by Cat Urbigkit
WHEN MAN BECOMES
PREY
____________________________________________
Fatal Encounters with North
America’s Most Feared Predators
____________________________________________
CAT URBIGKIT
LYONS PRESS
Guilford, Connecticut
Helena, Montana
An imprint of Rowman & Littlefield
The photographs in this book are of a combination of wild and captive animals. At least one of the grizzly bears photographed for the book was present at the scene of two human fatalities.
Lyons Press is an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield.
Distributed by NATIONAL BOOK NETWORK
Copyright © 2014 by Cat Urbigkit
Map by Melissa Baker © Rowman & Littlefield
All photos by the author.
Food hanging illustrations on page 30 © Rowman & Littlefield
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted in writing from the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Information available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Urbigkit, Cat.
When man becomes prey : fatal encounters with North America’s most feared predators / Cat Urbigkit.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7627-9129-3
1. Animal attacks—North America. 2. Carnivora—Behavior—North America. I. Title.
QL100.5.U73 2014
591.5’3—dc23
2014019173
CONTENTS
Introduction
Maps
Chapter 1: Black Bears
Chapter 2: Coyotes.
Chapter 3: Gray Wolves
Chapter 4: Mountain Lions
Chapter 5: Grizzly Nightmares
Chapter 6: Greater Yellowstone Grizzlies
Chapter 7: Habituation and Alaska Attacks
Chapter 8: Learning to Coexist with Predators
Source Notes and Recommended Reading
About the Author
INTRODUCTION
Grizzly and black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and wolves all roam diverse landscapes of North America, expanding their ranges from remote wildlands to suburbia. Although these North American predators were once hunted, trapped, poisoned, shot, and otherwise persecuted nearly to the point of extinction, those days are long past. Changing public attitudes toward predators have resulted in a more conservation-oriented approach to predator management in the last few decades, and many predator populations are now thriving, expanding in both numbers and distribution. At the same time, more people in North America are living in areas with large carnivore and other predator populations than at any time in history. The expansion of predator populations, paired with the rise in the human population across the same range, is a formula for increased conflicts between man and beast.
This book examines and attempts to classify real-life encounters between humans and five North American predator species that have inflicted fatal injuries on humans: black bears, grizzly bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and gray wolves. Some of these species are so abundant they have become common, and some regions of North American are home to all five species across the same range, as demonstrated on the maps on pages x–xi.
It is important to understand the circumstances in which human encounters with predators result in human injury or death, so that recommendations can be made to reduce the likelihood of further fatal attacks. Rather than providing a comprehensive list of all attacks by a particular predator, this book outlines some of the observed predator and human behaviors that resulted in human injury, as well as recounts some of the most recent attacks. In many cases, certain factors and predator behaviors can be identified that indicate an increased risk of attack. The common thread of these predator attacks on humans is that the animals no longer exhibited a fear of humans.
Those who discount the threat posed by wild predators often note that a person has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than of being attacked by a predator. What that fails to acknowledge is that the risk of being attacked by a wild predator is higher when humans are within territories inhabited by wild predators. Mail carriers, for example, have a higher risk of dog bites than other members of the population, and that is because mail carriers enter into dog territories to deliver mail to their human owners. The simple fact is that increases in both human and predator populations come with an increased risk of predator attacks on humans.
Some point the finger of blame on humans as the cause of human/wildlife conflicts, because humans may live or recreate in predator habitat. But there is little point in casting blame. In reality, predators have moved into habitats that were constructed or enriched by humans. For example, many urban housing projects include provisions for open parks, greenbelts, and other natural features that improve existing landscapes in a way that allows prey populations to thrive at higher densities than in the past, with predator populations soon expanding into these areas, and, in some cases, at much higher levels than in neighboring regions. Irrigated landscaping and installation of lush vegetative components provide cover and food for prey species such as rabbits, rodents, and even larger game species, such as deer. It’s a logical sequence that predators (such as coyotes and mountain lions) soon follow.
In his 2012 book, Nature Wars: The Incredible Story of How Wildlife Comebacks Turned Backyards into Battlegrounds, Jim Sterba discusses the problems caused by overabundant white-tailed deer populations and notes that, as residential sprawl spread throughout the eastern United States, much of the land was closed to hunting—either through landowners posting No Hunting signs or through the enactment of laws prohibiting the discharge of firearms in not just small areas but entire townships and counties. The result has been that “hundreds of thousands of square miles in the heart of the white-tailed deer’s historic range were largely off-limits to one of its biggest predators”—humans. With people unable to control the deer populations, predators moved into areas with this rich prey base, and conflicts were inevitable under such circumstances. Finding a mountain lion on your lawn feeding on a freshly killed deer is certainly unnerving, but considering the alternatives, it’s better the deer than you.
