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.