benign encounters (McCullough 1982, Jope 1985, Hopkins et al. 2010. Habituation allows bears to access and use habitat in areas with high levels of human activity, thereby increasing habitat effectiveness . ...
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 2018. 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.
... However, it is difficult to untangle persistence and habituation. Animals may habituate to novel objects and stop being repelled by them over time (McCullough 1982). Coyotes that we defined as more persistent may also habituate (i.e., show reduced neophobia) to novel objects more quickly, similar to how social status may influence coyote neophobia (Mettler andShivik 2007, Darrow and. ...
Coyotes (Canis latrans) are the top predator of livestock in the contiguous United States. Developing more effective nonlethal tools to prevent coyote depredation will facilitate coexistence between livestock producers and coyotes. Fladry is a nonlethal deterrent designed to defend livestock by creating a visual barrier to wolves (C. lupus). Fladry may also be effective with coyotes, but large gap spacing between flags may reduce its efficacy. To address this issue, we performed 2 experiments on captive coyotes using fladry modified to reduce gap spacing at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Predator Research Facility in Millville, Utah, USA, during 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. In 2015-2016, we tested 2 styles for attaching flags (top-knot and shower-curtain) to the rope-line that reduce gaps by preventing coiling of individual flags. In 2017-2018, we tested the efficacy of gap spacing (27.9 cm vs. 45.7 cm) between flags for preventing coyote crossings. For both tests, we compared the time until coyotes crossed the fladry between treatment types. We found no differences in time to crossing between the 2 attachment designs. In our second experiment, fladry with smaller gaps between flags had greater efficacy of preventing coyote crossings than did fladry with larger gaps. Our results also indicated that for each additional minute coyotes spent interacting with fladry overall (i.e., increased persistent behavior), survival of the barrier decreased. These results suggest that persistent coyotes may overcome neophobia more rapidly than coyotes that do not exhibit persistent behaviors. Furthermore, use of top-knot fladry and coyote-width spacing will increase protection of livestock from coyotes.
... I suggest that coyotes, like bears (see McCullough 1982), need to perceive humans as life-threatening or at least a source of pain before they will learn to respect (i.e., fear) humans. Until then, they will continue to explore and exploit their environment. ...
... Grasses are available through all seasons, but bear garlic (Allium ursinum) is mainly restricted to spring, when it is highly abundant. Addition-ally, subadults, as well as adult females with offspring, are the cause of more conflicts with humans (Inslerman et al. 2006 than are adult males because they approach closer to human settlements as a strategy to avoid dominant bears (Elfström et al. 2014b), to overcome food shortage (McCullough 1982, Gunther et al. 2009, Rogers 2011, or even because they lack experience with humans as compared with older conspecifics (McLellan et al. 1999, Kaczensky et al. 2006, Elfström et al. 2014b). The subadult bear group showed more dependency on the feeding sites. ...
... This can result in property damage and increased risk to human safety. In addition, black bears that consume anthropogenic foods with no negative reinforcement often become human-food conditioned and humanhabituated, which can also increase humanbear conflicts (McCullough 1982, Herrero et al. 2011. The DNR attempted to trap the bear in fall 2015, but a trap flaw enabled the bear to escape, and further attempts of capture failed. ...
Over a century after extirpation from Indiana, USA, 2 American black bears (Ursus americanus) were confirmed in the state during the summers of 2015 and 2016. The first bear encountered a public and management agency unaccustomed to living with large carnivores, which resulted in intentional and unintentional feedings, habituation, and ultimately its euthanasia. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) attempted to learn from this encounter and began preparing for the next transient black bear. Education materials were created to help minimize human-bear interactions, promote living safely with bears, and inform about what to do when encountering a bear. Additionally, bear traps were purchased and staff were trained to safely deploy and use these traps. During the summer of 2016, when a second black bear was confirmed in Indiana, the DNR deployed targeted education and outreach materials to try to help maintain a positive living-with-bears environment and minimize human-bear interactions. Expanded public education and a slight increase in preparedness of the DNR provided 2 different outcomes for the recent bears in Indiana. These are likely not the last bears Indiana will host; habitat suitability models suggest that Indiana could potentially support bears in portions of the state. Natural range expansion in neighboring states suggest that Indiana will see more black bears in the future. These 2 bears highlighted the need for Indiana and other state agencies to have some preparations in place-especially related to education-to respond to transient large carnivores that are moving through and eventually recolonizing long extirpated areas.
