by Cat Urbigkit
Bear managers have achieved great success in reducing conflicts between grizzlies and humans, but as these populations continue to overlap across increased ranges, conflicts escalate. Some advocate habituation; others, avoidance.
Yellowstone National Park currently has sixteen special bear management areas in the park with high-density bear habitat, where restrictions on human use are imposed. Some of these areas are closed to human presence during certain seasons, while other restrictions include a minimum party size of four people, and limitations to travel in daylight hours only and to travel on established trails. The purpose of the closures are to prevent human–bear conflicts and provide areas where bears can pursue natural behavioral patterns and other activities free from human disturbance.
But roadsides in the park are a different matter.
Yellowstone National Park bear researcher Kerry Gunther reports that the park provides the perfect environment for bear habituation to people, with its relatively high numbers of bears and people, open habitat, relatively predictable human behavior, and low levels of human-caused bear mortalities. Although previous park service management had discouraged habituation through intensive efforts to manage bears (with adverse conditioning and removals), the emphasis is now on tolerating habituation and managing people at bear jams (rather than managing bears). This change in management philosophy has had results on the ground. Traffic congestion caused by bear viewing is increasing in both number of cars and duration, and bears are approaching closer to the roadsides during such encounters. Bear managers like Gunther now wonder how close bears and humans can interact under such circumstances without injury. Others ponder the difference between these roadside interactions and backcountry encounters, and the levels of risk of human injury associated with both.
Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, points to emerging issues with grizzlies and humans. Servheen reports that as grizzly populations have expanded outside national parks, bears are now utilizing open agricultural areas like grain and alfalfa fields, and showing a lack of avoidance behavior toward humans. In addition, residents in rural and agricultural areas that followed suggested guidelines for eliminating or securing bear attractants now find that bears have moved into their neighborhoods anyway, and reside there for a portion of the year. This is causing significant increases in conflicts. According to Servheen, no one factor is responsible—the increase is due to a combination of more bears across a wider range, more human development, and fluctuations in natural food sources.
ELECTRIC FENCES
Many recreationists in bear country now use portable electric fences or pens around their campsites to deter bears from attempting to enter the sites. Portable electric pens are also used to protect domestic sheep herds at night in grizzly range in Wyoming’s Bridger-Teton National Forest.
Former United States Geological Survey research ecologist Tom S. Smith of the Alaska Science Center (now at Brigham Young University in Utah) recommends electric fences be used for long-term field camps; for hunting camps where game meat and trophies are stored; in areas with high bear numbers; and in areas problem bears are known to frequent. The electric fences not only protect people and gear, but teach bears a good lesson about avoiding camps.
At the time of this writing, electric fences are not approved by federal officials in the lower forty-eight states in areas where food-storage orders are in place.
Chapter 8
Learning to Coexist with Predators
Increases in both human and predator populations come with an increased risk of attacks on humans in areas where these populations overlap. A great variety in the circumstances leads to predator attacks on humans, from surprise encounters in which the predator reacts defensively (such as a sow bear protecting her cubs) to those involving predators that stalk and kill humans as prey (as mountain lions have done in numerous cases). Michael R. Conover, editor of the scientific journal Human–Wildlife Interactions, has noted that neither human nor predator is responsible for predator attacks, “and nothing is gained by trying to identify which party is the culprit.” To a certain extent, this is true.
A person involved in a group outing on a sunny afternoon on a popular hiking trail may have no warning that a black bear in the area considers humans a prey species. But we know that certain actions decrease the likelihood of predator attacks on humans. Keeping a clean camp, free of items that could attract wild animals, has become common practice when camping in “bear country,” as is harassing coyotes away from school playgrounds. What appears to be uncommon, however, is the knowledge that what was once remote “predator country” now encompasses many residential neighborhoods across the countryside.
Many of the predator attacks on humans described in this book occurred in areas where there are severe restrictions on hunting, or where the animals are granted nearly complete protection from persecution. In these cases, the predators have either lost their fear of humans or otherwise became habituated to human presence. These animals have no reason to fear and avoid man, and in some cases are rewarded by contact with their human neighbors.
Wild predators that receive food rewards from humans quickly become dangerous, exhibiting increasing levels of aggression toward humans, as has been documented numerous times with coyotes and grizzly bears. Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that predators are inhabitants of remote wilderness areas and the far woods, and not present in their neighborhoods. They may leave dog food and garbage outside, or feed deer in their yards—endangering themselves, their neighbors, and wild animals.
Others attempt to excuse the majority of predator attacks on humans as cases involving illness, starvation, or loss of natural foods, but this is rarely the case. While it is true that humans have moved into wild lands, forcing predators into closer association, the larger view is that human developments and landscape improvements provide enriched habitats for prey species and the predators that key on them. If rabbits and rodents enjoy the enhanced habitats and move into them, small predators like coyotes are sure to follow. Elk and deer move into residential areas to browse on ornamental shrubs, lawns, and trees planted by homeowners—and sometimes these animals move into residential areas to lessen their risk of attack by predators like wolves. When met with little discouragement, eventually the larger predators follow.
