Abstract
Conventional North American management of human-bear conflicts assumes that bears become more dangerous and destructive of human property if the bears have become food conditioned. Bears perceived as dangerous or destructive are usually killed. Conflict management to protect both people and bears focuses on minimizing bear access to anthropogenic foods. That can work where bears have access to sufficient wild foods. During famines of profitable wild foods, however, the key to minimizing conflicts can be providing food to bears – so-called diversionary baiting. Wild food supply is only one of numerous factors determining why provisioning bears intensifies conflicts in some situations, but minimizes conflicts in other situations. Identifying and quantifying the role of each factor is best done through formation of a more comprehensive conceptual model, followed by hypothesis derivation and testing. Literature synthesis and paradigmatic reconceptualization have thus far been hampered by terminological ambiguity. To overcome this constraint, we propose systematically integrated definitions for key terms: (a) conflict zones and sites, conflict foods, provisioning, incursionary feeding, baiting for diversion and other purposes; (b) numerous sorts of food conditionning: respondant, instrumental, opportunistic, transient, compensatory, agonistically induced, preferential, location- specific, person- specific, direct, indirect. (c) Food source descriptors: presence, abundance, density, accessibility, harvestability, availability, attractiveness, palatability, profitability, preference, reliability (predictability), and microhabitat suitability.
Highlights
Where such a strategy fails, the blame is rarely placed on the strategy itself, but on alleged failure to fully implement its component tactics such that some food conditioned, habituated bears survive and still have access to anthropogenic foods
Less attention has been paid to the underlying causes of attraction to anthropogenic foods – e.g., hunger for better nutrition than bears are obtaining from wild forage
Conventional wildlife management assumes that: (a) the bears which eat anthropogenic foods are either too lazy to forage for wild staples, or they prefer anthropogenic foods which are more palatable and/or nutritious than wild foods
Summary
When a wild North American black bear (Ursus americanus) or brown/grizzly bear (U. arctos) injures a human or damages property (e.g., a home or vehicle), this is commonly attributed (a) to the bear not avoiding the person or property (i.e., to the bear being habituated), (b) to the bear being food conditioned and seeking anthropogenic food, and (c) to members of the public allowing bears access to such food. Agency managers and citizen stewards (e.g., the Bear League and Bear Smart organizations), have been able to substantially reduce conflicts by minimizing access, which in turn tends to minimize food conditioning and habituation [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Success has led to widespread belief that those tactics underlie any effective strategy to minimize conflicts Where such a strategy fails, the blame is rarely placed on the strategy itself, but on alleged failure to fully implement its component tactics such that some food conditioned, habituated bears survive and still have access to anthropogenic foods
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
