Jimmy D. Taylor 

Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center

Corvallis, Oregon

James P. Phillips 

Graduate Student

Oregon State University

Natural Resources Program

Corvallis, Oregon

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

The American black bear (Ursus 

americanus, Figure 1) is a challenging 

species for wildlife agencies to manage 

due to its size, intelligence, extensive 

range, food habits, and adaptability, as 

well as societal views. In North America 

alone, agencies receive more than 40,000 

complaints about black bear annually. 

Black bears are known as ‘food-driven’ 

animals, meaning most conflicts result 

from a bear’s drive to meet its nutritional 

needs. Not surprisingly, an overwhelming 

proportion of conflicts are related to their 

use of anthropogenic (human) food 

sources, such as garbage, bird food, and 

crops. Understanding what drives humanbear conflict is the first part of good 

management. 

Property Damage

Property damage from bear can involve 

cars (Figure 2) and structures, such as 

homes, campers, garages, and 

outbuildings. Black bear can rip holes in 

walls, pull doors off cars, and fall through 

roofs in search of food. Garbage, barbecue 

grills, bird feeders, ornamental plants, 

gardens, compost piles, pet foods, and 

non-food items, such as soaps, detergents, 

citronella, 3-D archery targets, and even 

some plastics can attract bear. In one 

recent national survey, 69 percent of 

wildlife agencies listed improperly stored 

garbage as a primary cause of bear 

conflicts. In rural areas, bear may damage 

hunting tree stands and food plots. 

Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

March 2020 Black Bear

Figure 1. American black bear (Ursus 

americanus)

Quick Links

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1

Damage Identification 3

Management Methods 4

Economics 13

Species Overview 14

Legal Status 19

Glossary & Key Words 20

Resources 21 

Appendices 28 
Livestock Depredation

Livestock depredation by black bear varies regionally and 

may not always be reported. Cattle, sheep, horses, poultry, 

goats, and swine may be targeted, especially when young. 

Depredations tend to be chronic and concentrated in 

remote areas, although attacks may occur in close 

proximity to buildings. Attacks are usually predictable. 

Bear or bear sign may be observed in the area prior to an 

attack and bear may stalk livestock before attacking. Once 

a depredation occurs, it is likely to happen again. Sheep 

are most vulnerable on remote rangelands when bedded 

down or scattered. Some research has shown that cattle 

and swine are taken more often in the spring, while sheep 

are taken more often in autumn. The frequency of attacks 

(i.e., multiple animals injured over multiple days) tends to 

be related to the prey’s body size— the smaller the 

livestock, the less time between attacks. Similarly, the size 

of the bear is often a determining factor in the age and

size of the prey. Sick or injured bears often prey on 

livestock. Most depredating bears are males over the age 

of four. 

Although bears are often blamed for killing livestock, they 

may not always be responsible. Bears are known to 

scavenge or steal carcasses killed by other predators. 

Furthermore, it is not uncommon for black bear to coexist 

for years without conflict in areas grazed by livestock. As 

such, every effort should be made to identify the offending 

animal prior to management actions.

Agriculture

Bear damage to agriculture is a widespread source of 

conflict. In a survey of farmers in northern states, more 

than half reported bear foraging and damage to corn and 

oats. Soybeans and wheat are less common targets, 

although sunflowers often sustain substantial damage. 

There is widespread evidence of damage to fruit-bearing 

trees including apples, pears, and plums. In the Pacific 

Northwest, bear damage to vineyards and hazel nut farms 

are common in late summer/fall. Damage-prone areas are 

generally in isolated orchards or crop fields near forests. 

Some research suggests that this behavior more 

commonly involves female bear and sub-adult male bear. 

Damage to apiaries, or beehives, is a special type of 

agricultural damage that generally occurs on a small scale. 

Forestry

Black bears are known to damage trees throughout their 

range, but most reported damages are in the Pacific 

Northwest. In these areas, bear may compensate for food 

shortages by peeling away the bark on conifers in order to 

eat the soft, energy rich vascular tissues (Figure 3). This 

damage generally occurs from winter den emergence until 

other food sources are available (e.g., wild berries, grass, 

insects, deer fawns, elk calves). Targeted tree species 

include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzieseii), redwood 

species (Sequoideae), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), 

western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and, less commonly, 

Figure 2. Black bears in Yosemite National Park have broken into cars to get 

to human food sources.

Page 2 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Figure 3. Black bears peel back bark and girdle trees in order to feed on the 

soft vascular tissues.
western larch (Larix occidentalis). Complete girdling of 

trees results in tree mortality while partial girdling results in 

degraded wood quality; both are costly to managed forests 

(i.e., tree farms). Black bears generally peel the bark from 

and feed on 10 to 45 year-old trees. 

Human Health and Safety

Black bears rarely cause serious injuries to people. 

However, a bear that is habituated to people and 

conditioned to anthropogenic subsidies (i.e., garbage or 

other human foods or crops) is considered a risk to people, 

particularly if it approaches people for food. Bear may 

frequent trails used by hikers and can be attracted to 

campsites and homes by food or garbage. 

Bear attacks may be defensive, predatory, or nuisancerelated. While rare, predatory attacks on children have 

been documented and are more common than on adults 

over the age of 18. For information on what to do when 

encountering a bear, see Appendix 2.

In addition, car collisions kill many bear, damage vehicles, 

and can injure people. 

Diseases transferred from bear to people are unlikely. 

However, bear may carry ticks that spread Lyme disease, 

naplasmosis (also known as human granulocytic 

ehrlichiosis), and Rocky Mountain spotted fever. 

Trichinellosis is caused by larval Trichinella worms and has 

been documented in one case of a person eating 

undercooked bear meat. Bears occasionally carry bovine 

tuberculosis, but there is no evidence that this has been 

transferred to livestock or people.

Damage Identification

Few animals can achieve the same level of damage or 

have the motivation to do so as bear. Often, people are 

already aware that bears live in or frequent an area by 

observing their tracks, scat or fur. Black bears walk flatfooted and do not have retractable claws. Therefore, their 

whole foot with claw imprints is visible in tracks. Bear scat 

may be loose or well-formed and contain a wide variety of 

vegetation, including grasses, seeds, fur, bone, or fish 

scales. Large overturned stones and rolled or shredded 

logs are often indicative of bear looking for food. Bear 

damage may include gnawing, clawing or rubbing, and 

structures or trash receptacles may be overturned or show 

signs of brute force with large holes or evidence of 

crushing. 

Livestock Depredation

A bear attack on livestock may be identified by parallel 

claw marks on the skin, which may or may not break the 

skin, as well as bite marks on the neck and shoulders. 

Canine puncture wounds caused by black bear are 

typically 1.4 to 2.5 inches (3.5 to 6 centimeters (cm)) 

apart whereas coyotes are 0.8 to 1.25 inches (2 to 3 

cm) and wolves are 1.5 to 2.0 inches (4 to 5 cm). Black 

bear kill sites usually contain bear scat and matted 

vegetation as they feed on the carcass. When bears 

depredate young livestock they have a strong tendency 

to drag the carcass into forested cover to begin feeding. 

Depending on the size the livestock, a drag mark from 

the carcass may or may not be present as bears carry 

the carcass in their mouth. Bears often climb over net 

wire fences to take livestock, leaving hair fragments 

where they climb over fencing. 

Bears and mountain lions (Puma concolor) also attack 

the top side of the neck, whereas wolves and coyotes 

typically attack the throat from below. Bears often eat 

the udders of lactating female prey whereas lions do not 

typically feed on the abdominal organs. Bears and lions 

are usually the only North American predators that 

partially bury their prey. A bear will often drag or partially 

bury a carcass to hide it and mask the smell from other 

predators, then move a short distance away to rest in 

nearby areas of dense brush or forest. Any suspected 

bear depredations should be approached only by trained 

personnel who are exercising extreme caution in case 

one or more bears aggressively defend the carcass. 

A black bear rarely kills multiple animals at once, but such 

‘surplus’ killings can occur, typically with poultry, sheep or 

swine. Surplus killing is more closely associated with 

brown/grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 3
Agriculture

Black bear can cause damage to row crops, such as corn, 

and fruit trees. Black bears break the trunks of young trees 

or pull back the ends of branches to obtain fruit they 

cannot reach. Limbs break off and may be found hanging 

or near the base of the tree. Row crop damage typically 

results in flattened patches (up to several acres) with trails 

connecting patches. These feeding locations will contain 

bear scat. Bears prefer corn in the milk stage and usually 

discontinue feeding on corn during the dough stage, but 

may return to fields later if fields are left unharvested prior 

to denning. Unharvested corn that provides a food source 

for bears can delay denning. Bear dens in fields have 

damaged harvesting equipment.

Apiaries

Very few wildlife species raid apiaries, therefore bear 

damage is relatively easy to identify. Beehives are often 

scattered or broken and claw/tooth marks may be visible 

on hive structures; look for bits of hair on the ground and 

on splinted wood. Most raids occur during peak honey 

production.

Forestry

Most common in the Pacific Northwest and British 

Columbia, bear damage to trees is characterized by 

stripped bark with vertical canine marks on the bare trunk. 

Tufts of hair may also be snagged on the bark. The tree 

trunk is usually stripped up to about 3 to 4.5 feet (ft) off of 

the ground, but some bears climb and peel the trunk 

higher up the tree. Peeling generally occurs after bears 

emerge from their winter dens and coincides with conifer 

growth (i.e., the movement of large amounts of 

carbohydrates in the phloem). This period typically lasts 

from April through early July. 

Bears tend to peel the healthiest trees in the healthiest 

stands, thus peeling may be exacerbated by forestry 

practices that promote growth, such as thinning and 

fertilization. Bark peeling is easily distinguished from deer/

elk rubbing by the presence of canine marks. Bear damage 

may be mistaken for porcupine damage where the species 

overlap. Girdled trees stop photosynthesizing and their 

needles turn red within one year. These “red crowns” are 

often used to identify bear damage. However, recent 

research has shown that other factors, such as root rot, 

also cause dead trees with red crowns. Thus, bear damage 

to trees may be overestimated unless verified with ground 

surveys. 

Management Methods

Methods to manage human-bear conflicts can be grouped 

into two general categories: proactive and reactive. 

Proactive management attempts to change human 

behavior and prevent conflict, or keep it from recurring. 

Examples of proactive management include removing 

attractants, education and awareness, and exclusion. 

Conversely, reactive management attempts to change bear 

behavior or results in the lethal removal of the bear. 

Prior to any management action, there are important 

factors that managers and homeowners should consider. 

First, many of the methods described herein are only 

permissible to licensed personnel, such as state and 

federal biologists and wildlife managers. It is up to the 

individual to know which strategies are legal by reviewing 

local laws and agency websites. Also, it is important to note 

that any action plan should consider the side effects of the 

action and include a system for monitoring efficacy (short 

and long-term reactions of the bear). Documenting the 

season, time of day, type of conflict, and any information 

about the bear(s) involved is important for monitoring 

results. Be aware that the removal of the offending bear 

may open up its territory to other bear and conflicts, if the 

cause of the conflict is not mitigated. 