... This can result in property damage and increased risk to human safety. In addition, black bears that consume anthropogenic foods with no negative reinforcement often become human-food conditioned and humanhabituated, which can also increase humanbear conflicts (McCullough 1982, Herrero et al. 2011. The DNR attempted to trap the bear in fall 2015, but a trap flaw enabled the bear to escape, and further attempts of capture failed. ...
Over a century after extirpation from Indiana, USA, 2 American black bears (Ursus americanus) were confirmed in the state during the summers of 2015 and 2016. The first bear encountered a public and management agency unaccustomed to living with large carnivores, which resulted in intentional and unintentional feedings, habituation, and ultimately its euthanasia. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) attempted to learn from this encounter and began preparing for the next transient black bear. Education materials were created to help minimize human-bear interactions, promote living safely with bears, and inform about what to do when encountering a bear. Additionally, bear traps were purchased and staff were trained to safely deploy and use these traps. During the summer of 2016, when a second black bear was confirmed in Indiana, the DNR deployed targeted education and outreach materials to try to help maintain a positive living-with-bears environment and minimize human-bear interactions. Expanded public education and a slight increase in preparedness of the DNR provided 2 different outcomes for the recent bears in Indiana. These are likely not the last bears Indiana will host; habitat suitability models suggest that Indiana could potentially support bears in portions of the state. Natural range expansion in neighboring states suggest that Indiana will see more black bears in the future. These 2 bears highlighted the need for Indiana and other state agencies to have some preparations in place-especially related to education-to respond to transient large carnivores that are moving through and eventually recolonizing long extirpated areas.
... Nonetheless, a standard list of definitions is important to common understanding. In this document, we adopt or adapt the definitions developed by Can et al. (2014), Clark et al. (2002), Gunther (1994), Herrero et al. (2005), Herrero and Higgins (2003), Hopkins et al. (2010), Gunther et al. (2000), Gunther et al. (2004), McCullough (1982, Schirokauer and Boyd (1998), Smith et al. (2005), Thompson and McCurdy (1995), and Wilder et al. (2007). ...
Most human–black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict occurs when people make anthropogenic foods like garbage, dog food, domestic poultry, or fruit trees available to bears. Bears change their behavior to take advantage of these resources and may damage property or cause public safety concerns in the process. Managers are often forced to focus efforts on reactive non-lethal and lethal bear management techniques to solve immediate problems, which do little to address root causes of human–bear conflict. As long as bears find easy access to garbage, bird feeders, urban fruit trees, and other food subsidies, conflicts are likely to continue. Managers and the public need to understand the available tools to stop human–bear conflict and reduce effects on bear populations. Rhetorically blaming bears for conflicts by labeling them as problem bears or nuisance bears is becoming increasing unpopular. Ultimately human behavior must change by reducing anthropogenic resources that cause human– bear conflicts. This process requires a different suite of tools and should be the primary focus for bear managers interested in lowering the potential for conflict.
... Spatially concentrated, highly productive, and temporally predictable (anthropogenic food) resources in urban or suburban areas attract wildlife to these novel environments (Beckmann and Berger 2003;Schochat 2004;Rodewald and Shustack 2008). Bears successfully exploit the anthropogenic resources in urban and suburban areas by virtue of their behavioral plasticity, intelligence, and omnivorous food habits (McCullough 1982;Gilbert 1989). Reported human-black bear interactions have increased due to presence of garbage disposal units in urban-suburban areas, which are perennial resources for bears because of available and reliable food regardless of season or environmental conditions (Beckmann and Berger 2003). ...
