Research Shows Bear Hunting Does Not Reduce Human-‐Bear Conflicts Wildlife agencies and policymakers often claim that bear hunting to reduce their numbers in the forest will result in fewer of them expanding into urban areas where they may cause problems.i However, studies show that bear hunting will only reduce conflicts in cases where the bear population is reduced below sustainable levels.ii Science clearly demonstrates that bear hunting does not address human-‐bear conflicts or make people safer. Eight scientific studies examined whether hunting would also result in fewer human-‐bear conflicts, but researchers found no evidence of a connected relationship. Obbard et al. (2014) write: “We found no significant correlations between harvest and subsequent HBC [human-‐bear conflicts]. Although it may be intuitive to assume that harvesting more bears should reduce HBC [human-‐bear conflicts], empirical support for this assumption is lacking despite considerable research (Garshelis 1989, Treves and Karanth 2003, Huygens et al. 2004, Tavss 2005, Treves 2009, Howe et al. 2010, Treves et al. 2010).”iii Hunting doesn’t reduce conflicts because hunters generally remove non-‐problem bears from the population; that is, the individuals not involved in nuisance behaviors.iv Instead, hunters target large bears far from human habitation, in an attempt to acquire an impressive trophy. Human-‐bear conflicts are caused by food availability, not the number of bears in the woods. Scientists correlate human-‐bear conflicts with a lack of available natural bear foods. When there is less natural food available—because of food failures from weather events like drought or unseasonable frosts—bears are more inclined to come into human-‐dominated habitats where they may seek out unsecured garbage and other food sources.v Hunting bears does not increase social tolerance for bears. Wildlife managers frequently claim that hunting bears will increase social tolerance for them, but empirical study proves this claim as false.vi Trash management, public education, code enforcement and hazing effectively alleviate human-‐bear conflicts. Community-‐based education programs that emphasize the benefits of black bears,vii combined with aversive conditioning or “hazing” programs and stringent law enforcement are effective means of reducing human-‐bear conflicts.viii Yosemite Park recently reported a 92% decrease in conflicts by educating the public and by enforcing special codes concerning humans and bears.ix Wildlife agencies and policymakers should stop misleading the public. Suggesting that bear hunting will alleviate conflicts between people and bears is not substantiated by the best available science. Rather than bowing to a minority of vocal trophy hunters and others, wildlife agencies and policymakers should implement proven conflict-‐prevention techniques. These proven, scientifically-‐tested methods have broad public support and they will actually benefit both people and bears. Sources: i
Hank Hristienko and Jr. McDonald, John E., "Going in the 21st Century: A Perspective on Trends and Controversies in the Management of the Black Bear " Ursus 18, no. 1 (2007); A. Treves, K. J. Kapp, and D. M. MacFarland, "American Black Bear Nuisance Complaints and Hunter Take," Ursus 21, no. 1 (2010). ii
M. E. Obbard et al., "Relationships among Food Availability, Harvest, and Human-‐Bear Conflict at Landscape Scales in Ontario, Canada," Ursus 25, no. 2 (2014); E. J. Howe et al., “Do Public Complaints Reflect Trends in Human-‐Bear Conflict?” Ursus 21, no. 2 (2010). iii
Obbard et al., Relationships among Food Availability, Harvest, and Human-‐Bear Conflict at Landscape Scales in Ontario, Canada." iv
Treves et al., "American Black Bear Nuisance Complaints and Hunter Take." Hristienko and McDonald, "Going in the 21st Century: A Perspective on Trends and Controversies in the Management of the Black Bear. " v
Treves et al., "American Black Bear Nuisance Complaints and Hunter Take; Obbard et al., "Relationships among Food Availability, Harvest, and Human-‐Bear Conflict at Landscape Scales in Ontario, Canada”; E. J. Howe et al., "Do Public Complaints Reflect Trends in Human-‐Bear Conflict?"; S. Baruch-‐Mordo et al., "Stochasticity in Natural Forage Production Affects Use of Urban Areas by Black Bears: Implications to Management of Human-‐Bear Conflicts," Plos One 9, no. 1 (2014). vi
Adrian Treves, "Hunting for Large Carnivore Conservation," Journal of Applied Ecology 46, (2009). vii
K. Slagle et al., "Building Tolerance for Bears: A Communications Experiment," Journal of Wildlife Management 77, no. 4 (2013). For studies discussing black bears’ benefits, see e.g., M. S. Enders and S. B. Vander Wall, "Black Bears Ursus Americanus Are Effective Seed Dispersers, with a Little Help from Their Friends," Oikos 121, no. 4 (2012); K. Takahashi and K. Takahashi, "Spatial Distribution and Size of Small Canopy Gaps Created by Japanese Black Bears: Estimating Gap Size Using Dropped Branch Measurements," Bmc Ecology 13, (2013); T. E. Reimchen and C. H. Fox, "Fine-‐Scale Spatiotemporal Influences of Salmon on Growth and Nitrogen Signatures of Sitka Spruce Tree Rings," Bmc Ecology 13, (2013). viii
L. Masterson, Living with Bears: A Practical Guide to Bear Country (Masonville: PixyJack Press, LLC, 2006); Mazur, R. L. "Does Aversive Conditioning Reduce Human-‐Black Bear Conflict?" Journal of Wildlife Management 74, no. 1 (2010): 48-‐54. ix
Yosemite National Park officials reported a 92 percent drop off in human-‐bear conflicts as a result of public education campaigns and law enforcement practices. Paul Rogers, 2014 “Conflicts with Yosemite bears fall dramatically as people, bears learn new lessons.” http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_26529196/conflicts-‐
yosemite-‐bears-‐fall-‐dramatically-‐people-‐bears-‐learn