Aversive Conditioning 

Aversive conditioning is the use of something unpleasant 

to stop an unwanted behavior. It could be fear-based or 

include the use of a painful or noxious stimuli. Aversive 

conditioning is most successful when combined with public 

education, exclusion of bear, and enforcement of 

regulatory ordinances. Individual bear may respond 

differently to aversive conditioning for reasons that are not 

well understood.

Page 4 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear
The following are examples of aversive conditioning 

strategies that rely on the capture and release or 

translocation of a bear. A ‘soft release’ allows an animal to 

peacefully leave an opened culvert trap or recover from 

tranquilization or immobilization. Research suggests that 

this experience alone may be unpleasant enough to stop 

nuisance behavior in some bear. One study in Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park reported that 58 to 73 percent of 

the bears experiencing a soft release ceased their 

nuisance behavior. Success was greatest for bear in the 

early stages of nuisance development. Those captured at 

night (a sign of early nuisance development) were 4 times 

less likely to continue nuisance behavior. 

A ‘hard release’ uses a variety of treatments, used 

independently or in combination, that are more intense 

than a soft release. Common treatments include the 

following:

 Non-lethal projectiles shot at the large muscle mass on 

the bear’s hip are one of the most successful aversion 

tools. Projectiles come in various forms, including bean 

bags, 12-gauge rubber slugs (used at ranges over 65 

ft/20 meters (m) only), and rubber shot (used within 

65 ft/20 m only). Proper training is required to avoid 

injury to the bear. In some studies, nuisance behavior 

stopped for up to 30 days following aversive 

conditioning with projectiles. In at least two studies, 

however, over 90 percent of bear returned to general 

nuisance behavior elsewhere. Far fewer abandoned it 

altogether. This technique is more effective for wild, 

non-food conditioned bear. 

 Dogs are used for scaring bear or chasing them a short 

distance after release. Sometimes dogs remain on 

leashes and bark at bears as they are released. Other 

times, dogs chase them until a bear reaches a 

predetermined distance and then the dogs are called 

off. The most commonly used breed is the Karelian 

bear dog, historically used for hunting in western 

Siberia and known for its fearless demeanor. The use 

of Karelians has increased the length of time for a 

bear to return anywhere from 30 days to more than a 

year.

 Taste aversion is not widely used and is only effective 

in very specific and isolated cases. Bears usually learn 

to avoid the deterrent. The most commonly used 

compound is thiabendazole (TBZ). It causes vomiting. 

In one study, 16.5 grams of powdered TBZ was placed 

in a cheesecloth pouch with a dose of 165 milligrams/

kilogram of a palatable attractant, such as peanut 

butter or honey. While effective in the short term, over 

time bear learned to avoid the package. 

 Scare tactics involve the use of devices, such as 

firecrackers, motion-activated lights, propane cannons, 

blank rounds, and horns. In some cases, yelling and 

banging pots and pans can work. These methods may 

be effective for very short periods of time, but bears 

quickly habituate and may return. Increased 

habituation or food conditioning may result in no 

response at all. 

Changes in Human Behavior

Many methods to prevent or resolve human-bear conflicts, 

require changes in human behavior.

Removing Attractants

Removing the materials that attract bear is the most 

effective management tool available and relies heavily on 

public participation. Many bears only supplement their 

diets with people-related foods when natural foods are 

unavailable. The removal of these attractants can 

dramatically reduce bear conflicts. Garbage cans should be 

placed out the morning of pickup only. Some communities 

still use open pit dumps that can be very attractive to bear. 

Every effort should be made to contain garbage behind an 

electric fence. Other attractants, such as pet food and 

birdseed, should be kept in structures inaccessible to bear 

and in proper containers. Bird feeders can be hung where 

they are inaccessible to bears, but often homeowners 

simply remove feeders during the spring and summer. Left 

over birdseed on the ground should also be removed. 

Fruits and vegetables should be removed as soon as they 

become ripe or fall to the ground. Livestock depredations 

can be reduced by (1) removing or relocating carcass piles 

away from livestock or burying, rendering, liming or 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 5
Page 6 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

composting livestock carcasses, (2) confining livestock at 

night with electric fences, or (3) removing livestock from 

areas of high vulnerability. 

In campgrounds and the backcountry, attractants (e.g., 

cooked and uncooked foods and garbage) should be kept 

away from campsites in accordance with local regulations. 

Keeping a clean campsite is essential. If burning is used to 

eliminate food waste, combustion must be complete. 

Burned plastic can attract bear. 

Trail and Campsite Closures

Area and trail closures are especially useful for preventing 

human encounters with a nuisance or aggressive bear. 

When seasonal foods, such as berries or spawning salmon, 

are available and located near areas of human use, 

temporary closures can help prevent chance encounters 

and human injuries. Closing campgrounds temporarily and 

eliminating attractants can encourage bear to return to 

natural foods. Natural resource managers may want to reroute existing hiking trails and avoid creating new ones in 

areas where natural food sources are often available to 

bear. Bears are known to frequently use human trails, 

especially to move between food sources. 

Forestry, Agriculture and Husbandry Practices

There are no proven techniques to reduce damage to 

trees. Research has shown that silvicultural (i.e., the 

growing and cultivation of trees) methods that promote 

tree growth of western conifers, such as thinning and 

fertilizing, also promote attractiveness to bear. Choices to 

forgo pre-commercial thinning or delay commercial 

thinning must be considered by foresters on a case-by-case 

basis. Planting of non-preferred tree species, planting at 

higher stand densities, and the pruning of lower branches 

have been recommended as techniques to reduce bear 

damage, but they do not comply with current operation 

management practices and have not been evaluated in an 

operational setting. 

In agriculture, crop selection and rotation can reduce 

losses because bear do not learn to rely on a specific crop 

from year to year. Planting non-preferred crops in high risk 

locations can reduce damage. Trap and translocation may 

be effective in reducing bear damage to crops in areas like 

Wisconsin. Electric fencing proved to be ineffective in 

protecting large crop areas in the Midwest. Synchronized 

and/or penned birthing of livestock may also reduce bear 

predation, but neither method is well studied. 

Livestock protection dogs have been used for centuries to 

prevent livestock predation, and while research with bear 

is limited, this practice has regained popularity in recent 

years. The terrain, type of livestock, and number of dogs 

are important factors to consider when gauging 

effectiveness. The Akbach, Great Pyrenees, Komondor, 

Anatolian, and Maremma breeds have proven to be 

excellent at deterring predators and protecting livestock. 

Research suggests that greater success is achieved in 

open areas, such as grazing lands, and that through the 

long-term presence of dogs, bears may learn to avoid 

livestock.

Use of Terrain

Research has shown that environmental characteristics 

can increase the likelihood of human-bear conflicts. Forest 

corridors, riparian areas, and vegetation close to homes, 

roads, paddocks, and other human-use areas allow bear to 

remain relatively concealed while approaching. Studies of 

apiary damage show a significant correlation between bear 

damage and the proximity of apiaries to roads and 

streams, as well as forest corridors. Other studies show 

sheep depredations are reduced when flocks avoid known 

bear travel corridors, including saddleways or ridgetops 

connecting major drainages or natural food sources. 

Wildlife Underpasses and Travel Corridors

Wildlife underpasses and travel corridors help to reduce 

wildlife-vehicle collisions and conflicts. Bears often avoid 

interstate highways, but their drive to find a mate or food, 

and their natural dispersal behaviors, can cause bear to 

cross large roads. Drainage culverts and underpasses may 

serve as wildlife thoroughfares and are often flanked with 

high fences that funnel bears toward safe routes. 

Identifying natural travel corridors for bear may reduce 

human-bear conflicts. Corridors allow bear to avoid 

travelling through populated areas and provide access to 
natural foods thus reducing a bear’s need for humanrelated foods. Natural corridors typically follow drainages 

and wetlands, as well as ridgetops and forest fragments. 

Contraception

None are available.

Diversionary Feeding

Diversionary, or supplemental, feeding uses an 

alternate food source, such as sugar-rich pelleted foods, 

beef fat, and fruit, to lure bear away from other 

resources. Feed is generally provided for a limited 

period to protect other resources. This should not be 

confused with baiting, which is feeding wild bear to 

attract them to a hunting site and is legal in several 

states. Although, one may argue that the effects 

between diversionary feeding and baiting are not 

discernable. Feeding bear is illegal in many states, so 

managers should be aware of all local, state, and 

federal statutes before putting food for bear in the field. 

Diversionary feeding has been used for decades in 

Washington State to reduce damage to western 

conifers. This program occurs primarily west of the 

Cascade Mountain crest to the Pacific Ocean, where 

Douglas-fir is the dominant commercially grown tree. 

Pelleted feed is provided to bear early in the growing 

season (April through June) prior to the availability of 

soft mast, such as buds, seeds, and fruits. The pellets 

contain molasses, a mixture of meat and bone meal, 

sugar beet, sugar cane, salt, magnesium sulfate, anise 

feed aroma, and swine vitamins and minerals. Other 

attractants, such as beaver carcasses, have been used 

initially to help bear find the pellets. Research has 

suggested the bear feeding program is cost effective in 

western Washington, although critics argue that feeding 

leads to illegal hunting or that bears “double-dip” (i.e., 

eat pelleted food and peel trees). Concerns have been 

raised that diversionary feeding may increase a bear 

population above its natural carrying capacity and lead 

to more conflict behavior, although this has not been 

scientifically tested 

Diversionary feeding in campgrounds and residential areas 

has received less attention for fear it may create nuisance 

bears and jeopardize human health and safety. A multiyear study in Minnesota suggested that diversionary 

feeding lead to a significant reduction in nuisance activity 

and a greater tolerance of bear by residents. A study in 

Utah found that bear visited provisioned feed sites during 

their normal feeding patterns (crepuscular and nocturnal 

periods) 76 percent of the time, and bear did not visit the 

sites more quickly or more frequently through time. 

Diversionary feeding is often considered a last option due 

to the possible ill-effects of increased disease 

transmission, increased loss of resources, and concerns 

for human safety. Managers should fully weight the pros 

and cons before initiating a diversionary bear feeding 

program. Additionally, managers should include a 

monitoring component to evaluate efficacy. 

Exclusion

Preventing bear access to attractants is an important part 

of managing human-bear conflicts and includes the use of 

bear-resistant containers, fencing, and other methods. 

Bear-resistant containers range from small ‘bear cans’ for 

backpacking to trashcans for curbside refuse pickup 

(Figure 4) and full-size dumpsters for public use. All include 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 7

Figure 4 . Bear-proof trashcan with locking mechanism.
features to resist brute force and impact, prevent access 

(i.e., locking mechanisms), and reduce odors The failure of 

these containers to prevent bear access is almost always 

due to improper use and closure. 