American black bear ( Ursus americanus) populations in North Carolina have recovered significantly in recent decades and now occupy much of western North Carolina, including urban-suburban areas. We used the black bear as a potential sentinel for leptospirosis, a bacterial zoonotic disease caused by Leptospira spp., which is maintained by domestic and wild mammals. We determined whether Leptospira spp. were present across a gradient of housing densities in the urban and suburban black bear population in and around Asheville, North Carolina using serologic and molecular surveys. We collected blood from captured black bears ( n=94) and kidneys and bladders from carcasses ( n=19). We tested a total of 96 (47 females, 47 males, and 2 unknown) serum samples by microscopic agglutination test (MAT) and had positive results (titer >1:100) for L. kirschneri serovar Grippotyphosa ( L. Grippotyphosa) in 4 females (8%) and 5 males (10%). No other serovars showed elevated titers in MAT. We tested a total of 125 samples using PCR ( n=96 serum, n=20 kidney, and n=9 bladders) and obtained positive results from one serum (1%), one kidney (5%), and one bladder (11%). The presence of Leptospira spp. in black bears occupying an urban and suburban landscape may indicate a more extensive occurrence of the bacteria among animals in the study region because black bears are the top carnivore in that ecosystem. Potential threats of widespread contamination during natural events such as flood or drought must be considered.
... Bears (Ursus spp.) are particularly prone to food conditioning (Hopkins et al. 2012), which also makes them more likely to exhibit conflict behaviour (Hopkins et al. 2014a). Experience-based knowledge of this association by wildlife managers is the reason that preventing food conditioning has become a mainstay of wildlife management in protected areas (Herrero 1970, McCullough 1982. ...
We describe an interspecific relationship wherein grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) appear to seek out and consume agricultural seeds concentrated in the middens of red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), which had collected and cached spilled grain from a railway. We studied this interaction by estimating squirrel density, midden density and contents, and bear activity along paired transects that were near (within 50 m) or far (200 m) from the railway. Relative to far ones, near transects had 2.4 times more squirrel sightings, but similar numbers of squirrel middens. Among 15 middens in which agricultural products were found, 14 were near the rail and 4 subsequently exhibited evidence of bear digging. Remote cameras confirmed the presence of squirrels on the rail and bears excavating middens. We speculate that obtaining grain from squirrel middens encourages bears to seek grain on the railway, potentially contributing to their rising risk of collisions with trains.
... Bears are independent (i.e., individualistic social behavior), adaptable, intelligent, and highly mobile (McCullough 1982;Durner and Amstrup 1995;Deecke 2012;Ordiz et al. 2012). As a result, they encounter and exploit a wide range of resources and their tolerance for (or naïveté towards) humans and their associated activities are influenced by demography and nutritional condition. ...
... Binks (2008) also observed such opportunistic behavior by rehabilitated bears in Ontario, and att ributed it to incidental contact during dispersal. This activity is characteristic of normal foraging behavior as bears are adept at fi nding and utilizing concentrations of highly nutritious foods (McCullough 1982, Bacon and Burghardt 1983, Eagle and Pelton 1983. Confl icts are inevitable when anthropogenic food sources are readily available or poorly secured, especially when natural forage is limited (Figure 3). ...
We evaluated the release of rehabilitated, orphan black bears (Ursus americanus) in northern New Hampshire. Eleven bears (9 males, 2 females; 40-45 kg) were outfitted with GPS radio-collars and released during May and June of 2011 and 2012. Bears released in 2011 had higher apparent survival and were not observed or reported in any nuisance behavior, whereas no bears released in 2012 survived, and all were involved in minor nuisance behavior. Analysis of GPS locations indicated that bears in 2011 had access to and used abundant natural forages or habitat. Conversely, abundance of soft and hard mast was lower in 2012, suggesting that nuisance behavior, and consequently survival, was inversely related to availability of natural forage. Dispersal from the release site ranged from 3.4-73 km across both years, and no bear returned to the rehabilitation facility (117 km distance). Rehabilitation appears to be a valid method for addressing certain orphan bear issues in New Hampshire.