The attitude of “it’s our fault because they were here first” holds little merit in discussions of human conflicts with predators. Since human development results in land improvements that prey species find attractive, predators make more use of these areas. It is the very nature of wild predators to take advantage of available resources.
Research on the use of residential areas by mountain lions in western Washington found that 93 percent of collared lions used residential areas. This use appeared to be a function of the adaptive and mobile nature of the mountain lion—a species keenly suited to exploiting suitable habitat and resources within residential areas.
When predators enter areas of human development and are involved in conflict, there is usually someone offering up the explanation that the animals only did so because they were starving, or experiencing some shortage of natural foods. However, this is rarely the case.
For example, a 2013 paper on foraging behavior of black bears near human developments in and around Missoula, Montana, noted: “Black bears foraged on human foods near houses even when wildland foods were available, suggesting that the absence of wild-land foods may not influence the probability of bears foraging near houses. Additionally, other attractants, in this
case fruit trees, appear to be more important than the availability of garbage in influencing when bears forage near houses.”
We humans like to have resource-rich environments, but need to be more thoughtful about how we go about sharing that environment with our wild neighbors.
Changing social attitudes toward predators also appears to have an influence on the frequency of predator attacks on humans. Increased tolerance for wild animals near humans can cause a chain reaction in which the animals lose their fear of humans, eventually leading to attacks on their human neighbors. The areas where the most severe predator attacks on humans examined in this book occur are within or near places where hunting or other persecution of predators is not allowed—within municipal areas, state parks, and national parks.
Many predator attacks on humans are not random, unpredictable events. There is often a pattern of observed circumstances and animal behaviors that indicate an attack on a human may be imminent. Although some attacks are the result of surprise encounters, some predators regard humans as prey. Through recounting real-life animal encounters and analyzing these stories, this book will help you learn about the differences in predator attacks and provide guidance on how to avoid or minimize such encounters. This book does not include encounters involving rabid animals.
We have made great progress in providing for recovery and conservation of a variety of wild predators, but it is important that we know all we can about the circumstances of serious attacks on humans. The future of our human relationship with predators is reliant on this knowledge. Norwegian researchers Jonny Löe and Eivin Röskaft reviewed large carnivore attacks and human safety for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and noted that attacks by large carnivores that result in human injury or death “may undermine conservation efforts by resulting in negative attitudes toward such efforts and more illegal hunting.” Most importantly, the researchers noted, “A large carnivore that has attacked a human being in a predatory manner may attack again.”
Human behavior during an attack can influence the outcome of the attack, and even prevent attacks. Researchers have found certain patterns of attack, and we can benefit from those findings, following behavioral recommendations that can help reduce our risk of attack, or minimize the severity of injury during such an attack.
Large predators have always posed a threat to humans, and likely always will. The purpose of this book is not to generate a high level of fear but instead to relay factual information with the hope of increasing public understanding of predators and predator behavior.
Wild predators are not lovable toys to be enjoyed when convenient and then discarded or destroyed when they reveal their true nature. Predators should be treated with a realistic acknowledgment that they are animals that kill prey to survive, and should be respected for the wild creatures they are.
RANGE OF SPECIES
Black Bear
Coyote
Gray Wolf
Mountain Lion
Grizzly Bear
Chapter 1
Black Bears
Jake Francom awoke in his tent in a Utah campground at 5:30 a.m. on June 17, 2007, to the sensation of claws grasping at his skull. A black bear was attacking him through the side of the tent, hitting Francom several times as it clawed its way inside the tent. When Francom tried to sit up, the bear pushed him back down, with one paw slashing the tent open and ripping his pillow. Francom yelled to his buddies in nearby tents for help as he struggled to escape his tent and the grasping claws.
Firing their guns into the air and yelling, the men scared the bear away from their camp. But when the bear was 50 yards away, it sat down on its haunches and looked back at the group of people. The men once again took up their pursuit of the bold bruin, throwing rocks and yelling at the bear to fully scare him away.
Now that they were up, Francom and his friends looked around and saw the bear had ransacked their campsite, raiding and damaging the coolers sitting outside their tents. They were camped in a dispersed campsite in Utah’s American Fork Canyon in the Uinta National Forest. This was a popular camping spot, although it had no water or bathroom facilities. The fire pit, log bench, flat spot for tents, and parking spot off the roadway made it a cozy campsite for recreationalists in this scenic national forest. The US Forest Service managed the campground, and charged a fee of $13 per night for use of the site, which was accessed by a forest service road.