Electric fencing to exclude bears is commonly used around 

apiaries (Figure 5), night pens for livestock, and remote 

campsites. Fences may be permanent or temporary. Small, 

portable units are commercially available and use nonrechargeable batteries or solar power. When properly 

maintained and installed, electric fences are nearly 100 

percent successful in preventing bear access to apiaries. 

Permanent electric fencing should use wood posts 

equipped with insulators, while temporary electric fencing 

may use plastic, fiber or fiberglass step-in posts. Posts 

should be at least 3 to 3.5 ft high. Ideally, 2 to 3, 6-ft long 

ground rods of galvanized steel or copper should be driven 

into the ground within 20 ft of the fence controller. The 

number of ground rods required depends on the soil 

texture and moisture content. Clamp a 10 to 14 gauge, 

20,000 volt insulated ground wire onto the ground rod with 

a screw-tight clamp that ‘bites’ into both the rod and wire. 

Attach the ground wire to the controller’s negative side. For 

the ‘hot’ wire, use either single-strand 10 to 14 gauge or 

0.5 inch poly-wire. Single-strand wire requires joint clamps, 

while poly-wire may be tied using a simple square knot. 

Choose a starting point and clamp a wire to each properlyspaced insulator, connecting them to the corresponding 

insulator on each post around the protected area. Vertical 

strand spacing should be 8 to 12 inches apart. After 

completely enclosing the area with wire, attach an 

insulated ‘gate’ handle with a proper knot or clamp on 

each strand to allow human access to the area. Beginning 

at the bottom strand, tie or clamp a lead-out wire (10 to 14 

gauge, 20,000 volts) and attach to each strand above it in 

turn, then connect the trailing end to the positive terminal 

of the controller. Typically, 3,500 to 5,000 volts are 

sufficient to deter bear.

It is usually best to store the energizer and battery within 

the fence to prevent bear damage. Proper maintenance 

includes the removal of vegetation from around the wires, 

ensuring the proper ground, and maintaining the proper 

voltage. Consult your local management agency for their 

recommendations, if non-target wildlife may be affected.

The following electric fencing materials are recommended 

for use in bear damage management:

 Wire: 3 strands of 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) polytape; 20,000 

volt double insulated wire for connecting the energizer 

and ground 

 Posts: 3.2 ft (1 m) fiberglass step-in posts, and 6 ft x 

1.5 inches (1.8 m x 0.04 m) corner posts 

 Energizer: 0.25 joule with 12 volt marine battery

 Ground: 4 to 6 ft x 0.5 inches (1.2 to 1.8 m x 1.3 cm) 

copper grounding rod 

Metal flashing around trees has been suggested by some 

to protect fruit trees, hunters’ tree stands, bird feeders, 

and elevated platforms for apiaries. However, individuals 

should use caution when using this method. Bear can 

easily tear down flashing. If used, position it approximately 

8 ft up the tree trunk in a way that it does not damage the 

tree. 

Page 8 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Figure 5. Diagram of electrical fencing around an apiary.
Exclusion may also include hanging attractants from a tree 

or pole, however bears must not be able to access them by 

climbing or reaching. 

Hunting/Shooting

Black bear hunting is common in many parts of the 

species’ range, and regulations are set by state and 

provincial authorities. It is one method used as part of 

an integrated damage management approach for 

reducing human-bear conflicts; and there is no 

evidence that hunting alone reduces human-bear 

conflict. Decreases in the amount of public land for 

hunting and increases in conflicts in suburban areas 

limit the use of hunting as a tool to reduce conflicts. 

Furthermore, large male bears often are the primary 

targets of hunting, but bear of all ages engage in 

conflict behavior. Some conflicts do not coincide with 

hunting seasons, making it difficult to target problem 

bear. It is the responsibility of the wildlife management 

agency to determine sustainable bear harvest levels.

The use of lethal control outside of hunting seasons may 

be necessary to reduce human-bear conflicts. This is 

usually accomplished by wildlife management agencies or 

others under their authority or through the issuance of 

depredation permits. Efforts to target an individual bear 

often follow a 2- or 3-strike rule where nonlethal tools are 

used before lethal control. In some states, especially those 

with robust bear populations, lethal control is the preferred 

alternative after bears have broken into homes, eaten 

livestock, routinely crossed electric fences or injured a 

person regardless of its previous behavior. The use of 

hunting dogs, camera traps, or stakeouts can be effective 

in targeting the specific bear. 

It is legal in some areas to kill a black bear if it threatens 

life or property. Check local regulations for more 

information and whether carcasses must be surrendered 

to local wildlife authorities. 

If firearms are carried as a defense against bears, larger 

caliber rifles and handguns or 12-gauge shotguns with 

slugs are essential. Fatally wounding a bear does not 

guarantee that an attack will be deterred prior to its death. 

Black bear can travel up to 44 ft/second (30 mph). 

Extreme precision, timing, and control of the firearm are 

vital and usually require considerable practice.

Public Awareness and Education

Public awareness is one of the most important and least 

expensive tools for managing bear conflicts and should be 

used in conjunction with other management methods. 

Depending on the conflict, individuals and agencies have 

several public relations tools to choose from. For shortterm conflict mitigation, postings at trailheads, visitor 

centers, and farm stores can help educate backcountry 

visitors and homeowners. For ongoing initiatives, agencies 

and community members can create websites, hold 

community forums, bear fairs, and workshops. 

Nongovernmental organizations such as “Be Bear Aware”, 

“Bear Wise”, “Get Bear Smart” and others provide local 

help and are excellent online resources. In backcountry 

areas, agency staff can provide fliers and interpretation on 

bear behavior and safety measures. If resources permit, a 

hotline to report conflicts can help track trends in conflict 

behavior and reduce agency response time. The use of 

television, radio, and print media has helped reduce 

human-bear conflicts. Studies show that more successful 

media campaigns use graphic content (i.e., bears being 

shot or hit by cars) and simple messages, such as “A fed 

bear is a dead bear” or “Garbage kills bears.” 

Public opinions about bears vary widely and successful 

managers tailor their messages to their audience. 

Successful messaging campaigns involve an interactive 

and interdisciplinary approach. Include the public, 

biologists, pest control operators, and wildlife managers to 

define the objectives of the project and design a strategy. 

The most important messages for the public are (1) the 

removal or containment of attractants, and (2) the use of 

bear-resistant containers (see Exclusion). Local ordinances 

that mandate garbage and attractant control must be 

enforced with effective law enforcement and fines for 

violations. Positive changes can be made if warnings are 

enforced with fines. The public should be made aware of 

existing or changing regulations concerning attractants and 

the products available for that purpose.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 9
Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation in captivity is almost always reserved for 

bear less than 1 year old. Highly food-conditioned bears 

are unlikely to be rehabilitated. Survival after release back 

into the wild may increase if human contact is minimized 

during the rehabilitation period. 

Sample sizes of studies that have evaluated the release of 

rehabilitated cubs are small and results are varied. 

Minimum apparent survival of 11 rehabilitated orphan 

cubs at 180 days post-release was 77 percent in the 

Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. In New Hampshire, 10 

rehabilitated orphan cubs were released in the springs of 

2011 and 2012. Six of 7 bears survived the hunting 

season in 2011 and were not associated with known cases 

of nuisance behavior. Conversely, 3 bears released in 

2012 were presumably in conflict situations and did not 

survive through the hunting season. In Utah, 6 

rehabilitated orphan cubs were released in November and 

December of 2014, closer to winter denning. One bear 

shed its tracking collar. Of the remaining 5 bears, 3 

showed fidelity to the release site following den 

emergence, while 2 resettled 27 to 29 miles (44 to 46 

kilometers (km)) away. Unfortunately, there are no known 

long-term studies of the fates and habitat use of 

rehabilitated orphan black bear. Nevertheless, there is 

enough evidence to suggest that the practice is a better 

alternative than euthanasia if 1) adequate rehabilitation 

facilities are available, 2) human presence is minimized, 

and 3) suitable release sites are utilized. 

Repellents

One bear repellent or ‘bear spray’ is commercially 

available. Its active ingredient is found in chili peppers of 

the genus Capsicum. The repellent is compressed into a 

spray canister that, when released by a trigger mechanism, 

sprays powder about 30 ft (9 m). It is often recommended 

that recreationalists traveling in bear country carry bear 

spray. In fact, some areas require it. Carriers should 

become familiar the with device and how to use it, as well 

as what to do if they encounter a bear. Practice canisters 

that do not contain the active ingredient are available from 

several manufacturers. There is some evidence that bears 

are attracted to areas where bear spray has been used. It 

is always wise to read posted signs and check with park 

rangers and staff before using popular trails. Also, be 

aware of state regulations regarding bear spray and check 

airline regulations before planning to fly with bear spray as 

it may be prohibited. 

Translocation

Translocation is the capture and movement of an animal 

from one location to another location outside of its home 

range. It has been used for decades to help reduce 

human-bear conflicts. Translocation success varies 

geographically and may be associated with several 

factors. Some research suggests that the success of 

translocations may be related to a combination of time 

of year (including mating season), release location, age, 

sex, health, and family status, among other factors (see 

Appendix 3).

Successful translocations have occurred with bears of 

all ages except dependent cubs. Age groups and long 

translocation distances play a big role in success, 

although food and range availability at the release site 

are also thought to be important factors. A review of 

bear relocations in 9 States and 2 Canadian Provinces, 

suggested that adult bears must be translocated more 

than 40 miles (64 km) to assure less than a 50 percent 

return, while shorter translocation distances may 

prevent returns from sub-adults. 

Bears have the ability to orient homeward without the 

use of familiar landmarks. This is commonly referred to 

as “homing,” and it is a key component in using 

translocation as a management tool. Homing distances 

of greater than 248 miles (400 km) have been 

recorded, but younger bear may not travel as far and are 

less likely to return to their area of capture. In some 

cases, bears have hibernated in the new location and 

then returned home the following year. 

In a public survey in Wisconsin, 73 percent of 

respondents supported translocation to address black 

bear nuisance and crop damage issues. Results from a 

Wisconsin mark-recapture study using genetic analysis 

Page 10 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear
suggested only 4 percent of 520 relocated bears were 

recaptured in corn fields during the study; and that 71 

percent of repeat offenders returned to within 6 miles 

(10 km) of their original capture sites. This study, 

however, did not account for survival rates. In a Florida 

study, repeat offender rates were greater—nearly half of 

translocated bear engaged in a nuisance event at least 

once post-release and 34 percent engaged in nuisance 

events more than once. Apparent annual survival rates 

for translocated male and female bear (75 and 80 

percent, respectively) in the Florida study did not differ 

and were comparable to resident, non-offending male 

bear in the area. In south-central Colorado, apparent 

annual survival rates were 50 percent for adult bear and 

28 percent for sub-adults. The probability of a bear 

dying due to repeat conflict was slightly lower than that 

of non-conflict mortalities (e.g., hunter harvest, 

poaching, vehicle strike, etc.). 

In general, managers should base translocation 

decisions on the condition and characteristics of the 

bear, identification and access to an appropriate 

release site with adequate distance from the capture 

site, potential effects of the translocation on resident 

bears at the release site, and other available 

management options. 