... On the other hand, viewing sites may also lead to bear habituation, i.e. the loss of human avoidance and escape responses . Habituation is a process involving a reduction in response over time as individuals learn that there are neither adverse nor beneficial consequences of the occurrence of the stimulus, which in this case is human presence (McCullough, 1982;Whittaker and Knight, 1998). Habituation and tolerance to humans may also occur in areas with low bear density and reduced opportunity for bear-to-bear tolerance, i.e. when the likelihood of human contact is high due to the large number of visitors. ...
... Humanbear confl ict has been documented for all extant bear species, including American black bears (Ursus americanus; Spencer et al. 2007), Asiatic black bears (U. thibetanus; Charoo et al. 2011), brown bears (Matt son andMerrill 2002), polar bears (U. maritimus ;Dyck 2006), sloth bears (U. ursinus; Bargali et al. 2005), spectacled bears (Tremarctos ornatus; Goldstein et al. 2006), and sun bears (U. malayanus; Wong et al. 2015), as well as giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca; Liu et al. 1999). Bear habituation to humansdefi ned as the waning of a fl ight response when a punishment (e.g., non-lethal deterrent) is discontinued (adapted from McCullough 1982, Hopkins III et al. 2010)-can lead to humanbear confl ict (Smith et al. 2005). Relatedly, low human tolerance of bears wherein tolerance represents the intensity of bear disturbance that a person tolerates without responding negatively (adapted from Nisbet 2000, Hopkins III et al. 2010 can also result in confl ict. ...
Previous studies showed that the likelihood of a bear becoming a nuisance and thus being removed from a population (i.e., relocated or killed) depends on numerous factors such as natural food supply, sex, age, and reproductive status. Distances from a bear's home range and activity centers to confl ict zones such as towns, roads, and trails used by humans also aff ect the incidence of nuisance behavior and have been documented for grizzly/brown bears (Ursus arctos) in North America and Europe. But those studies did not quantify the relative infl uences by various factors on distance from confl ict zones, or the eff ects of distance on the likelihood of becoming a nuisance. We tested the latter 2 aspects using data gathered for other purposes on 9 adult research grizzly bears using areas within 500 m of Cadomin, Canada, during an 8-year study between 2000 and 2010. GPS radio collars yielded 565 location positions, of which 87% (490) were for 3 females. Bear distances to the settlement varied mostly as a function of seasonal natural food supply and foraging intensity (spring hypophagia, summer mesophagia, and fall hyperphagia); distances were less a function of sex, reproductive status, age, day of the week (proxy for high human presence), or individual diff erences. However, females occurred disproportionately more than males (92%) in a 500-m radius from town. Bears were closest to Cadomin in spring and fall, but feeding and bedding activity occurred within 500 m of the settlement across seasons. By contrast, bear distances from roads and trails diff ered less as a function of season than they did among individuals, but that revealed nothing about nuisance potential. Adult female G040, the single research bear that became a problem because it entered the settlement and foraged there, did not tend to be closer to roads and trails than most bears. During the year that G040 visited Cadomin, her average distance from that settlement ( ± 2 SE: 281 ± 51 m, n = 37) was not closer than distances of the other bears to Cadomin (303 ± 11 m, n = 512), although it was closer than her mean distance during the 2 other years on which we have data (387 ± 90 m, n = 10). Based on these fi ndings and bear-related occurrences reported by residents, we conclude that seasonal and annual defi cits of prime natural foods, and availability of anthropogenic foods, remain the best predictors of nuisance activity for bears in general.
