Injury to People Inflicted by Black, Grizzly or Polar Bears: Recent Trends and New Insights

We update or extend data presented by Herrero (1985). Injury rates were low, 1980-1985. The highest rates were 317,700 and 328,645 park visitors per injury inflicted by black or grizzly bear in Kluane and Denali National Parks. Injury rates calculated against number of backcountry user nights were significantly higher for all parks where injuries occurred, but this exaggerates the danger from bears in backcountry areas since day use is not included. In certain national parks such as Glacier (Montana) there appears to have been an increase in grizzly bear-inflicted injury to persons travelling off-trail. The potential danger from grizzly bears that are habituated to people and/or have learned to feed on people's food or garbage is stressed by focussing on 8 fatal, predatory attacks on people in Glacier (Montana), Yellowstone, and Banff National Parks between 1967-1986. Habituated grizzly bears may also attract photographers who may be injured or killed by such bears. Carrying dead ungulates or imitating the sounds of prey may attract grizzly bears and this may lead to human injury. Five cases of grizzly bear-inflicted injury (including 2 deaths) were identified in which this appeared to have been a common circumstance. Additional evidence is cited supporting the idea that grizzly bear injuries inflicted during sudden encounters are most likely to occur in habitat where grizzly bears have been attracted by natural foods during the time when the injury occurred. A thorough search for records dated between about 1965-1985 of polar bear-inflicted injury revealed only 20 injurious incidents. In 15 or 16 of these the bear's motivation appeared to have been predation. Six people were killed in such incidents. At least 251 polar bears were killed during aggressive encounters. Only 5 or 6 aggressive interactions (3 or 4 leading to human injury) were attributed to females apparently defending their young. 'Female polar bears appear to be less aggressive toward people in defense of young than are grizzly bears, but more aggressive than black bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8.25-32 The fascination that people have for bears is a very ancient and continuous thread in the tapestry of history. The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is de facto the people's choice as North America's wilderness animal. It cannot adapt to the domestication of its habitat. The grizzly symbolizes the power, uncertainty and challenge of wild places. They occasionally injure or kill people but much more often they are killed by people to the point of population demise or decline. They have been classified as a threatened species in the lower 48 States since 1973. In southern Canada they are in decline in both British Columbia and Alberta (Tompa 1984, McCrory and Herrero 1987, Nagy et al. in press). The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is the Arctic's true great white hunter. It is the largest non-aquatic carnivore on earth, and is by far the most predacious of all living bears. Very rarely human beings become prey. The black bear (Ursus americanus) is normally tolerant of people and reclusively dwells in the forest. It too will occasionally injure people and much more rarely will prey on them. All 3 species of bears are characterized by their typical tolerance of people, and low rate of injury inflicted to people (Herrero 1985, Middaugh 1987, Fleck and Herrero 1988). Despite this, bear-inflicted injuries occur, often making headlines, which indicates people's fascination with such events. Despite the obvious interest in and potential practical application of studies of circumstances associated with bear-inflicted injury, few such studies exist. As development and recreational activities expand further into previously wild areas, human injuries I Invited paper will increase. The potential for injury increases with simple exposure of bears to greater numbers of people (Martinka 1982). In parallel with this, more bears are killed or otherwise removed. The manager of bears has the dual responsibility of maintaining bear populations and taking reasonable measures toward people's safety. The public, as evidenced by legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, wants bears to be conserved. Management agencies are under increasing pressure to execute state-of-the-art management procedures. Failure to do so if interpreted as being negligent and, linked with bear-inflicted human injury, may result in a lawsuit. It is important to know the circumstances associated with bear-inflicted injuries not only to maintain acceptable levels of human injuries, but also because outside of parks and protected areas many bears are killed each year in what are termed Defense of Life and Property (DLP) kills. These are prevalent in Alaska related to grizzly bears (Miller and Chihuly 1987) and the Canadian Arctic related to polar bears (Fleck and Herrero 1988). Knowledge of the circumstances associated with bearinflicted injury can be used to inform people on how to avoid confrontations (Herrero 1985). Sometimes it is not the behavior of the persons injured in an attack that is a contributing circumstance, but rather it is the overall history of the bear in association with other people and their food and garbage (Herrero 1970, 1976, 1985, 1989). Our actions, through the environment and opportunities we create for bears, influence bear behavior toward people. Jope (in press) has pointed out that it is easier for people to modify their actions than it is for bears to modify theirs. 26 BEARS-THEIR BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT Given the importance of studying aggressive and injurious interactions between bears and people, we update data on this topic and present some new ideas concerning circumstances associated with injury.