A century ago, the human response to predators approaching at close range was predictable. The animals were shot on sight, and surviving predators were thus wary, keeping their distance and fleeing at the sight of a human. Decades of persecution and unregulated killing of predators led to severe population declines. Changing public attitudes eventually led to restrictions on harming endangered animals like gray wolves and grizzly bears. Regulated hunting seasons were established for other predators, such as mountain lions and black bears. Recovery of predator populations has been successful across the country.
Conservation measures have been so successful that, as Conover noted in his 2008 Human–Wildlife Conflicts paper, “Why Are So Many People Attacked by Predators?”, “Many predators have now learned that humans make good neighbors.” We are such good neighbors, in fact, that we now have five North American predator species that attack, injure, and kill humans: wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, black bears, and grizzly bears.
Humans have encouraged (both intentionally and unintentionally) the presence of wild predators in their neighborhoods. As human developments are created and expand, land managers often plan for open or “green” spaces, recognizing that our quality of life is enhanced by the presence of natural areas and wildlife. It is a thrill to see a wild animal at close range and to feel a connection with nature. But the downside to our increased tolerance for wild animals near humans is often discounted. We tend to disregard the notion that close association with a wild animal can lead to tragedy for both human and animal. Predators can, and do, kill people. From the lowly coyote to the charismatic grizzly bear, wild predators infl
ict harm on people when their association is too close. It does a disservice to both human and animal to ignore or deny this reality.
In many cases involving human habituation of predators, patterns of behavior indicated the risk of attack was increasing. That pattern consisted of increasing reports of predator observations in residential areas, especially during the daylight hours, followed by attacks on pets, and eventually the aggression included attacks on humans, some of which were fatal. This pattern is evident in numerous mountain lion conflicts, as well as in conflicts with coyotes: First the animal is detected, then seen in residential yards during the day, then pets start disappearing, then a human is attacked or threatened, and finally the offending animal is killed. A similar pattern was demonstrated in the 2013 black bear attack on the Florida woman recounted earlier.
There is some variation in the proper way to respond to an attacking predator, but a general rule is that, if it is anything other than a grizzly bear, fight aggressively for your life. If you have a surprise encounter with a grizzly bear and it attacks, playing dead has been effective at lessening or stopping the attack. But any predator that attacks you as you sleep in a tent should be fought as aggressively as possible. In nearly all cases involving predators, unless an escape to safety (such as a secure building) is very close, running away is not an option.
There is debate among wildlife professionals as to whether firearms are an effective defense in attacks by grizzly bears. The US Fish and Wildlife Service maintains that, overall, bear spray is the best method for fending off an attacking grizzly. Federal law enforcement agents found that people who encountered grizzly bears and used a firearm in self-defense suffered injuries about 50 percent of the time. During the same period, those who defended themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time. Those who did suffer attacks had less severe injuries. There is less debate about the effectiveness of using a firearm to defend against other predator species. Even a small-caliber firearm can kill or disable a coyote, wolf, or mountain lion, or deter an attacking black bear.
A last lesson from the predator attacks examined in this book lies in the human responsibility to manage predators in a way that protects human health and safety. Wildlife managers must be given the flexibility to respond to changing conditions within predator populations, including the ability to condition predator populations in a way that trains the animals to avoid humans. This usually involves a combination of aversive conditioning techniques on problem animals and public hunting of wild animal populations. But in some areas (such as in national parks or municipal areas), it may require agency action via lethal control. Predator populations can survive and thrive despite lethal control of individual members of the population. Failure to take action can be predicted to lead to predators preying on humans.
Management Changes, Predator by Predator
How you deal with the management of one predator can vary widely from how you manage another. For example, the National Park Service change in management from hazing bears away from people along the roadside in Yellowstone National Park to instead managing people at bear jams appears to be reflected in how Yellowstone officials are managing wolf watchers in the park, and that raises concerns for wolf managers.
“From a management perspective, that is a disaster,” said Mike Jimenez of the US Fish and Wildlife Service in an interview. “That doesn’t contribute to keeping animals wild. It doesn’t contribute to having animals learn where it’s appropriate or inappropriate to be around people, and that’s a very tough thing to balance out.”
Why should anyone outside the park be worried? Because wolves, like bears, are far-ranging predators that will not spend their entire lives in park boundaries, but will carry life experiences from the park forever. The wolf-watching sessions in Yellowstone appear to be at a greater distance than most of the bear-watching sessions, but there is concern that, as people and wolves continue to be comfortable around each other, that distance will narrow.
Wolves that then leave the park and have encounters with humans will not have a ranger present to provide educational narratives, and wolves will encounter a potential prey base consisting of livestock and pets, with no reason to have any negative view of the danger of approaching humans.