Trapping

Trapping to harvest bear is rarely used and is no longer 

legal in most states. However, it is widely used by wildlife 

managers to collect biological information, translocate, or 

aversively condition bear. The most common trapping 

methods include foot snares and culvert traps, both of 

which require the use of bait. Effective bear baits include 

those with strong aromas, such as canned fish and meats, 

pet food, and bacon. Sugary foods, such as fruit, molasses, 

doughnuts, and pastries are also effective. Bait should not 

contain chocolate which is toxic to bears.

The Aldrich snare (Figure 6), is the most common and 

proven foot snare for bear. It is considered very safe for 

bear and properly trained trappers. It includes a springloaded thrower that casts a looped cable upward above the 

wrist of the bear. Snares and springs can be purchased 

commercially. Large diameter cables are less likely to 

break or cause injury to bear, but may throw too slowly to 

catch bear. A small diameter cable throws faster, but 

increases the chances of injury to the bear’s foot or leg. 

Injuries can be reduced by adding cable stops which 

prevent a snare from closing past a predetermined 

diameter. However, cable stops may decrease the snare’s 

effectiveness. 

The use or set of the Aldrich foot snare has changed over 

the years. The original standard set was placed above the 

ground approximately 5 inches by forked sticks. Later, it 

became common to dig a 5-inch hole, slightly smaller than 

the loop of the snare, and placing the snare around the 

hole. Around 1968, the pipe snare set became common 

where the snare was placed in a 4- to 6-inch diameter pipe 

or can. All of these techniques or slight modifications are 

still used today. Some variations use buckets for bear to 

reach into instead of stepping onto the trigger. There are 

also new styles of foot snares based off of the Aldrich 

design. In all cases, the snare must be safely secured to a 

large living tree or a drag heavy enough that the bear 

cannot leave the site. 

Unlike snares, culvert traps (Figure 7) must be set on flat 

ground that is accessible by vehicle. They consist of a large 

diameter pipe (similar to those used in the construction of 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 11

Figure 6. An Aldrich snare includes a spring-loaded thrower that casts a 

looped cable upward above the wrist of the bear.
Figure 7. Culvert traps are commonly used to trap black bear.

culverts under roads) usually mounted on a trailer with 

wheels. Bait or lure is often attached to a spring-loaded 

wire on the closed end of the trap. When the bear takes 

the bait and pulls on the wire, a door on the opposite, open 

end of the trap closes. Culvert traps should be placed in 

areas with sufficient cover so they are hidden from curious 

observers. If the culvert trap is unstable or too high off the 

ground, back the trap into holes dug for the trap’s tires and 

place logs under the trap for balance. Keep the door 

runners free of debris. As with snares, there are many 

modifications for culvert traps. 

While trapping is commonly used in wildlife research and 

management, it does present risks to bear resulting from 

injury and stress. Individuals new to trapping bear should 

consult with trap manufacturers and experienced bear 

trappers before attempting sets of their own. As such, it is 

important to minimize the amount of time an animal is in a 

trap. Trapping is a very stressful experience for an adult 

bear and/or its trapped or separated cubs. Cubs can also 

be hurt by the trap’s cables or doors, particularly if they are 

the drop-down (‘guillotine’-style) doors. Newer culvert trap 

door designs are available that are safer for cubs. 

The experience of being trapped is extremely 

uncomfortable for any animal, and some studies have 

shown that the trap and release process itself is sufficient 

to reduce nuisance behavior in some bears. If bears are 

trapped repeatedly, they may become trap-shy or traphappy. These bears either learn to avoid traps or are willing 

to endure the trap to obtain the bait, respectively. Both 

conditions can negatively affect trapping results. It is 

important for managers to mark trapping areas with 

signage to prevent human injury and they may want to 

consider other methods of informing the public in areas 

with a greater human presence. Consult your local officials 

for available equipment and best practices.

Chemical Immobilization

Immobilizing a bear is only permissible by trained 

professionals and requires appropriate state and federal 

permits. Resources and training are available and required 

in most locations. The following are some important 

considerations:

 The use of immobilization drugs on bear close to or 

within harvest seasons may be illegal due to the risk of 

hunters killing and eating recently immobilized bear. 

Consult state and local laws.

 During immobilization, obtain biological information 

and mark the bear for future research, such as with 

ear tags, PIT tags, tattoos, etc. 

 Allow for sufficient time to monitor a recovering bear. 

There have been cases of recovering bear drowning, 

falling or colliding with vehicles. 

 The safest, most commonly used pharmaceuticals for 

immobilization are Telazol (tiletamine and zolazepam), 

a combination of Ketamine/Xylazine, or 

‘BAM’ (butorphanol/azaperone/medetomidine). 

Consult local, state or federal experts.

Toxicants

None are available.

Page 12 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear
Economics

The economic impacts of black bear can manifest as 

losses (i.e., livestock predation, property and agriculture 

damage, bear parts trafficking) or gains (i.e., ecotourism, 

hunting). Costs associated with black bear damage vary 

widely and are not well documented. 

Livestock Predation

In Colorado and Utah, about 2,000 sheep and lambs are 

lost to bear predation every year. Another study in northern 

Alberta reported 541 bear damage claims on 1,246 

livestock over a period of 5 years. This is low since some 

losses were not reported and some claims were denied for 

lack of evidence (absence of a carcass). Losses were only 

0.2, 0.11, and 0.02 percent of available cattle, sheep, and 

swine, respectively. In 1990, bear damages to U.S. sheep 

and lambs totaled $450,000; in Oregon, this resulted in a 

loss of $17,800 and 400 animals. In 1999, Alberta, 

Canada reported an annual loss of $555,000 in sheep and 

lambs due to bear predation. 

Apiaries contribute hundreds of millions of dollars every 

year to the U.S. economy. In some areas, half of the 

apiaries are raided by bear every year. While total damage 

estimates are not available, isolated incidents usually cost 

less than $1,000 and suffer only one incident per year. 

Florida has reported apiary losses of $100,000 annually 

since the late 1990s, and one older study in the Peace 

River section of Alberta (circa 1990) reported annual 

damages of approximately $200,000.

In parts of northern Wisconsin where corn and oat 

production overlaps black bear ranges, bear damage to 

crops ranged from approximately $100,000 to 

$375,000 per year (2010-2017) to crops enrolled in the 

Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims Program 

(WDACP). During the same timeframe, 249 to 296 

farmers enrolled in the WDACP for crop damage 

protection from bear. In 2017, 14,500 acres of corn in 

Wisconsin—valued at more than $8.3 million— was 

enrolled for protection from bear damage in the WDACP. 

In 2018, 115 WDACP enrollees were given electric 

fencing materials to protect more than 800 apiaries—

valued at $2.8 million—from bear damage. 

Property Damage

Black bear damages to personal property may be the most 

difficult to calculate. The best records are from Yosemite 

National Park, where black bears have been implicated in 

over $3.7 million in cumulative damages since the 1990s. 

In one 1998 report, bear damaged more than $650,000 of 

visitor property in the park (an all-time high). This figure is 

likely greater than that of other locations of equal size, 

however, due to the concentrations of reliably available 

foods and the abilities of bear to learn how to obtain them. 

Each year, over 3.5 million people visit the valley in 

Yosemite, which is an area of only 7 miles2 (18 km2). After 

implementation of an intensive visitor awareness and foodcontrol program, annual damage claims dropped from over 

$288,000 to an average of about $107,000. 

Among the most expensive damages to property is forced 

entry into motor vehicles and collisions on roadways. While 

most collisions only involve vehicle damage, bodily injury 

can also occur. The Federal Highway Administration 

recently reported that yearly damages from all wildlife 

collisions averaged $2,451 for vehicles only and $6,126 

for accidents with human injuries. When peripheral 

damages are considered in the total (such as towing and 

the value of the animal), damage costs can rise to between 

$8,000 and $30,000 per collision. Overall, bears 

represent a relatively small portion of vehicle collisions. 

Forestry

The economic impact of black bear to tree farms managed 

with intensive silvicultural operations in the Pacific 

Northwest varies. A recent study showed that bear damage 

at a landscape scale in northwest Oregon was 0.35 

percent of net present value. However, the same study 

revealed that damage at the stand level ranged from 4 to 

46 percent of net present value. The complete loss of a 

tree is not guaranteed after bear damage, but loss of the 

basal log (first 16 ft) is common. Complete girdling of the 

tree results in the tree’s death within a year and a total 

loss. Models suggest that removing damaged wood by 

bears is more economical that leaving it in the harvest unit. 

In a research study in Oregon and Washington, models 

suggested that there was still economic value in trees 

damaged, but not killed, by bear, and that it was 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 13
more economical to salvage them rather than leave them 

in the harvest unit. This however, could change with 

location and market demands. 

Tourism and Hunting

Despite the damages done by black bears, their presence 

is perceived as an indicator of good forest health. While 

the monetary value of a single wild animal is difficult to 

quantify, black bears bring in millions of dollars to state 

and federal agencies from both ecotourism and hunting. 

These activities support species conservation and 

management initiatives, as well as provide employment 

and peripheral income from equipment sales, lodging, and 

food services. One Michigan study reported over $3.4 and 

$2.6 million in annual revenue from the sale of bear 

hunting licenses and bear-viewing, respectively. Alaska is 

potentially the most visited state for bear viewing, adding 

hundreds of millions of dollars per year to local economies. 

While many more prefer to view grizzly bear to black bear, 

the latter remains one of the top attractions for the state. 

Damage Compensation Programs 

Damage compensation attempts to mitigate human-bear 

conflicts by paying restitution for losses attributed to bear. 

For example, a 2001 Colorado study revealed that 55 

percent of the annual wildlife damage claims in the state 

were caused by bear resulting in about $250,000 in 

restitution payments. 

Compensation usually begins with an investigation of 

damages after an incident, but some programs require 

enrollment in a program prior to any compensation. 

Enrollment may require participants to allow regulated 

hunting on their land or damage mitigation strategies, such 

as trapping and translocation. Reimbursement funding is 

limited, however, and it does not eliminate the cause of the 

problem. Damage reimbursement may also reduce the 

incentive for claimants to proactively reduce bear 

damages. Some members of the public have been 

unhappy with the returns from such programs, insisting 

that they were not fully compensated for the value lost. 

Proactive Management

The use of proactive management and public education 

programs help reduce bear damage and may be more costeffective over the long term. Although prices for electric 

fences ($1.50 to $3.00 per ft) and bear-proof trashcans 

($50.00 to $400.00), may seem expensive, recurring bear 

damages are often more costly. Furthermore, human 

safety is an important consideration even though the risks 

of bear attacks and human injury are low. The prevention 

of nuisance bear behavior and damages helps to foster a 

sense of security with the public and enables the 

coexistence of bear and people. 

