This article in the NY Times, and especially the video of an interview with Stephen Herrero, the study’s lead author are both informative and interesting.

NY Times Article

Interview Video

I'd love to be able to read the full text of the findings, but my "Subscription" budget is maxed out.

for sharing! This reminds me of being told by a Native American that they called the black bears "god" bears and the grizzlies "devil" bears or something to that effect. Ive encountered a black bear mother and her cub, shared the (insert expletive) out of me. Only seen grizzlies from a distance but still breathtaking

Wow, I would have never guessed. But it looks like the old adage about mothers and their cubs is fairly true for Grizzly bears accounting for 50% of deaths.

Surprised that the NYT article didn't mention the fact that attacks and fatalities have increased dramatically in the last 20 years due to preservationist versus conservationist policies in predator management. Canada has the worst policies, their Black bear pops have skyrocketed, as a result they have the greatest number of attacks.

A highly recommended read is Stephen Herrero's "Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance." Basically you want to keep a really clean camp.

I am sorry, I don't get the distinction between "preservationist versus conservationist policies". Could you please explain a bit more?

"preservationists" view man as an invasive species and inevitably create policy to reduce or eliminate human activity.

"Conservationists" manage resources to create a sustainable balance between human activity and resource protection.

More houses burn in forest fires than ever before...because there are more houses in the forest ("urban-wilderness interface"). Similarly, there are more human-bear encounters because there are 1) more folks in the bears habitat and, 2) in some areas, more bears. Or as Dr. Herrero was quoted in the article, “It’s simply more and more people out there interacting with bears.”

I would dispute outright that attacks and fatalities have "increased dramatically in the past 20 years due to...policies in predator management." Yet, I don't now have any references to support that refutation.

dla -- do you have anything to support your contention that policies have caused an increase in violent human-bear encounters?

FB

On a semi-serious note. When wild animals start to encroach on human environments we find it acceptable to "harvest" a few animals. So it only seems fair that when humans start to encroach on bear environments that they would want to "harvest" a few humans.

Well, Dr. Herrero was asked specifically about management implications from his study. He didn't seem concerned with "preservationist/conservationist" issues, but simply pointed out that it would be a good thing to remove male black bears who act aggressively and attack. As a male myself, I cringe at this sort of strategy, but biologically, it will do very little to impact bear populations. Guys, let's face it - we are expendable (on a biological population basis, that is).

The rise in bear attacks seems to be due to the increasing human populations, not one policy versus another.

Compared to the numbers of people who meet an untimely end in the wilderness from falling and drowning, bear attacks are pretty minor. Herrero points out that dogs, snakes, and bees are more of a hazard.

You can buy a used copy of the study author's book for about $4.40:

http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Attacks-Causes-Avoidance-revised/dp/158574557X

Maybe use Interlibrary loan to get it for free?

You got that right, GG! Could we hold the next DNC in Yellowstone?

Interesting article on intelligience of bears.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/bears/19332

Last paragraph particularly interesting:
We should remember that bears to a large extent occupy an ecological role in northern wilderness areas similar to ours. In colder climate areas, they are typically the dominant and most intelligent animals. In North America, this was especially true of grizzlies. None of the Native American tribes regarded themselves as superior to the big bears. In fact, in California, the grizzlies were in many ways dominant over the Indians, much to their sorrow and woe. Native peoples in the Northern Hemisphere, the inheritors of the PaleoArctic Tradition all have a profound regard for the bear, whether in primordial Europe, the vast forests and tundras of Asia or in the varied landscapes of North America. These peoples consistently regarded bears as spritually powerful beings of deep wisdom. They believed that great knowledge for survival could be obtained by carefully observing bears. In fact, any hunting and gathering tribe could learn the basics of survival from the bears. Almost certainly, the ancestors of the Eskimo learned how to survive in the Arctic from the polar bear. Probably, the earliest human tribes in the cold northern lands learned the basics for living there from the wolves (hunting) and the bears (gathering). Bears are masters of survival.