The Banasknatha forest division in Gujarat harbours a large number of Sloth Bear (Melursus ursinus) in spite of highly patchy, fragmented and degraded forests, high human population in adjacent villages, enormous agricultural expansion and continuous encroachment on bear habitat, and high cattle grazing pressure. As a result, attacks on human beings and agricultural crop damage by Sloth Bears are sharply evident. Although, Sloth Bears are unpredictable in their attacking behaviour, therefore, it is very important to understand the attacking and mauling behaviour and activity pattern of Sloth Bears, which may help develop the local people to avoid Bears. Forty-seven human injuries occurred from 1968 - 2008 and most of these incidences took place when Bears were active. Information about the attacking behaviour and the nature of human injuries had been collected by intriguing interviews with the mauled victims. In 58% cases, the Sloth Bear charged spontaneously, during daytime, and then attacked repeatedly. Four casualties occurred when a mother and cub(s) were together, 43 attacks were by a single bear. Injuries to the victims included injury to hands (upper half) and legs (lower half), due mainly to biting and used claws (n = 29) and injuries to the head, forehead, face, and body (n =18).
Conventional North American management of human-bear conflicts assumes that bears become more dangerous and destructive of human property if the bears have become food conditioned. Bears perceived as dangerous or destructive are usually killed. Conflict management to protect both people and bears focuses on minimizing bear access to anthropogenic foods. That can work where bears have access to sufficient wild foods. During famines of profitable wild foods, however, the key to minimizing conflicts can be providing food to bears – so-called diversionary baiting. Wild food supply is only one of numerous factors determining why provisioning bears intensifies conflicts in some situations, but minimizes conflicts in other situations. Identifying and quantifying the role of each factor is best done through formation of a more comprehensive conceptual model, followed by hypothesis derivation and testing. Literature synthesis and paradigmatic reconceptualization have thus far been hampered by terminological ambiguity. To overcome this constraint, we propose systematically integrated definitions for key terms: (a) conflict zones and sites, conflict foods, provisioning, incursionary feeding, baiting for diversion and other purposes; (b) numerous sorts of food conditioning: respondant, instrumental, opportunistic, transient, compensatory, agonistically induced, preferential, location-specific, person-specific, direct, indirect. (c) Food source descriptors: presence, abundance, density, accessibility, harvestability, availability, attractiveness, palatability, profitability, preference, reliability (predictability), and microhabitat suitability.
Supplemental and diversionary feeding can reduce conflicts between wildlife and people. However, feeding also can increase species abundance, survival, and reproductive success, which might increase human-wildlife conflicts. In southwestern Alberta, Canada, the provincial government fed road-killed ungulates to grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) each spring during 1998-2013 attempting to reduce spring depredation of livestock by grizzly bears. We used non-invasive genetic sampling, remote trail cameras, and complaint records to evaluate the efficacy of Alberta's intercept-feeding program. We monitored 12 intercept-feeding locations in 2012 and 2013. Using DNA, we identified 22 grizzly bears (19 M, 3 F) at the intercept-feeding sites. Remote trail cameras detected grizzly bears at all intercept-feeding sites, but detected females with dependent offspring at only 4 of the 12 sites. We reviewed complaint data for incidents before, during, and after the intercept-feeding program. We defined an incident as a situation where the grizzly bear caused property damage, obtained anthropogenic food, or killed or attempted to kill livestock or pets. Spring (1 Mar-15 Jun) grizzly bear-livestock incidents did not decrease during the intercept-feeding program (pre: 1982-1995, x = 0.8 spring livestock incidents/yr, SE = 0.3, during: 1999-2013, x = 3.3 spring livestock incidents/yr, SE = 1.3, t = 1.76, 27 df, P = 0.09). We also collected DNA samples from bears involved in incidents, and only 2 bears detected at intercept-feeding sites were detected also at a spring incident site. The intercept-feeding program was suspended in 2014 and 2015, and we did not detect an increase in spring livestock depredation. We estimated annual operating costs to be43,850 Canadian dollars (CAD); initial capital equipment investment was19,000 CAD. In total, approximately720,600 CAD has been spent on the intercept-feeding program between 1998 and 2013. Intercept feeding did not decrease spring livestock depredation; therefore, other mitigation efforts, including electric fencing and deadstock removal, might be a more cost-effective long-term solution. © 2017 International Association for Bear Research and Management.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.