Lastly, proactive management reduces the need for costly 

wildlife damage management equipment, equipment 

maintenance, and additional work hours. Encouraging the 

use of bear-proof trashcans or the removal of dog food and 

birdseed around homes prevents bear nuisance behavior 

and the subsequent need for more costly management, 

such as translocation. One translocation attempt requires 

the purchase of a culvert trap and may require tracking 

collars and receivers, pharmaceuticals, and drug-delivery 

equipment. Extensive work hours are needed to drive to 

and prepare the trap site, evaluate the release site, 

transport the animal, perform equipment maintenance, 

and monitor the animal. Often, these efforts must be 

repeated multiple times. 

Species Overview

Identification

The American black bear (Ursus americanus, Order 

Carnivora, Family Ursidae) shares the genus with the 

Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and the two other 

North American bear species: the brown/grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos) and the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). It is 

likely that the American black bear diverged from a 

common ancestor with the Asiatic species about 5 million 

years ago. Subsequent divergence on the North American

continent gave rise to the ancestors of polar and brown 

Page 14 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear
bears roughly 3 million years ago. The American black bear 

is divided into 16 subspecies that occupy many habitats 

and regions across the continent. 

Physical Description

The black bear is the smallest of the North American bears. 

It is a large, stocky mammal about 5 ft in length and 

standing about 3 ft at the shoulder. Males and females 

differ in size and weight. Males typically weigh between 

200 to 500 pounds (lbs) and females weigh between 100 

to 300 lbs. A black bear’s size and weight depends upon 

the type and abundance of food it eats, its social status, 

and the time of year. Some bears captured in the fall 

season have weighed more than 800 lbs. Conversely, 

bears may lose up to 30 percent of their body weight 

during winter hibernation and may appear thin or lanky in 

the spring and early summer. 

Black bears walk flat-footed (plantigrade), have five 

forward facing toes and short, curved, non-retractable 

claws ideal for climbing. The tracks of their front feet are 

distinguished from their back feet by their rear pads. The 

rear pad of the front foot (heel) does not leave an imprint. 

They have relatively short, rounded ears, small eyes, and 

an inconspicuous tail. 

The name ‘black bear’ is somewhat of a misnomer, since 

their fur may range from shades of brown, blonde, white, or 

even ‘blue’. Such color types (phases) tend to be regionally 

concentrated. For instance, black-phase bears are usually 

found on the east coast and in northern boreal forests, 

whereas brown-phase and cinnamon-phase bears are 

more common in the west, southwest, and the boundary 

waters of northern Minnesota and southern Ontario, 

Canada. White-phase (non-albino) and blue-phase bears 

are found on the coast of British Columbia, Canada, and 

parts of Alaska. Whether black, white, or somewhere in 

between, the coat is usually a solid color. The snout may 

be brown and some bears display a white patch on their 

chest. 

Distinguishing Between Species

Within the contiguous United States, black bear range 

overlaps with that of brown/grizzly bear in parts of 

Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Washington. In western 

Canada and Alaska, range overlap is extensive except in 

the northern-most latitudes where trees are absent. 

Overlap with polar bear is extremely limited and only 

occurs in the northernmost parts of the black bear’s range 

in Alaska and Canada. In addition to differences in ranges, 

some anatomical features can help distinguish between 

black and brown/grizzly bear (Figure 8). 

 The shoulder hump is a characteristic usually 

attributed to the brown bear, but may be exaggerated 

or diminished in either species.

 Overall size; adult brown bears are typically 1.5 to 2 

times larger than black bears. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 15

Figure 8. Side-by-side comparison of brown/grizzly and black bear 

characteristics.
 When viewed in profile (from the side), the ridge of the 

black bear’s nose from eyes to nostrils is straight to 

slightly humped (convex). The nose of the brown bear 

may also be straight, but more often has a dished, 

concave shape. 

 The height of the rump on the black bear is generally 

higher than its shoulders, whereas that of the grizzly 

bear tends to be lower than its shoulder hump. 

 Coat color is very deceiving, especially where ranges 

overlap. It is generally advisable to rely on other 

features. Investigators may look for shades of brown 

on the muzzle or white on the chest. Phenotypes follow 

regional patterns, so local knowledge may be valuable. 

Furthermore, the fur of the brown bear in some parts 

of its range may appear ‘grizzled’ (dusted with blonde 

or gray on the back).

 When available, footprints are helpful in distinguishing 

between the species. Claw length, instep and foot 

shape are different. A brown/grizzly bear’s front claws 

may appear as fingers, about 1.5 to 4 inches (4 to 10 

cm) long, while those of the black bear are more 

curved and leave a pointed imprint. Black bear claws 

are about 1.1 to 2 inches (3 to 5 cm) long. Note, the 

tracks of a brown/grizzly bear whose claws are worn 

down from digging are easily mistaken for those of a 

black bear. Also note the differences in the toe arc. 

Habitat and Range

Black bears are primarily associated with forested habitats, 

however they are highly adaptable and have reestablished 

populations in at least 40 U.S. states in a wide variety of 

habitats. Their range continues to expand and now 

includes parts of at least 5 states where they have been 

locally extirpated for decades (Figure 9). Black bears have 

been found as far south as Mexico and the southern tip of 

Florida, and in the north to central Alaska and northern 

Canada. Populations can be found on both the Atlantic and 

Pacific coasts in virtually every state, and all provinces and 

territories of Canada except Prince Edward Island. They 

occupy the dry forests and deserts of the American west 

and southwest, temperate forests of the east, subtropical 

zones and swamps of the deep south and boreal forests of 

the north. 

Home range size varies with age, sex, and environmental 

factors, including the time of year, habitat productivity, 

population density, and topography. In poorer habitats 

where food is scarce, bears may have larger home ranges, 

whereas the opposite is true in richer habitats. Typically, 

males have home ranges about two-thirds larger than 

those of females. One study reported home ranges of 31 

miles2 (81 km2) and 10 miles2 (27 km2), respectively. 

Range overlap is very common, and male home ranges 

may overlap those of several females. Habitat use is based 

on a tradeoff between desirable habitat features and 

avoiding conflicts with other bear. Adult males tend to 

usurp the most desirable habitats. Younger males and 

females with cubs that try to avoid adult males may be 

found closer to human habitations. 

Movements outside of normal home ranges (not to be 

confused with dispersal) have been well-recognized among 

bear populations and may follow seasonal food availability. 

While migrations may be a response to local food 

Page 16 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Figure 9 . Black bear range across North America highlighted in orange. 

Black bears are extirpated in the red areas.
shortages, studies show that many migrations occur during 

late-season hyperphagia when bears are in search of large 

amounts of food. Migrants have been observed traveling 

up to 31 miles (80 km) to large groves of oak and hazel 

trees, often following the trails of other bear. 

Mortality

Black bears live up to 30 years of age, but the average is 

considerably less depending on the habitat and their level 

of contact with humans. In one study, suburban bear rarely 

lived past 10 years of age. Sources of mortality include 

starvation, conflicts with other bears, predation by other 

carnivores (as cubs), vehicle collisions, hunting, and 

nuisance kills. 

Population Status

Black bear populations in the contiguous United States are 

estimated at more than 300,000 with an additional 

100,000 to 200,000 in Alaska. 

Social Behavior and Communication

Despite their solitary lives, bears communicate with each 

other using vocalizations, body language, and scent 

markings. Visual and auditory acuity is similar to that of 

people, but their sense of smell is many times stronger. It 

has been suggested that forest-dwelling species, such as 

the black bear, vocalize more than other species that 

occupy open habitats. This may explain why black bears 

have larger ears than brown/grizzly bears. 

Vocalizations by black bears are relatively simple. Most are 

related to stress or disputes, although cubs often vocalize 

to draw the attention of their mother or to voice 

contentment. Common vocalizations among black bears 

include the following:

 Huffing: A sound made by rapid exhalation, usually in 

clusters of 2 to 3. This is usually a demonstration of a 

bear’s discomfort or surprise. 

 Blowing: A loud, powerful, singular version of huffing 

like blowing out a candle. It may be slow and 

controlled or a rapid exhalation. Usually understood as 

frustration or an aggressive or defensive sound and 

may accompany physical demonstrations. This may be 

used in conjunction with jaw popping. 

 Jaw popping or popping: A sound made by smacking 

the lips as the mouth opens after striking the top and 

bottom teeth/jaws together. This is a combined visual 

and auditory display. This is usually motivated by 

nervousness or defensiveness and may also serve to 

relieve stress. 

 Moaning and Pulse Moaning: Aggressive or stress 

sounds used primarily in disputes with other bears 

over space or food. 

 Bawling: This vocalization is made by bear cubs to 

prompt the mother’s care when frightened, separated 

from her, or when hungry. 

 Purring: A sound of contentment by cubs often uttered 

when suckling from the mother.

Chemical communication by bear is an area of ongoing 

research. Chemical scents left after tree marking and 

through urine streams communicate the sex and 

reproductive status of individuals. New research is showing 

that scent communication also occurs through glands in 

the feet of brown bear. It has been suggested that bear 

can also identify time elapsed since the scent was 

deposited, which would be important for maintaining 

spatial separation between bears with overlapping 

territories. Bears may also learn what other bears are 

eating and identify sources of food based on scat. 

A bear’s initial response to other bear and people is 

generally wariness and avoidance. Given the opportunity, 

most bears will leave. When bears do not leave, they may 

communicate to people in the same way they would 

another bear. Clues to the bear’s mood and intentions can 

be learned from the position of its head, ears, mouth, and 

eyes. A good rule of thumb is that the more visible the 

canines (i.e., their head is up and mouth open), the greater 

the intensity of a confrontation. Be careful in assessing this 

behavior though, since bears may elevate the head to see 

or smell better, whether they are standing on all four feet 

or upright on their hind legs. The following descriptions can 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 17
help individuals distinguish between curious or food-driven 

approaches and defensive and offensive attacks.

When a bear chooses to approach another individual, it 

may do so either tentatively, confidently, or stealthily. 

These approaches have very different meanings. During a 

curious or tentative approach, bear will not usually walk 

directly toward one another. They may stop often, take a 

meandering (indirect) path, turn away, move the head and 

eyes to one side, and fake interest in meaningless objects 

by smelling or tasting them, such as twigs. The ears will be 

up and attentive. A bear that desires to avoid contact, but 

for some reason cannot or is unwilling to leave will often 

avert its eyes away or glance briefly at the person or bear. 

It may yawn to relieve stress, position the head down, and 

pull the ears slightly back. This is a defensive posture often 

accompanied by salivating, head swaying, and stress 

vocalizations. If a bear is used to obtaining food from 

people, its approach to someone may be more confident. 

This can be identified by lack of hesitation, a more 

‘purposeful’ gait, and a more direct route. The ears may be 

up and attentive or pinned toward the back to intimidate 

the other individual. Stealthy approaches are almost 

always identified as predatory behavior. Bear may circle 

quietly from dense brush and remain concealed; the 

position of the head is down, ears pinned, with unwavering 

eye contact. The approach may be slow and from behind 

the intended victim.