I think it's too many naive people with no clue about how to take responsibilty for their own safety and well being. Let's just say if there is a "violent encounter" between a bear and me...... don't bet on the bear. I have had a few encounters with bears (black) and they so far have always given ground. Even though I am usually armed, I always take precautions to avoid unfriendly contact with them. I do love seeing them on good terms though. One of my favorite memories is of sharing a British Columbia lakeshore with a mother bear and her cubs while fishing.

Take away your artificial means of fighting(gun) and I will bet on the bear. One on one the bear will win every time.

Let's hope it never comes to a showdown, but a fair number of bears have "won" their encounters with armed humans. Remember Herrero talks about some male bears who are very shrewd predators- the ones you don't hear coming...

"very shrewd predators"
I resemble that.

Here in my region (MT/WY/ID) many if not most of the fatalities the past ten years have been hunters, i.e., armed humans.

Of course, it had nothing to do with amament but more about actions. Hunters usually go about their business with stealth which can lead to some accidental encounters. It's my perception that most of the truly serious injuries from gizzly 'attacks' were suffered by hunters as well. There's been at least one death when the hunter was killed while tending to his own kill. Bears find gut piles enticing and there is some anecdotal evidence that some griz are now attracted to gun fire.

It takes a very well trained individual with very steady bearing ( ) to get off a stopping shot against a charging grizzly. And a lot of luck.

FB

What really impressed me was how the bears that do attack, mostly the males, mostly stalk potential victims that are out alone, the bear being quiet and stealthy in the process, and then ambushing them by charging and overpowering them in an instant. That's not what I would have expected.

I would have expected the common scenario was one or more people coming close upon a bear and surprising them.

I'm not so quick to dismiss dla's "preservationist versus conservationist policies" theory though. While there may not be any scientific studies that support it, there may be regional differences in people/bear encounters that do.

I've purposely hiked the areas in the Ozarks that have the highest concentrations of Black Bears quite a bit. I've only seen one, and it was hiding from me.

Contrast that with some of encounters Wondering_Daisy has related. In one of them, the bear was following her, and she fit the classic victim profile described by Herrero.

Wondering_Daisy has also commented on the regional differences in bear habits and their attitudes towards people.

Let's apply dla's theory to the Black Bear's habits and their encounter's with people on a regional basis.

I would say that Black Bears in the Ozarks have many more encounters with hunters than bears out West and in Canada. We probably have much higher ratio of hunters to bears than either of those places. We probably have a much lower ratio of people/bear encounters too, even though we have more people living near their or within their habitat.

In short, I'd say it's likely that the bears here have learned to avoid people, and those that don't learn that do not last long.

In the cases W_D related, I can assure you that upon hearing something similar here, there would be locals that, during hunting season, would be out there looking hard for any bear that was willing to come near people. They'd cook bacon for breakfast and wear the grease as an attractant and wait a week out there to bag a bear.

The difference between preservationist versus conservationist policies is that there is no safe place, or time, for a bear to encounter a person here. If a bear comes onto my property and wreaks havoc I have the right to kill it. There is very little public land that is off-limits to hunters. There are very few times of year when there isn't a season to hunt something. Wild hogs and coyotes are open season almost all year long.

I could be wrong, but I believe that here, Black Bears know that people can, and will, and do, kill them, and that they've become very good at avoiding encounters with them.

For sure, not many bears get taken here.

So I'll go further and say I believe these bears know when hunting season is, and they lay low during that week or two. And given the chance, I'd bet I could leave a cooler of food out for a week here and no bear would approach it.

All of this really testifies to the intelligence of the Black Bear. In my case, I've been lucky that they are smart enough to avoid me. I can't say the same for myself about avoiding them. I think I learned my lesson though. Better late than never

I too think hunting is the answer. You do not need to kill many, just have enough hunting so they see man as the predator, not prey. But I also think this has to start early, before a critical mass of bears become habiutated to humans.

I see lots of bears because; 1) I hike a lot in Yosemite NP, 2) I do a lot of off-trail travel, and 3) I conciously LOOK for them. Often I see them before they see me. Most run off. No bear has ever shown signs of "attacking" for the sake of kill, they simply want to keep my out of their territory or defend their cubs. Some simply ignored me, something that would not happen if they had been hunted.