Francom called in the bear attack to the Utah County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch. The dispatcher said she would notify the forest service about the incident, while Francom should contact state wildlife officials.
This is when the system failed.
Although a forest service law enforcement officer was notified about the incident, and despite promises otherwise, that officer did not contact anyone else in her agency, or take any action of any kind in response to the bear attack. No one else in the forest service knew about the incident, and no action was taken to warn other campers about the potential danger.
Francom was able to notify state wildlife officials, and they did take action. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has a three-level classification system for problem bears. The highest classification is Level III, for bears that have shown no fear of humans, have displayed aggressive behavior toward humans, and are deemed a threat to public safety. Utah officials immediately classified the bear as a Level III nuisance—the high-danger classification that acknowledges the animal must be destroyed. Two wildlife officials with tracking dogs were brought in to track the bear, but were unsuccessful despite five hours of effort. The team concluded its search around 5 p.m. the same day of the attack, deciding to attempt to trap the bear the next morning from the Francom campsite, which was empty since Francom and his friends had departed the scene. One of the two state bear trackers later acknowledged that the Fran-com campsite was the best place to attempt to trap the bear, since it would likely return to that location.
Sam Ives’s family didn’t know any of this when they arrived at the campsite that evening. They had no idea that a bear had attacked a man in his tent at the same campsite just twelve hours before. They checked in with the forest service campground host before proceeding to the campsite. The campground host had not been told of the earlier bear attack, so he could not and did not relay any information to the family seeking out a camping spot for the night. The family set up camp, cooked dinner, cleaned up, packed their gear away, and climbed into their multichambered tent to sleep. It was a great end to Father’s Day. Eleven-year-old Sam crawled into the smaller compartment of the two-room tent. Without his parents knowing it, Sam snacked on a granola bar and placed the empty wrapper in a pocket of the tent.
Sometime during the night, the black bear that had attacked Jake Francom just hours before returned to the campsite where the family slept. It ripped open the side of the tent where Sam slept, grabbing the boy and killing him. His parents heard a noise and got up to have a look around, but were unable to find Sam. Confused, they didn’t know if Sam was lost in the dark, or perhaps had been kidnapped. They called for help and a search was quickly conducted. Sam’s body was found about 400 yards from the campsite. The 300-pound black bear that killed Sam was found and killed the next day, after state wildlife officials again sought out the predator in an intensive search involving twenty-six search hounds.
The fatal mauling in Utah was a tragedy. The incident earlier that day had provided clues that a fatal attack may be imminent, but agency managers failed to pick up on those clues. The reality was that an increasingly aggressive black bear, which had demonstrated no fear of humans, had received food rewards. The bear was a ticking bomb. The lack of understanding of the increased danger posed by this bear resulted in the death of a little boy.
A federal court judge called Sam Ives’s case “heart-wrenching” as he pondered the details of the little boy’s death. US District Judge Dale A. Kimball noted that the boy’s parents had “suffered an almost unbearable, unimaginable loss,”
but that an assignment of fault must be made. Ten percent of the fault fell upon the family itself, the court ruled, because of the food that was found in the family tent (a granola bar and a can of soda). The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources was found to be 25 percent at fault for failing to communicate with the US Forest Service that the wildlife agency had determined the bear was a Level III nuisance that must be destroyed because of the threat to public safety, and because efforts to remove the bear weren’t initially successful. The remaining 65 percent of fault was attributed to the United States for its failure to warn the family of the earlier bear attack and failure to close the campsite where the attack had occurred. The federal government was ordered to pay Sam Ives’s parents $1.95 million. Additionally, the forest service law enforcement officer who failed to take action or to communicate with others in her agency about the initial attack on Jake Francom was terminated from her position. The court noted that “it was foreseeable that the Francom bear would return to the campsite where it had earlier attacked campers and found food,” yet no action was taken to protect the public at that specific location.
It is worth noting that Utah allows bear hunting in this region of the state, but this particular bear apparently had no fear of humans. Utah wildlife officials report that the state’s black bear population appears to have increased in the last decade or so, with increased numbers of human-bear conflicts, and rising numbers of bears trapped, moved, and euthanized as a consequence.
Attraction Equals Danger
Black bears are often brought into conflicts with humans after being attracted to human food, garbage, or feed products set out for pets or domestic animals. Without fail, every year in North America humans receive injuries from being mauled by black bears. Researchers believe that black bears can become increasingly aggressive in seeking human-provided food or garbage, which increases the likelihood of serious attacks on humans.