If a bear is surprised, it usually flees the area. However, a 

surprised bear may also become defensive. In addition to 

the vocalizations described previously, bear may swat the 

ground or attack nearby brush or logs. A frustrated black 

bear may also perform ‘bluff’ charges to intimidate a 

person or another bear. The bear may appear to run 

toward a target with harmful intentions, but will stop short 

or veer away prior to making physical contact. If a black 

bear bluff charges, the chances of it attacking during a 

subsequent charge are very low. Conversely, black bear 

that do make physical contact typically do so on the first 

charge. In these rare cases, bears are simply trying to 

remove a threat. Any injuries to victims are usually minor. 

Defensive situations include surprising a bear at close 

distances, mothers defending cubs, or a bear perceiving a 

threat to food or space. 

By contrast, a predatory attack is not designed to scare, 

but catch and kill. The bear will usually remain quiet and 

concealed to ambush or stalk the victim. Predatory attacks 

are extremely rare, but often fatal. In a report of all known 

attacks over many decades, only 6 percent of aggressive 

acts resulted in physical contact with a person. Predatory 

attacks by black bear caused only 20 fatalities over 80 

years. Most occurred in daylight on victims under the age 

of 18. Hundreds of benign encounters occur every year. 

Reproduction 

Black bears usually reach sexual maturity between the 

ages of 3 and 5. However, some have been observed 

reproducing as early as 2 or as late as 8 years of age. 

Maturity is directly related to the productivity of their 

environment, with richer habitats permitting reproduction 

at younger ages.

Mating usually occurs over a period of about 6 to 8 weeks 

in May, June, or July when females come into estrous. 

During courtship, pairs often seek remote areas to reduce 

competition and may remain together for hours or weeks. 

Both females and males are promiscuous and a litter may 

have multiple fathers. Males have been known to kill or 

chase off existing cubs to encourage the sow to enter 

estrous. After fertilization, the egg remains dormant until 

fall, at such time it will implant in the uterus, if the female 

has obtained adequate fat reserves to survive through 

Page 18 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Figure 10 . Black bear den in New Hampshire.
hibernation. While rare, sows with offspring from 

successive litters have been observed. 

One to five (2.5 average) cubs are born in a den in January 

or early February after a 2-month gestation period. 

Weighing less than a pound at birth, cubs develop rapidly 

and emerge from the den as early as mid-March weighing 

5 to 8 lbs. Young bears remain with their mothers for 18 

months, at which time they may be forced to disperse by 

their mother or her potential mate. Sows have been known 

to reunite with their yearlings for a time after mating. From 

the time a yearling leaves its mother to when it reaches 

sexual maturity the bear is known as a ‘sub-adult’ (usually 

between ages 2 to 5). 

Cub survival is around 50 percent, but may be as low as 

33 percent. Starvation is the leading cause of mortality in 

cubs and may be more severe in urban environments. 

Young males in their second summer will usually disperse 

from their mother’s range and seek their own territory. 

Females usually adopt ranges adjacent to or overlapping 

their mother’s range. Territorial disputes and other factors, 

including nuisance behavior, contribute to the deaths of 

sub-adult males. 

Food Habits

Black bears are opportunistic and adaptable feeders that 

eat many kinds of food. Most of their diet is vegetation, 

including grasses, tree phloem, leaves, fruit, nuts and 

seeds. Prey, such as fish, ungulates, and smaller 

mammals, are a small part of their diet, but may be eaten 

in varying quantities when available. Black bears also eat 

carrion and scavenge from other carnivores. The calves of 

herbivores, such as deer and moose, can be an important 

food source. Bears have also learned to eat high-calorie 

foods that are unintentionally provided to them by people. 

Birdseed, pet food, garbage, and even some non-edible 

products, such as engine oil and plastics, are attractive to 

bears. 

Bears have evolved to adapt to changing amounts and 

varieties of foods throughout the year. They depend heavily 

on plant species that produce soft mast (blackberries, 

blueberries, cherries, etc.) and hard mast (acorns, hickory 

nuts, beechnuts, hazelnuts, etc.). In most regions, 

however, these foods do not become available until mid to 

late-summer and their abundance varies widely from year 

to year. This forces bears to compensate with other foods. 

Mast is particularly important in late summer and fall, 

when bears maximize their intake of calories to boost fat 

reserves for hibernation. 

Hibernation

Hibernation, or winter denning, is thought to occur more in 

response to low food availability than temperature. In more 

temperate climates like the southern U.S., only pregnant 

sows den. Where food is available year-round, males and 

non-pregnant females may not den at all. In northern 

climates, denning may occur as early as October and last 

until April or early May. 

During hibernation, several physiological changes take 

place. Heart rate and breathing slow considerably, but core 

temperature only drops by a few degrees. As such, 

hibernating bears can be easily aroused and should not be 

disturbed. Bear will not eat, drink or defecate while in the 

den. During warm periods, bears have been known to 

emerge and forage for available foods. 

Dens may be constructed high above the ground in hollow 

trees, underneath fallen logs or snags, dug into the earth, 

and in crawl spaces or basements under homes (Figure 

10). Usually a new den is constructed every year, but bears 

may reuse their dens or those abandoned by other bears. 

Many bears den within their home range, however male 

bears have been documented denning up to 89 miles (144 

km) outside their normal range.

Legal Status

Black bears are protected by state and federal laws in all 

states where they occur. Many states have developed 

management plans and provide opportunities for seasonal 

harvest. A few subpopulations may be considered locally 

threatened due to population levels or environmental 

pressures, therefore these states may not provide hunting 

seasons.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 19
Page 20 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Acknowledgements

Figure 1. Photo by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Figure 2. Photo by National Park Service, Yosemite National Park

Figure 3. Photo by Idaho Department of Lands

Figure 4. Photo by Heather Johnson, U.S. Geological Survey

Figure 5. Diagram by Scott Hygnstrom, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 

Figure 6. Photo by Scott Hygnstrom, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 

Figure 7. Photo by California Department of Fish and Game

Figure 8. Graphic by National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park

Figure 9. Map by David Garshelis, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the International Union for

 Conservation of Nature

Figure 10. Photo by Nancy Comeau, USDA-Wildlife Services

We thank Stewart Breck, David Ruid, and David Williams for providing critical reviews of this manuscript. 

Disclaimer

Wildlife can threaten the health and safety of you and 

others in the area. Use of damage prevention and control 

methods also may pose risks to humans, pets, livestock, 

other non-target animals, and the environment. Be aware 

of the risks and take steps to reduce or eliminate those 

risks. 

Some methods mentioned in this document may not be 

legal, permitted, or appropriate in your area. Read and 

follow all pesticide label recommendations and local 

requirements. Check with personnel from your state 

wildlife agency and local officials to determine if methods 

are acceptable and allowed. 

Mention of any products, trademarks, or brand names 

does not constitute endorsement, nor does omission 

constitute criticism. 

Keywords

Agriculture, American black bear, Damage, Forestry, 

Human Safety, Hunting, Livestock, Management, 

Relocation, Trapping, Ursus americanus

Citation

Taylor, J.D. and J.P. Phillips. 2020. Black Bear. Wildlife 

Damage Management Technical Series. USDA, APHIS, WS 

National Wildlife Research Center. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

30p.

Glossary

Apiary: A place where bees are kept; a collection of 

beehives. 

Girdling: A cut through the bark all the way around a tree 

or branch which disrupts the follow of fluids through the 

tree. 

Hyperphagia: The need to eat continuously. 

Mast: The edible vegetative or reproductive part (i.e., 

acorns or other nuts) produced by woody plants. 

Phloem: The vascular tissue in plants that is a conduit for 

sugars and other metabolic products downward from the 

leaves. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 21

Resources

Alldredge, M.W., D.P. Walsh, L.L. Sweanor, R.B. Davies, and A. Trujillo. 2014. Evaluation of translocation of black bears 

involved in human-bear conflicts in south-central Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:334-340.

Annis, K.M. 2007. The impact of translocation on nuisance Florida black bears. Master’s thesis, University of 

Florida, Gainesville. 

Baruch-Mordo, S., S.W. Breck, K.R. Wilson and D. Theobald. 2008. Spatiotemporal Distribution of Black Bear-Human 

Conflicts in Colorado, USA. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1853-1862.

Baruch-Mordo, S., C.T. Webb, S.W. Breck and K.R. Wilson. 2013. Use of patch selection models as a decision support 

tool to evaluate mitigation strategies of human-wildlife conflict. Biological Conservation 160:263-271.

Baruch-Mordo, S., K.R. Wilson, D.L. Lewis, J. Broderick, J.S. Mao and S.W. Breck. 2014. Stochasticity in natural forage 

production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human-bear conflicts. PLoS One 

9:e85122.

Beckmann, J.P. and C.W. Lackey. 2004. Are desert basins effective barriers to movements of relocated black bears 

(Ursus americanus)? Western North America Naturalist 64:269-272.

Beckmann, J.P. and C. Lackey. 2008. Carnivores, urban landscapes, and longitudinal studies: a case history of black 

bears. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2:168-174.

Beckmann, J.P., C. Lackey and J. Berger. 2004. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and dogs to alter behavior of 

“nuisance” black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1141-1146.

Beeman, L.E. and M.R. Pelton. 1976. Homing of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. International 

Conference on Bear Research and Management 3:87-95.

Belant, J.L., S. Simek and B. West. 2011. Managing human-black bear conflicts. Human-Wildlife Conflicts Monograph 

1:1-77.

Boutin, S. 1990. Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: Patterns, problems, and the future. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:203-220.

Breck, S.W., H. Lance and P. Callahan. 2006. A shocking device for protection of concentrated food sources from black 

bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:23-26.

Breck, S.W., C.L. Williams, J.P Beckmann, S.M Matthews, C.W. Lackey and J.J. Beecham. 2008. Using genetic 

relatedness to investigate the development of conflict behavior in black bears. Journal of Mammalogy 89:428-434.

Chase, L.C., W.F. Siemer and D.J. Decker. 2002. Designing stakeholder involvement strategies to resolve wildlife 

management controversies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:937-950.

Ciarniello, L.M. 1997. Managing negative human-black bear interactions: Liard River Hotsprings Provincial Park, British 

Columbia. Western Black Bear Workshop 6:84-92.
Page 22 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Clark, J.E., F.T. van Manen and M. Pelton. 2003. Survival of nuisance American black bears released on-site in Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. Ursus 14:210-214.

Clark, J.E., vanManen, F.T. and M.R. Pelton. 2002. Correlates of success for on-site releases of nuisance black bears in 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:104-111.

Clark, J.D. and D. Huber. 2002. Bear Reintroductions: Lessons and Challenges. Ursus 13:335-345.

Clark, J.D., S. Dobey, D. Masters, B. Schiek, M. Pelton and M. Sunquist. 2005. American black bears and bee yard 

depredation at Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Ursus 16:234-244.

Collins, G.H., R. Wielgus and G. Koehler. 2002. Effects of sex and age of American black bear on conifer damage and 

control. Ursus 13:231-236.

Costello, C.M. and R.W. Sage. 1994. Predicting black bear habitat selection from food abundance under 3 forest 

management systems. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9:375-387.