Did the study say anything about bears perception of color? Do certain colors attract or deter them? Or are bears all about smell. How sensitive are they to sound?

I imagine bears are like people or dogs- they each have thier own personality and a few mean pschyotic ones are probably out there. However, I am wary of ALL bears.

His own books. I guess I read. Black bear populations are way, way up in both BC and the US. Policy changes about 3 decades ago led to the huge black bear population increases starting about 2 decades ago.

More bears, same amount of food = equals more bear encounters. Duh.

One thing I would mention about the data is to actually read the data. There has been a large increase in the number of attacks in the last 20 years. There are more Black bears precisely because of policies that refuse to manage bear populations.

And it is the "preservationist" mindset of today's enviro-yuppie-scum that causes the problem. I was born and raised in Montana and I remember very well the difference between the Old-timer Conservationists and the present crop of Preservationists. And the same soggy-brained preservationist mindset is busy mismanaging here in Oregon. The only positive I've seen has been the Congressional end-around the ESA with Wolf management. Idaho, (which I backpack, hunt & fish in a lot), has been screwed up with Wolf over-popuation and is now finally able to cull the damned things back to a reasonable level (apex predators that breed like rats).

Grizzlies are a different subject since they are still pretty localized in the US. Unless we've got somebody from Wyoming who can give us an ear full.

OK dla - where's your reference for Canada then? I'm not exactly what you call your preservationist granola cruncher - I've *shot* my share of black bears. and we do hunt 'em up here.. they have a healthy fear of us most of the time.

Now I *have* seen articles here that with the reduction of *Grizzlys* (habitat loss, trains, cars, and "native harvest" being the biggest factors there) in the southern rockies we are facing *more* black bears - because the Griz will kill black bears.. Same reason coyote populations rise where you don't have timber wolves..

I've certainly not seen the sort of insanity in bear management up here as I've seen in the states.

In the interview with the author of the study he says the trend line in that increase in attacks corresponds with the increase in the human population, and specifically states there is no other corresponding trend line. He does not mention an increase in bears.

It seems logical that in some of these areas where the most attacks occur there are many less bears, and lot's more people, than there was 100 years ago.

There may, however, be more bears than there were 30 years ago. Still, during that same time frame I would have to assume the increase in people would have been much higher than the increase in bears.

Still, before we increase the hunting quota on bears we need to assess the real risk, which, almost everywhere, is incredibly small.

When I lived in the San Fernando Valley, in Los Angeles, there was a fire road that ran the ridge above Sylmar, in the north valley, where I lived. Somewhere along that ridge road was a plaque that said the last black bear in the area had been killed there around 1940. You could see for a long way from atop that ridge.

We don't kill a lot of bears here. I don't know of anyone that has killed one. We scare them off if they get to close, but even that is rare. The bears around here have over 200 years of dealing with people shooting them, and they've adjusted to that. There is a balance that needs to be struck, that's for sure, and, as a rule, people haven't been very good at figuring that out, but I will say that there here, in the Ozarks, they've gotten better at it over the past 75 years. I am positive there are more bears and people here than 75 years ago.

A hiker in Arkansas got a few pics of a black bear that came into their camp on Saturday and posted them here

Time to start frying some bacon

I agree that there are more people in most areas. I haven't a clue about bear population 100 years ago - I doubt anybody kept records. Modern game management didn't really get started until the 1930's and I haven't seen any data earlier than the 1960's.

What I'm surprised at is the general ignorance of bear populations displayed on this and other backpacking forums. Black bears have had sharp increases in populations in all areas over the last 20-30 years. Some states like New Jersey struggled with what to do as there was considerable resistance to hunting. I don't understand Canada's politics, so I don't understand BC's problem. Even here in Oregon black bears populations have skyrocketed due to banning of hounds and bait hunting.

Predatory attacks have increased simply because there are more bears.

A person can certainly disagree about the motivation for present-day bear management, but not the bear population.