Geology topics

James Wilder

Publications and source records attributed to James Wilder.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Efficacy of bear spray as a deterrent against polar bears

Although there have been few attempts to systematically analyze information on the use of deterrents on polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ), understanding their effectiveness in mitigating human-polar bear conflicts is critical to ensuring both human safety and polar bear conservation. To fill this knowledge gap, we analyzed 19 incidents involving the use of bear spray on free-ranging polar bears from 1986 to 2019 in Canada, Russia, and the United States to evaluate the effectiveness of bear spray as a polar bear deterrent. We found that bear spray was an effective deterrent in close-range encounters with polar bears, stopping undesirable behavior in 18 of 19 incidents. Bear spray effectively deterred both curious and aggressive polar bears, including polar bears attempting to attack people. The mean distance between user and bear at the time of spraying was 2 m (min–max = 0.2–10.0 m, mode = 1 m), though bears were usually first seen at greater distances. Bear spray was successfully deployed against polar bears in all 4 seasons. Wind affected spray performance in 1 of 19 of incidents. In 8 of 14 bear spray incidents, other deterrents were used without success before bear spray was used effectively to deter polar bears. No humans or polar bears were killed or injured in any of the incidents in which bear spray was used. We also analyzed 54 polar bear attacks and attempted attacks on humans where bear spray was not carried. The data suggest that in 93% of those incidents, the use of bear spray might have saved the lives of both the people and bears involved if it had been available and used. Our analysis improves our understanding of the effectiveness of bear spray for polar bear conflict mitigation.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2021

Human-polar bear interactions

Human-wildlife interactions (HWI) are driven fundamentally by overlapping space and resources. As competition intensifies, the likelihood of interaction and conflict increases. In turn, conflict may impede conservation efforts by lowering social tolerance of wildlife, especially when human-wildlife conflict (HWC) poses a threat to human safety and economic well-being. Thus, mitigating conflict is one of the most consequential components of a wildlife management program, particularly for large carnivores. However, unlike other large carnivores, the causative factors and conservation consequences of interactions between humans and polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) are poorly understood. Historically, mitigation of human-polar bear conflict has been a low management priority with the exception of a few locations where conflict had been a chronic concern. In part, this was because of low human densities in most of the Arctic and sea ice act as a physical barrier regulating the frequency of human-polar bear interactions. However, as the Arctic has warmed, anthropogenic activities have increased, and polar bears have become more reliant on land. As a result, mitigating interaction and conflict between humans and polar bears has become a growing concern. In this chapter, we explore the nexus of polar bear and human behavior and environmental change in driving the nature and intensity of human-polar bear interaction and conflict. We first provide an overview of behaviors that contribute to the occurrence of interactions and conflicts. We then review historical and contemporary drivers of interaction and conflict and examine how climate-mediated changes to Arctic marine and terrestrial environments are likely to influence distribution and types of future incidents. We close by proposing a conceptual framework that conservationists and managers can use to mitigate the likelihood of future human-polar bear conflict in a rapidly changing Arctic.

Book chapter↗

USGS2018

Survey-based assessment of the frequency and potential impacts of recreation on polar bears

Conservation plans for polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) typically cannot prescribe management actions to address their primary threat: sea ice loss associated with climate warming. However, there may be other stressors that compound the negative effects of sea ice loss which can be mitigated. For example, Arctic tourism has increased concurrent with polar bears increasingly using terrestrial habitats, which creates the potential for increased human-bear interactions. Little is known about the types, frequency, or potential impacts of recreation. We conducted a Delphi survey among experts who live and work in polar bear habitats, followed by an internet-based survey to which 47 managers, tour operators, community members, and scientists contributed. Participants identified viewing-based recreation as increasing and affecting the largest proportion of bears within subpopulationsthat come ashore during the ice-free season. Survey respondents suggested that negative effects of viewing, including displacement and habituation, could be reduced by restricting human use areas and distances between bears and people. Killing of bears in defense was associated more with camping or hunting for other species than other recreations, and may be mitigated with deterrents. Snowmobiling was the most common recreation across the polar bears' range, and reportedly caused some den abandonment and displacement. However, respondents estimated that <10% of polar bears are exposed to most types of recreation and <50% surmised any negative impacts. Nevertheless, mitigating some of the negative impacts identified in this study may become increasingly important as polar bears cope with sea ice loss.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2017

Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate

Understanding causes of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) attacks on humans is critical to ensuring both human safety and polar bear conservation. Although considerable attention has been focused on understanding black (U. americanus) and grizzly (U. arctos) bear conflicts with humans, there have been few attempts to systematically collect, analyze, and interpret available information on human-polar bear conflicts across their range. To help fill this knowledge gap, a database was developed (Polar Bear-Human Information Management System [PBHIMS]) to facilitate the range-wide collection and analysis of human-polar bear conflict data. We populated the PBHIMS with data collected throughout the polar bear range, analyzed polar bear attacks on people, and found that reported attacks have been extremely rare. From 1870–2014, we documented 73 attacks by wild polar bears, distributed among the 5 polar bear Range States (Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and United States), which resulted in 20 human fatalities and 63 human injuries. We found that nutritionally stressed adult male polar bears were the most likely to pose threats to human safety. Attacks by adult females were rare, and most were attributed to defense of cubs. We judged that bears acted as a predator in most attacks, and that nearly all attacks involved ≤2 people. Increased concern for both human and bear safety is warranted in light of predictions of increased numbers of nutritionally stressed bears spending longer amounts of time on land near people because of the loss of their sea ice habitat. Improved conflict investigation is needed to collect accurate and relevant data and communicate accurate bear safety messages and mitigation strategies to the public. With better information, people can take proactive measures in polar bear habitat to ensure their safety and prevent conflicts with polar bears. This work represents an important first step towards improving our understanding of factors influencing human-polar bear conflicts. Continued collection and analysis of range-wide data on interactions and conflicts will help increase human safety and ensure the conservation of polar bears for future generations.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2017

Human-polar bear interactions in a changing Arctic: Existing and emerging concerns

The behavior and sociality of polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) have been shaped by evolved preferences for sea ice habitat and preying on marine mammals. However, human behavior is causing changes to the Arctic marine ecosystem through the influence of greenhouse gas emissions that drive long-term change in ecosystem processes and via the presence of in situ stressors associated with increasing human activities. These changes are making it more difficult for polar bears to reliably use their traditional habitats and maintain fitness. Here, we provide an overview of how human activities in the Arctic are likely to change a polar bear’s behavior and to influence their resilience to environmental change. Developing a more thorough understanding of polar bear behavior and their capacity for flexibility in response to anthropogenic disturbances and subsequent mitigations may lead to successful near-term management interventions.

Book chapter↗

USGS2016

The impacts of human recreation on brown bears (Ursus arctos): A review and new management tool

Increased popularity of recreational activities in natural areas has led to the need to better understand their impacts on wildlife. The majority of research conducted to date has focused on behavioral effects from individual recreations, thus there is a limited understanding of the potential for population-level or cumulative effects. Brown bears (Ursus arctos) are the focus of a growing wildlife viewing industry and are found in habitats frequented by recreationists. Managers face difficult decisions in balancing recreational opportunities with habitat protection for wildlife. Here, we integrate results from empirical studies with expert knowledge to better understand the potential population-level effects of recreational activities on brown bears. We conducted a literature review and Delphi survey of brown bear experts to better understand the frequencies and types of recreations occurring in bear habitats and their potential effects, and to identify management solutions and research needs. We then developed a Bayesian network model that allows managers to estimate the potential effects of recreational management decisions in bear habitats. A higher proportion of individual brown bears in coastal habitats were exposed to recreation, including photography and bear-viewing than bears in interior habitats where camping and hiking were more common. Our results suggest that the primary mechanism by which recreation may impact brown bears is through temporal and spatial displacement with associated increases in energetic costs and declines in nutritional intake. Killings in defense of life and property were found to be minimally associated with recreation in Alaska, but are important considerations in population management. Regulating recreation to occur predictably in space and time and limiting recreation in habitats with concentrated food resources reduces impacts on food intake and may thereby, reduce impacts on reproduction and survival. Our results suggest that decisions managers make about regulating recreational activities in time and space have important consequences for bear populations. The Bayesian network model developed here provides a new tool for managers to balance demands of multiple recreational activities while supporting healthy bear populations.

PLoS ONE↗