Brown bear attacks on humans: a worldwide perspective

Abstract

The increasing trend of large carnivore attacks on humans not only raises human safety concerns but may also undermine large carnivore conservation efforts. Although rare, attacks by brown bears Ursus arctos are also on the rise and, although several studies have addressed this issue at local scales, information is lacking on a worldwide scale. Here, we investigated brown bear attacks (n = 664) on humans between 2000 and 2015 across most of the range inhabited by the species: North America (n = 183), Europe (n = 291), and East (n = 190). When the attacks occurred, half of the people were engaged in leisure activities and the main scenario was an encounter with a female with cubs. Attacks have increased significantly over time and were more frequent at high bear and low human population densities. There was no significant difference in the number of attacks between continents or between countries with different hunting practices. Understanding global patterns of bear attacks can help reduce dangerous encounters and, consequently, is crucial for informing wildlife managers and the public about appropriate measures to reduce this kind of conflicts in bear country.

Human-carnivore relations: conflicts, tolerance and coexistence in the American West

“…Former research has emphasized the urgent need of conservation planning models for wildlife that integrate the involvement of multiple social actors in decision-making (Kansky et al 2014). Finally, species such as bears and cougars are frequently related to attacks on humans (Penteriani et al 2016, Smith and Herrero 2018, Bombieri et al 2019. This is consistent with factors here identified and shown to have a negative effect on tolerance (i.e.…”

The ecology of human–nature interactions

“…More conscious interactions might include actively observing wildlife or being attacked by larger animals (e.g. bears, sharks) [6][7][8]. Less conscious (or perhaps subconscious) interactions might include passively observing vegetation, hearing sounds of insects or smelling the scents of natural elements (e.g.…”

“…Less humanmediated interactions might include observing wildlife from a distance on a remote, pristine and rarely visited island [19]. More human-mediated interactions, on the other hand, would occur where anthropogenic influences are marked, such as when observing birds at a feeding station in a city garden [27,28] or being attacked by a bear that is habituated to humans in a popular site for ecotourism [8]. The degree of human mediation of human-nature interactions can have important consequences for the form of those interactions and the ease with which they can be achieved (e.g.…”

“…R. Soc. B 287: 20191882 interactions occur when these result in physical or mental injury, such as being attacked by wildlife [7,8] or when encountering a type of organism about which one has a psychological phobia (e.g. apiphobia, arachnophobia, ophidiophobia).…”

“…First, and foremost, there is increasing evidence that direct interactions with nature can provide people with a range of health and wellbeing benefits [1][2][3], and can play an important role in addressing some chronic health conditions and reducing the need for pharmaceutical interventions [4,5]. Second, there is societal fear and awareness of the negative consequences of some human-nature interactions, such as attacks on people by wild large carnivores [6][7][8], poisoning by venomous animals [9], wildlifevehicle collisions [10] and the risk of vector-borne zoonoses [11]. Third, there is evidence of a progressive decline in positive human-nature interactions, the so-called 'extinction of experience', with potentially serious consequences for human health, childhood development and support for biodiversity conservation [12][13][14][15].…”