Cotton, W. 2008. Resolving conflicts between humans and the threatened Louisiana black bear. Human-Wildlife 

Conflicts 2:151-152.

Cromsigt, J.P.G.M., D.P.J. Kuljper, M. Adam, R.I. Beschta, M. Churski, A. Eycott, G.I.H. Kerley, A. Mysterud, K. Schmidt and 

K. West. 2013. Hunting for fear: innovating management of human-wildlife conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology 

50:544-549. 

Davis, H., Wier, R.D., Hamilton, A.N. and J.A. Deal. 2006. Influence of phenology on site selection by female American 

black bears in coastal British Columbia. Ursus 17:41-51.

Dixon, J.D., M.K. Oli, M.C. Wooten, T.H. Eason, J.W. McCown and D. Paetkau. 2006. Effectiveness of a regional corridor in 

connecting two Florida black bear populations. Conservation Biology 20:155-162.

Don Carlos, A.W., A. Bright, T. Teel and J. Vaske. 2009. Human-black bear conflict in urban areas: an integrated 

approach to management response. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:174-184.

Dorrance, M. and L. Roy. 1978. Aversive conditioning tests of black bears in bee yards failed. Proceedings of the 

Vertebrate Pest Conference 8:251-254. 

Eastridge, R. and J. Clark. 2001. Evaluation of 2 soft-release techniques to reintroduce black bears. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 29:1163-1174.

Evans, M.J., J. Hawley, E. Hawley, P.W. Rego and T.A.G. Rittenhouse. 2014. Exurban land use facilitates human-black 

bear conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:1477-1485. 

Federal Highway Administration. 2008. Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study: report to Congress. U.S. Department of 

Transportation, FHWA-HRT-08-034. Accessed 4-09-2017.

Fersterer, P., D. Nolte, G. Ziegltrum and H. Gossow. 2001. Effect of feeding stations on the home ranges of American 

black bears in western Washington. Ursus 12:51-54.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 23

Garshelis, D.L. and M.R. Pelton. 1981. Movements of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 45:912-925.

Garshelis, D.L., Scheick, B.K., Doan-Crider, D.L., Beecham, J.J. and M.E. Obbard. 2016. Ursus americanus. The IUCN Red 

List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41687A45034604. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-

3.RLTS.T41687A45034604.en. Downloaded on 08 March 2017.

Gehring, T.M., K.C. VerCauteren and J.M. Landry. 2010. Livestock protection dogs: is an ancient tool relevant to modern 

conservation challenges? Bioscience 60:299-308.

Gillin, C.M., I.E. Chestin, P. Senchenkov and J. Claar. 1997. Management of bear-human conflicts using laika dogs. 

International Conference on Bear Research and Management 2:133-137.

Greenleaf, S.S., S.M. Matthews, R.G. Wright, J.J. Beecham and H.M Leithead. 2009. Food habits of American black bears 

as a metric for direct management of human-bear conflict in Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park, California. Ursus 

20:94-101.

Hopkins III, J.B., S. Herrero, R. Shideler, K. Gunther, C. Schwartz and S. Kalinowski. 2010. A proposed lexicon of terms 

and concepts for human-bear management in North America. Ursus 21:154-168.

Hopkins III, J.B and S. Kalinowski. 2013. The fate of transported American black bears in Yosemite National Park. Ursus 

24:120-126.

Homstol, L. 2011. Applications of learning theory to human-bear conflict: the efficacy of aversive conditioning and 

conditioned taste aversion. Master’s thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Proquest Dissertations and Theses 

database. No. MR70944.

Hortsman, L.P. and J.R. Gunson. 1982. Black bear predation on livestock in Alberta. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:34-39.

Hristienko, H. and J.E. McDonald Jr. 2007. Going into the 21st Century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the 

management of the American black bear. Ursus 18:72-88.

Huygens, O.C. and H. Hayashi. 1999. Using electric fences to reduce Asiatic black bear depredation in Nagano 

Prefecture, Central Japan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:959-964.

Hyngstrom, S.E. 1994. Black bears. Pages C5-C16 in Hyngstrom, S.E., R.M. Timm, and G.E. Larson (editors). Prevention 

and Control of Wildlife Damage. United States Department of Agriculture, University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. 

Accessed 4-01-2017. http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/ca_c5.pdf. 

Johansson, O. and J. Karlsson. 2010. Predictability of repeated carnivore attacks on livestock favours reactive use of 

mitigation measures. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:166-171.

Johnson, H.E., S.W. Breck, S. Baruch-Mordo, D.L. Lewis, C.W. Lackey, K.R. Wilson, J. Broderick, J.S. Mao and J.P. 

Beckmann. 2015. Shifting perceptions of risk and reward: Dynamic selection for human development by black bears in 

the western United States. Biological Conservation 187:164-172.

Kindall, J.L. and F.T. VanManen. 2007. Identifying habitat linkages for American black bears in North Carolina, USA. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71:487-495.
Page 24 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Kline, K.N., J.D. Taylor, and A.T. Morzillo. 2018. Estimating stand-level economic impacts of black bear damage to 

intensively managed forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48:758-765. 

Landriault, L.J., G. Brown, J. Hamr and F. Mallory. 2009. Age, sex and relocation distance as predictors of return for 

relocated nuisance black bears Ursus americanus in Ontario, Canada. Wildlife Biology 15:155-164.

Lee, D.J. and M.R. Vaughan. 2003. Dispersal movements by subadult American black bears in Virginia. Ursus 

14:162-170.

Leigh, J. and M.J. Chamberlain. 2008. Effects of aversive conditioning on behavior of nuisance Louisiana black bears. 

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2:175-182.

Lewis, D.L., S. Baruch-Mordo, K.R. Wilson, S.W. Breck, J.S. Mao and J. Broderick. 2015. Foraging ecology of black bears 

in urban environments: guidance for human-bear conflict mitigation. Ecosphere 6:141.

Linnell, J.D., J. Odden, M.E. Smith, R. Aanes and J.E. Swenson. 1999. Large carnivores that kill livestock: do “problem 

individuals” really exist? Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:698-705. 

Madison, J.S. 2008. Yosemite National Park: the continuous evolution of human-black bear conflict management. 

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2:160-167.

Massopust, J.L. and R.K. Anderson. 1984. Homing tendencies of translocated nuisance black bears in northern 

Wisconsin. Eastern Workshop on Black Bear Research and Management 7:66-73.

Matthews, S.M., J. Beecham, H. Quigley, S. Greenleaf and H.M. Leithead. 2006. Activity patterns of American black bears 

in Yosemite National Park. Ursus 17:30-40.

Mattson, D.J. 1990. Human impacts on bear habitat use. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 

8:33-56.

Mazur, R. and V. Seher. 2008. Socially learned foraging behavior in wild black bears, Ursus americanus. Animal 

Behaviour 75(4):1503-1508.

Mazur, R.L. 2010. Does aversive conditioning reduce human-black bear conflict? Journal of Wildlife Management 

74:48-54.

McArthur, K.L. 1981. Factors contributing to effectiveness of black bear transplants. Journal of Wildlife Management 

45:102-110.

McCarthy, T.M. and R. Seavoy. 1994. Reducing nonsport losses attributable to food conditioning: human and bear 

behavior modification in an urban environment. International Conference for Bear Research and Management 9:75-84.

Merkle, J.A., P. Krausman and M. Booth. 2011. Behavioral and attitudinal change of residents exposed to human-bear 

interactions. Ursus 22:74-83.

Merkle, J.A., P.R. Krausman, N.J. Decesare and J.J. Jonkel. 2011. Predicting spatial distribution of human-black bear 

interactions in urban areas. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1121-1127.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 25

Merkle, J.A., H.S. Robinson, P.R. Krausman and P. Alaback. 2013. Food availability and foraging near human 

developments by black bears. Journal of Mammalogy 94:378-385. 

Miller, L.,B. Johns and D. Elias. 1998. Immunocontraception as a wildlife management tool: some perspectives. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 26:237-243.

Moyer, M.A., J.W. McCown and M.K. Oli. 2007. Factors influencing home range size of female Florida black bears. 

Journal of Mammalogy 88:468-476.

Myers, P.J. and J.K. Young. Post-release activity and habitat selection of rehabilitated black bears. Human-Wildlife 

Interactions 12:322-337. 

Noyce, K.V. and D.L. Garshelis. 1997. Influence of natural food abundance on black bear harvests in Minnesota. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 61:1067-1074.

Noyce, K. and D. Garshelis. 2011. Seasonal migrations of black bears (Ursus americanus): causes and consequences. 

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:823-835.

Noyce, K. and D. Garshelis. 2014. Follow the leader: social cues help guide landscape-level movements of American 

black bears (Ursus americanus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 92:1005-1017.

Otto, T.E. and G.J. Roloff. 2015. Black bear exclusion fences to protect mobile apiaries. Human-Wildlife Interactions 

9:78-86.

Partridge, S.T., D.L. Nolte, G.J. Ziegltrum and C.T. Robbins. 2001. Impacts of supplemental feeding on the nutritional 

ecology of black bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:191-199.

Peine, J.D. 2001. Nuisance bears in communities: strategies to reduce conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 

6:223-237.

Piovesan, G. and J.M. Adams. 2001. Masting behavior in beech: linking reproduction and climatic variation. Canadian 

Journal of Botany 79:1039-1047.

Raithel, J.D., M.J. Reynolds-Hogland, D.N. Koons, P.C. Carr, and L.M. Aubry. 2017. Recreational harvest and incidentresponse management reduce human-carnivore conflicts in an anthropogenic landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 

54:1552-1562.

Ranglack, D.H., K.D. Signor, K. Bunnell, and J. Shivik. 2009. Black bear activity and visitation patterns at human food 

sources in Utah. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conference 13: 172-176. 

Rankin, C.H., T. Abrams, R.J. Barry, S. Bhatnagar, D.F. Clayton, J. Colombo, G. Coppola, M.A. Geyer, D.L. Glanzman, S. 

Marsland, F.K. Sweeney, D.A. Wilson, C.F. Wu, and R.F. Thompson. 2009. Habituation revisited: an updated and revised 

description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiology of learning and memory 92:135-138.

Rogers, L.L. 1986. Effects of translocation distance on frequency of return by adult black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

14:76-80.
Page 26 WDM Technical Series─Black Bear

Rogers, L.L. 1987. Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements and population growth of black 

bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 97. 70pp.

Rogers, L.L. 2011. Does diversionary feeding create nuisance bears and jeopardize public safety. Human-Wildlife 

Interactions 5:287-295.

Ryan, C.W., J. Pack, W. Igo and A. Billings. 2007. Influence of mast production on black bear non-hunting mortalities in 

West Virginia. Ursus 18:46-53.

Samson, C. and J. Hunt. 1998. Movements of female black bears in relation to landscape vegetation type in southern 

Quebec. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:718-727.

Schwartz, C.C. and A.W. Franzmann. 1992. Dispersal and survival of subadult black bears from the Kenai Peninsula, 

Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:426-431.

