How Agencies Respond to Human–black Bear Conflicts: A Survey of Wildlife Agencies in North America

Spencer, Rocky D.; Beausoleil, Richard A.; Martorello, Donald A.

doi:10.2192/1537-6176(2007)18[217:harthb]2.0.co;2

Cited by 134 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings that bears primarily used garbage when foraging in Aspen support a well-established notion among managers that garbage is a major attractant driving human-bear conflict (Spencer et al 2007). Aspen had much of the infrastructure required to secure garbage, i.e., 76% of garbage containers were bear resistant, but, because of improper use of bear resistant containers and continued use of non-bear proof v www.esajournals.org containers, over half of the garbage containers provided no resistance to bears.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…In urban areas, human-bear conflict poses unique challenges as traditional mitigation approaches such as euthanasia, translocation, and hazing can be (1) unpopular among urban residents (Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005, Manfredo 2008, Messmer 2009), (2) ineffective at preventing future conflicts , Landriault et al 2009), and (3) expensive and time-consuming to implement (Hristienko andMcDonald 2007, Fontú rbel andSimonetti 2011). Furthermore, wildlife managers generally agree that compared with bear removal, removing attractants provides a better and long-lasting solution to conflict (Spencer et al 2007, Baruch-Mordo et al 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Urban environments offer wildlife novel anthropogenic resources that vary spatiotemporally at fine scales. Property damage, economic losses, human injury, or other human-wildlife conflicts can occur when wildlife use these resources; however, few studies have examined urban wildlife resource selection at fine scales to guide conflict mitigation. We studied black bears (Ursus americanus) in the urban area of Aspen, Colorado, USA from 2007 to 2010 to quantify bear foraging on natural and anthropogenic resources and to model factors associated with anthropogenic feeding events. We collected fine-scale spatiotemporal data by tracking GPS-collared bears at 30-min intervals and backtracked to bear locations within 24 hours of use. We used discrete choice models to assess bears' resource selection, modeling anthropogenic feeding (use) and five associated random (availability) locations as a function of attributes related to temporally changing natural (e.g., ripe mast) and human (e.g., garbage) food resources, urban characteristics (e.g., housing density), and land cover characteristics (e.g., distance to riparian area). We backtracked to 2,675 locations used by 24 bears and classified 20% as foraging locations. We found that bears foraged on both natural and anthropogenic food sources in the urban environment, with 77% of feeding events being anthropogenic. We documented inter-and intra-annual foraging patterns in which bears foraged extensively in urban areas when natural food production was poor, then switched to natural food sources when available. These patterns suggest that bears balance energy budgets and individual safety when making foraging decisions. Overwhelmingly, garbage was the main anthropogenic food source that bears used. Selection of foraging sites was not only influenced by presence of garbage but also by proximity to riparian habitat and presence of ripe anthropogenic fruit trees. We found that while 76% of the garbage containers at random locations were bear-resistant, 57% of these bear-resistant containers were not properly secured. We recommend conflict mitigation focus on reducing available garbage and anthropogenic fruit trees, particularly near riparian areas, to make urban environments less energetically beneficial for foraging. Additionally, deploying bear-resistant containers is inadequate without education and proactive enforcement to change human behavior to properly secure garbage and ultimately reduce human-bear conflict.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Education is a frequently recommended management tool to reduce human-wildlife conflicts (e.g. Treves and Karanth 2003;Spencer et al 2007). Within the human-landscape coexistence strand, education comes second to experience as the most important way to acquire knowledge about bears.…”

Section: Managing Coexistence In Southern Transylvaniamentioning

confidence: 99%

Social factors mediating human–carnivore coexistence: Understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania

Dorresteijn

Milcu

Leventon

et al. 2016

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facilitating human-carnivore coexistence depends on the biophysical environment but also on social factors. Focusing on Central Romania, we conducted 71 semi-structured interviews to explore human-bear (Ursus arctos) coexistence. Qualitative content and discourse analysis identified three socially mediated thematic strands, which showed different ways in which perceived interactions between people, bears and the environment shape coexistence. The ''landscape-bear strand'' described perceptions of the way in which the landscape offers resources for the bear, while the ''landscape-human strand'' related to ways in which humans experience the landscape. The ''management strand'' related to the way bears was managed. All three strands highlight both threats and opportunities for the peaceful coexistence of people and bears. Management and policy interventions could be improved by systematically considering the possible effects of interventions on each of the three strands shaping coexistence. Future research should explore the relevance of the identified thematic strands in other settings worldwide.

show abstract

“…Bien que les attaques d'ours noirs soient rares, la couverture médiatique dont elles font l'objet influence la tolérance de l'humain envers cet animal qui suscite parfois la crainte (Gore et al 2005). Plusieurs organisations gouvernementales responsables de l'aménagement de la faune en Amérique du Nord se sont intéressées aux solutions permettant de limiter l'augmentation des conflits ours -humains, de manière à assurer la sécurité de la population tout en minimisant les relations conflictuelles (Spencer et al 2007). Certains auteurs ont concentré leurs efforts vers le développement de modèle permettant de prédire les zones susceptibles de subir la déprédation par l'ours (Merkle et al 2011a), et l'évaluation de l'efficacité de différentes méthodes pour sensibiliser le public (Gore et al 2006;Greenleaf et al 2009;Merkle et al 2011b) ou pour contrôler les ours (Linnell et al 1997;Landriault et al 2009;Mazur2010).…”

unclassified

“…Certains auteurs ont concentré leurs efforts vers le développement de modèle permettant de prédire les zones susceptibles de subir la déprédation par l'ours (Merkle et al 2011a), et l'évaluation de l'efficacité de différentes méthodes pour sensibiliser le public (Gore et al 2006;Greenleaf et al 2009;Merkle et al 2011b) ou pour contrôler les ours (Linnell et al 1997;Landriault et al 2009;Mazur2010). Rogers 1989;Spencer et al 2007). De plus, le conditionnement de l'ours à une source de nourriture serait accentué lorsque sa disponibilité est relativement constante ).…”

unclassified

Impacts d'un site de nourrissage à des fins d'observation sur l'utilisation de l'espace et la sélection de l'habitat de l'ours noir (Ursus americanus) en forêt boréale /

Massé¹

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How Agencies Respond to Human–black Bear Conflicts: A Survey of Wildlife Agencies in North America

Abstract: BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Cited by 134 publications

References 6 publications

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

Social factors mediating human–carnivore coexistence: Understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania

Impacts d'un site de nourrissage à des fins d'observation sur l'utilisation de l'espace et la sélection de l'habitat de l'ours noir (Ursus americanus) en forêt boréale /

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About