“It’s a real problem,” Jimenez said, and one that wildlife managers will continue to struggle with in the future.
Most black bear attacks on humans are predatory in nature and inflicted by adult male bears during daylight hours. A bear exhibiting predatory behavior toward a human is usually silent as it intently stalks its human prey, or pulls a person from a tent in the darkness of night. In either of these cases—bold daylight or nighttime predatory attacks—fighting vigorously for your life is your only option. Wildlife managers recognize that the danger to other humans will not decrease until the offending bear is killed.
Wolf attacks on humans occur during daylight hours and with little or no warning to the intended victims (although some encounters that did not escalate to attacks seemed to involve prey-testing behavior by the wolves). In most known cases of wolves inflicting injuries on humans, the wolves demonstrated increasingly fearless behavior. Indeed, the common thread in all North American wolf attacks involving human injury seems to be a loss of fear of humans. Wolf habituation to human presence occurs as the result of nonconsequential encounters, but the transition from nonaggressive behavior to aggressive attack can be rapid and unpredictable. A wolf approaching human development without fear, or approaching humans, is a recipe for disaster. Federal wolf manager Mike Jimenez stated it frankly: “Predators near people, near housing, is a bad idea.”
Generally, if you encounter a wolf or wolves that are vocalizing at you, they may be defending a den or rendezvous site, so deliberate retreat is your recommended action. But a wolf or wolves moving toward you, perhaps seemingly in a playful manner, should be treated to a show of aggression.
Most coyote attacks occur during the day, and usually are preceded by bold behavior clearly indicative that the animals have lost their fear of man (such as coyotes killing pets in yards, frequent daylight encounters with humans, etc.). In many cases, problem coyotes have received food rewards from previous human encounters and, similar to their wolf counterparts, will also engage in prey-testing behavior. To reduce the risk of coyote attacks, humans must be proactive in coyote encounters, discouraging the animals from a close association with human settlements. Hazing bold or aggressive coyotes rarely works; lethal removal of the offending animals is the only effective strategy to ensure human safety.
Mountain lion attacks on humans are usually preceded by an increase in mountain lion sightings in residential areas, attacks on pets, and other behavior indicating the animals are no longer wary of human presence. Most mountain lion attacks on humans are predatory in nature, and humans should fight back aggressively to save their lives. Again, wildlife managers must take action to ensure human safety when these large predators turn toward humans as possible prey.
What Actions Are Appropriate?
With recent attacks by large predators (both lethal and nonlethal), natural resource and wildlife management agencies are no doubt reexamining their roles in providing for human safety—an issue that is subject to debate, as is what control measures are appropriate in each circumstance. Animal advocates in some communities propose that only nonlethal control measures be deployed, but wildlife managers concerned with human safety prefer immediate lethal action to resolve conflicts. Translocation of dangerous predators into other areas only places the risk in a different area—it does not lessen the danger.
In accordance with the experts quoted in this book, I recommend the following actions to reduce the risk of predator attacks on humans:
Reduce predator attractants in residential areas, and keep clean camps when in the backcountry.
Be aware of factors that indicate the risk of attack is increasing, such as predators being seen repeatedly in daylight hours, or dangerous situations
such as reports of garbage-raiding bears or coyotes that have been fed in neighborhoods.
Change the behavior of predators to reinforce a fear of humans. This may include hunting predators, aversive conditioning, or removal of individual animals by wildlife managers.
Alter human behavior so that people keep their distance from wild animals, in recognition that predators kill to survive and that humans have varied (and often undetermined) levels of risk of becoming prey.
Author Jim Sterba noted in his 2012 book, Nature Wars: “The idea of wildlife overabundance is difficult for many people to accept. We have been trying to nurture wild populations back to health and protect them from human despoliation for so long that it is hard to believe we have too many of them or that people might need protection from them.”
Public attitudes about predator management continue to evolve—from early overexploitation to the conservation-oriented approach that led to recovery programs. The five North American predator species discussed in this book have reached or exceeded biologic recovery goals, with a positive change in the numbers of the animals present on the landscape across a broader range. A consequence of this success is an increased human tolerance for the presence of predators and, subsequently, an increased risk of attacks on humans by predators that have long lost a reason to be wary of their human neighbors. Having high predator populations near urban areas is a known factor in increased risk of attacks on humans.
There remains a commonsense tendency to review safety precautions when it comes to outdoor recreation or backcountry expeditions. But what about people who reside full-time within the range of these predator species? Most view a suggestion that a person should not walk out their door or down a sidewalk in their community without bear spray attached to their belt as unreasonable. To ensure human safety, focus must not just be on backcountry encounters, but should center on reshaping our current predator–human relationship to one of mutual wariness and respect, with the recognition that the relationship can just as easily become that of predator and prey.