Brown bear (Ursus arctos) attacks resulting in human casualties in Scandinavia 1977-2016; management implications and recommendations

publishedVersio

Behaviour of Solitary Adult Scandinavian Brown Bears (Ursus arctos) when Approached by Humans on Foot

Successful management has brought the Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) back from the brink of extinction, but as the population grows and expands the probability of bear-human encounters increases. More people express concerns about spending time in the forest, because of the possibility of encountering bears, and acceptance for the bear is decreasing. In this context, reliable information about the bear's normal behaviour during bear-human encounters is important. Here we describe the behaviour of brown bears when encountering humans on foot. During 2006–2009, we approached 30 adult (21 females, 9 males) GPS-collared bears 169 times during midday, using 1-minute positioning before, during and after the approach. Observer movements were registered with a handheld GPS. The approaches started 869±348 m from the bears, with the wind towards the bear when passing it at approximately 50 m. The bears were detected in 15% of the approaches, and none of the bears displayed any aggressive behaviour. Most bears (80%) left the initial site during the approach, going away from the observers, whereas some remained at the initial site after being approached (20%). Young bears left more often than older bears, possibly due to differences in experience, but the difference between ages decreased during the berry season compared to the pre-berry season. The flight initiation distance was longer for active bears (115±94 m) than passive bears (69±47 m), and was further affected by horizontal vegetation cover and the bear's age. Our findings show that bears try to avoid confrontations with humans on foot, and support the conclusions of earlier studies that the Scandinavian brown bear is normally not aggressive during encounters with humans

National and transboundary perspectives of large carnivore conservation and management in Norway

Norway shares its populations of lynx (Lynx lynx), wolverine (Gulo gulo), brown bear (Ursus arctos), grey wolf (Canis lupus) and Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) with mainly Sweden, but also Finland and Russia. Norway and Sweden have a long history of dialogue and collaboration in questions relating to large carnivores (LC) in population monitoring and financing of long-term research. Monitoring collaboration has intensified in recent years with shared methodology and database, shared reporting of monitoring results and regular meetings to ensure that methods do not diverge between the two countries. That Norway and Sweden share LC populations is nothing new, but using the same monitoring methodology and registering the data in a common database has provided an improved platform for studying transboundary issues [1,2,3]. It is clear that Norwegian and Swedish management strategies do not operate independently of each other, and may affect the other country's ability to achieve its LC management objectives. It is equally clear that population management would benefit from greater collaboration between the two countries also in the practical management of these species. Norway and Sweden, as signatories to the Bern Convention, share the basic premises of LC protection and what is permitted as derogations from that protection. However, the Norwegian management policy is based on a principal of geographically differentiated management. This is a form of zonation to allow for viable large carnivore population while still enabling cultural and agricultural use of natural resources, of which free-range grazing of livestock is a significant part. Management in both countries is decentralised, but the manner in which this is organised differs between the countries. Norwegian population targets are precise and populations should be neither below nor above the set targets, whereas Sweden (as an EU member) identifies reference values for Favourable Conservation Status that act as de facto minimum population levels. These are all part of national frameworks that sometimes result in conflicting management objectives between the two countries. These differences make it a challenge to achieve the same level of cooperation in the practical LC management as in monitoring. There is extensive dialogue between the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency as central management authorities, and both central and regional management authorities are actively working to identify possible areas of cooperation. This includes, for example, a common handling of reports of wolves in close proximity to humans, and development of population level viability studies and harvest models. REFERENCES: 1. Gervasi, V. et al. (2016). Wildlife Biology 22 (3): 95-106. 2. Gervasi, V. et al. (2015). Biological Conservation 191: 632-639 3. Bischof, R. et al. (2016). Conservation Letters 9: 122–130.peerReviewe

Best models explaining time brown bears in Sweden spent active after being approached by humans.

<p>Resulting candidate models with ΔAIC_C < 2 after model dredging. We show AIC_C values, differences in AIC_C values (ΔAIC_C) and AIC_C weights for models (W_<i>i(M)</i>) and variables (W_<i>i(V)</i>). The “+” symbol indicates inclusion of a variable in the models without an interaction with other variables, whereas the “*” symbol indicates interactions between the variables included.</p><p>Best models explaining time brown bears in Sweden spent active after being approached by humans.</p

Best models explaining distance moved (m) by brown bears in Sweden after being approached by humans.

<p>Resulting candidate models with ΔAIC_C < 2 after model dredging. We show AIC_C values, differences in AIC_C values (ΔAIC_C) and AIC_C weights for models (W_<i>i(M)</i>) and variables (W_<i>i(V)</i>). The “+” symbol indicates inclusion of a variable in the models without an interaction with other variables, whereas the “*” symbol indicates interactions between the variables included.</p><p>Best models explaining distance moved (m) by brown bears in Sweden after being approached by humans.</p

Best models explaining sighting distance for brown bears that were approached by humans in Sweden.

<p>Resulting candidate models with ΔAIC_C < 2 after model dredging. We show AIC_C values, differences in AIC_C values (ΔAIC_C) and AIC_C weights for models (W_<i>i(M</i>)) and variables (W_<i>i(V)</i>). The “+” symbol indicates inclusion of a variable in the models without an interaction with other variables, whereas the “*” symbol indicates interactions between the variables included.</p><p>Best models explaining sighting distance for brown bears that were approached by humans in Sweden.</p

Forestry habitat classifications used in the description of initial and second sites of Scandinavian brown bears approached by humans on foot in Sweden (in alphabetical order by code).

<p>Forestry habitat classifications used in the description of initial and second sites of Scandinavian brown bears approached by humans on foot in Sweden (in alphabetical order by code).</p