Schwartz, C.C., S. Cain, S. Podruzny, S. Cherry and L. Frattaroli. 2010. Contrasting activity patterns of sympatric and 

allopatric black and grizzly bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1628-1638.

Schrage, M.W. and M.R. Vaughan. 1998. Populations responses of black bears following oak mortality induced by gypsy 

moths. Ursus 10:49-54.

Shivik, J.A., A. Treves and P. Callahan. 2003. Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: primary and secondary 

repellents. Conservation Biology 17:1531-1537.

Shivik, J.A., D. Ruid, R.C. Willging, and K.E. Mock. 2011. Are the same bears repeatedly translocated from corn crops in 

Wisconsin? Ursus 22:114-119. 

Singer, F.J., and S.P. Bratton. 1980. Black bear/human conflicts in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

International Conference on Bear Research and Management 4:137-149.

Smith, K.G. and J.D. Clark. 1994. Black bears in Arkansas: characteristics of a successful translocation. Journal of 

Mammalogy 75:309-320.

Smith, T.S., S. Herrero and T.D. DeBruyn. 2005. Alaskan brown bears, humans, and habituation. Ursus 16:1-10.

Smith, W.E., P.J. Pekins, A.A. Timmins, and B. Kilham. 2016. Short-term fates of rehabilitated orphan black bears 

released in New Hampshire. Human-Wildlife Interactions 10:258-267. 

Spencer, R.D., R. Beausoleil and D. Martorello. 2007. How agencies respond to human-black bear conflicts: a survey of 

wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus 18:217-229. 

Storer, T.L., G.H. Vansell and B.D. Moses. 1938. Protection of mountain apiaries from bears by the use of electric fence. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 2:172-178.

Taylor, J.D., K.N. Kline and A.T. Morzillo. 2019. Estimating economic impact of black bear damage to western conifers at 

a landscape scale. Forest Ecology and Management 432:599-606.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 27

Ternent, M.A. and D.L. Garshelis. 1999. Taste-aversion conditioning to reduce nuisance activity by black bears in a 

Minnesota military reservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:720-728.

Voyles, Z., A. Treves and D. MacFarland. 2015. Spatiotemporal effects of nuisance black bear management actions in 

Wisconsin. Ursus 26:11-20.

White, T.H., J.L. Bowman, B.D. Leopold, H.A. Jacobson, W.P. Smith and F.J. Vilella. 2000. Influence of Mississippi alluvial 

valley rivers on black bear movements and dispersal: implications for Louisiana black bear recovery. Biological 

Conservation 95:323-331.

Wilder, J.M., T.D. Debruyn, T.S. Smith and A. Southwood. 2007. Systematic collection of bear-human interaction 

information for Alaska’s national parks. Ursus 18:209-216.

Wilson, S.M., M.J. Madel, D.J. Mattson, J.M. Graham, J.A. Burchfield and J.M. Belsky. 2005. Natural landscape features, 

human-related attractants, and conflict hotspots: a spatial analysis of human-grizzly bear conflicts. Ursus 16:117-129.

Wilson, S.M., M.J. Madel, D.J. Mattson, J.M. Graham and T. Merrill. 2006. Landscape conditions predisposing grizzly 

bears to conflicts on private agricultural lands in the western USA. Biological Conservation 130:47-59.

Witmer, G.W. and D. Whittaker. 2001. Dealing with nuisance and depredating black bears. Western Black Bear 

Workshop 7:73-81.

Zack, C.S., B.T. Milne and W.C. Dunn. 2003. Southern oscillation index as an indicator of encounters between humans 

and black bears in New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:517-520. 

Ziegltrum, G.J. 2004. Efficacy of black bear supplemental feeding to reduce conifer damage in western Washington. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 68:470-474.

Ziegltrum, G.J. 2006. Cost-effectiveness of the black bear supplemental feeding program in western Washington. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:375-379.

Ziegltrum, G.J. 2008. Impacts of the black bear supplemental feeding program on ecology in western Washington. 

Human-Wildlife Interactions 2:153-159.
Appendix 1

Page 28

 

Type of Control Available Management Options 

Aversive 

Conditioning

 Non-lethal projectiles

 Dogs

 Taste aversion

 Scare devices (firecrackers, propane cannons, horns, etc.)

Changes in Human 

Behavior

 Remove attractants

 Close trails and campsites

 Modify forestry, agriculture and husbandry practices

 Build wildlife underpasses and travel corridors

Diversionary 

Feeding

Lure bears away from valuable resources with alternative food sources, such as sugar-rich 

pellets, beef fat, and fruit

Exclusion  Bear-resistant containers

 Electric fencing

 Metal flashing

Hunting/Shooting Large caliber rifles and handguns or 12-gauge shotguns; Allowed with proper federal and 

state permits

Public Awareness 

and Education

 Post warnings at trail heads

 Websites

 Community forums

 Campaigns (Be Bear Aware, Bear Wise, Get Bear Smart, etc.)

Repellents Bear spray with capsicum

Translocation Most successful with non-food conditioned young bears (< 4 years old) moved greater 

than 75 miles (120 km) from capture site

Trapping  Aldrich foot snares

 Culvert traps

Damage Management for Black Bear
Appendix 2

Page 29

Reacting to a Bear Encounter

It is important to be prepared for bear encounters. In most cases, a non-habituated, non-food conditioned black 

bear will avoid people whenever possible. Injuries to people by black bears are very rare, and over 90 percent 

are minor. Crowding or invading a bear’s space is usually a factor in an attack, therefore, some bear experts 

recommend people keep a minimum distance of 225 ft/69 m when possible. Except in rare cases, even a 

surprise encounter with a mother and cubs usually results in black bear running away. Many sows will send their 

cubs up a tree while she herself retreats or climbs up behind them. This is a good time for you to leave. As a rule, 

a surprise encounter should be taken very seriously. If you live in an area inhabited by both black and brown/

grizzly bear, learn to distinguish between the species because they respond very differently to threats. Separate 

information is available for encounters with brown/grizzly bear. When in areas with both species, always 

assume the bear you are seeing is a brown/grizzly until you know otherwise. Neither species is likely to attack 

anyone in a tight group of at least 3 to 4 people. However, if people are spread out from one another, they are 

often treated as though each was alone. Bear spray should always be carried and within reach. 

Preparation is key. Consider what you would do if you meet a bear and talk about this with your group, family, or 

neighbors. Bear can run at 44 ft/second (30 mph), so it is best to make your presence known in bear country to 

avoid a surprise encounter at close range. Your reaction distance may be short in dense woods, on windy days, 

or near running water. To alert bears to your presence, sing or talk while breaking sticks or making other natural 

sounds in the woods. When camping, do not camp if bear scat, other bear signs, or a bear’s natural foods are 

present. Use designated campsites unless there is evidence of bears. Cook away from and downwind of your 

tent, do not sleep in clothes that you have cooked in, and do not keep food in your tent. Store food and trash in 

bear-proof containers or put it where bear cannot get to it (i.e, hanging attractants from a tree or pole not 

accessible to bear). 

Most of the time a black bear will leave after an encounter. Unless the bear is a known nuisance, it should be 

allowed to leave voluntarily. Preventing a bear’s escape may result in human injury, and bears that have chosen 

to leave should never be pursued. Surprised bear may do ‘bluff’ charges or swat at the ground with their paws. 

In this case, stand your ground, speak firmly, and slowly wave your hands to identify yourself as human and to 

help encourage the bear to leave. You should be aware that bear might make similar demonstrations to ask you 

to leave; these are covered in the section on Social Behavior and Communication. Direct, initiation of 

confrontation of a bear is never advisable, so people should demonstrate a willingness to leave the bear alone. 

Move off the trail or side-step slowly away from the bear so you can watch where you are going; backing up can 

cause you to fall. 

Bear may occasionally walk towards people despite attempts to frighten or deter them away. This can happen 

for a variety of reasons. In the case of a food-conditioned bear, it may have learned that approaching or 

threatening people results in a food reward. Whenever possible, never reward an approaching bear with food. 

One popular strategy is to drop another object, such as a camera or water bottle, that will distract them. Bears 

that are rummaging through personal goods may be chased off by charging, shouting, and throwing objects near 

them. Note that this is NOT a strategy to be used with brown/grizzly bear. Curious approaches are most common 

with young ‘teenage’ bear. This, too, should be discouraged. Stand your ground, yell, and stomp your feet to 

encourage the bear to leave. Bear may attempt to follow people out of curiosity or, in rare cases, because they 

consider them as prey. Bear spray is an effective deterrent. If a black bear makes physical contact with you, fight 

back! Always report incidents to local authorities.
Appendix 3

Page 30

 

 

Factor 

 

Description 

Release 

Location

Prior to relocation, an evaluation of the release area and its resources can help with successful 

translocations. Additionally, agencies should consider the health of the animal since candidates 

will exert a great deal of energy returning home, locating new sources of food, or defending 

themselves. 

Distance This is a major factor influencing the success of translocation. Multiple studies suggest that 

distances greater than 37 miles (60 km) provide the best chance for success, but success has 

been observed at shorter distances (26 miles/42 km). It has been further suggested that 

distances greater than 40 miles (64 km) are necessary to ensure a 50 percent non-return rate 

and that distances over 75 miles (120 km) are best. 

Age Independent bears (not dependent on the mother) under 4 years of age are the best candidates 

for translocation. Some reports state that only 18 percent within this age group return to nuisance 

behavior, and even less return to the site of capture. Older bears are less likely to adopt new 

home ranges after translocation, but are more likely to survive. Adult males are poor translocation 

candidates during the mating season, and adult females are generally less successful than males. 

Adult bears, regardless of whether they are successfully translocated, may be more likely to 

resume nuisance behavior than younger bears; however, one study reported that only 39 percent 

continued nuisance behavior. 

Sex Young males naturally disperse from their natal home range and are better candidates for 

translocation than females, especially at young ages. Females do not usually disperse and may be 

poor candidates due to their tendency to return to their natal territory. Studies suggest that some 

young males may already be in the act of dispersal (i.e. searching for home ranges) when they are 

captured for nuisance behavior. 

Family 

Status

One study showed that mother bears with cubs were successfully translocated during the winter 

denning season. There is no reported difference in homing response between independent 

females versus females with cubs at other times of the year. However, cub mortality can be quite 

high in the first year, and translocating a mother with cubs might further jeopardize survival of the 

cubs if their mother attempts to return home. 

Season Translocation success is low for male bear during the breeding season. Conflicting studies have 

shown that late-season translocations may be more successful than translocations during other 

times of the year, but that some bear return to capture sites in the spring after hibernating at their 

release sites. Females with cubs have been successfully translocated during winter denning. 

Physical 

Barriers

Some studies suggest that topographical features, such as mountain ranges or large rivers, may 

play a role in translocation success. One study indicated river width may prevent some bear from 

returning to capture sites. A 1-mile (1,600 m) wide river was a barrier to some bear while a 656-ft 

(200 m) wide river was not. 

Factors Affecting Black Bear Translocation