Sloth bear attacks: regional differences and safety messaging

Abstract

Sloth bears behave aggressively toward humans when threatened and are among the most dangerous wildlife in India. Safety messaging for those who live in sloth bear country must be accurate to be effective, and messaging may need to be modified to account for regional differences in human-bear relationships. The timing of sloth bear attacks on the Deccan Plateau of Karnataka, both by season and by time of day, deviated enough from those reported in other areas such that it warranted further investigation. We compared data from eight studies of human-sloth bear conflict from across the Indian subcontinent and explored possibilities as to why differences exist. Seasonally all studies reported that human-sloth bear conflict was highest when human activity in the forest was greatest, though the season of highest human activity varied significantly by region (χ2 = 5921, df = 5, P < 0.001). The time of day that the majority of attacks occurred also varied significantly by region (χ2 = 666, df = 5, P < 0.001), though human activity was relatively consistent. We speculated that the rate of day attacks on the Deccan Plateau was lower due to the reduced probability of encountering a sleeping bear as they are concealed and secure in shallow caves. Additionally, the rate of attacks was significantly higher at night on the Deccan Plateau because people often to work into nighttime. We concluded that slight differences, or different emphasis, to bear safety messaging may be necessary on a regional basis to keep the messaging accurate and effective.

Patterns and predictors of human-sloth bear conflict in Nepal: Implications for coexistence in unprotected forest landscapes

“…Poor land cover visibility significantly elevated the possibility of a sloth bear attack in the Trijuga forest, and most confrontations occurred in regions with rough terrain and dense vegetation (e.g., narrow gullies, hill slopes, and thickets of riverbanks). Previous researches on human-bear conflict have come up with similar conclusions [9,23], albeit no empirical testing similar to ours was undertaken to substantiate the findings. Sloth bears prefer rough terrain and dense vegetation for resting, especially during the day [48].…”

“…As an outcome, there may have been minimal human-sloth bear encounters during this month due to the lower regularity of people visiting the forest. Throughout the sloth bears’ range, monthly variations in the frequency of conflicts dependent on the level of human activity within or close to bear habitat have been noted [17,20,23]. The same explanation should also be applicable in describing the influence of time of the day on conflict with sloth bears.…”

“…As a result, the number of companions only included those who were within 50 meters of the victim. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that land cover visibility plays a significant role in determining the occurrence of human-bear confrontations, including for sloth bears [9,23]. We followed Smith and Herrero [9] and Sharp et al [23] qualitative classification of land cover visibility as: (1) poor (densely vegetated place or rough terrain with short sight distances, as well as periods of low light levels, such as dawn, dusk, or night); (2) moderate (areas with small patches of vegetation and limited tree cover allowing increased visibility than those rated poor); and (3) good (poorly vegetated open areas, such as wide sandy riverbanks and grasslands with short grasses).…”

“…Likewise, it has been demonstrated that land cover visibility plays a significant role in determining the occurrence of human-bear confrontations, including for sloth bears [9,23].…”

“…We followed Smith and Herrero [9] and Sharp et al [23] qualitative classification of land cover visibility as: (1) poor (densely vegetated place or rough terrain with short sight distances, as well as periods of low light levels, such as dawn, dusk, or night); (2) moderate (areas with small patches of vegetation and limited tree cover allowing increased visibility than those rated poor); and (3) good (poorly vegetated open areas, such as wide sandy riverbanks and grasslands with short grasses). Since the date of conflict provided by the respondents was according to the Bikram Sambat calendar which is different from the Gregorian calendar, we used an online date converter tool (https://www.hamropatro.com/date-converter) to covert the dates to Gregorian calendar system.…”