Search

Diversionary feeding uses food to lure animals away from areas where they are unwanted or could cause conflicts with people. With bears (Ursidae) increasingly attracted to human food sources worldwide, diversionary feeding represents a seemingly logical and publicly acceptable means of alleviating conflicts. Feeding wildlife is widely practiced in Europe to enhance hunting and reduce conflicts, but feeding of bears is discouraged across North America. The efficacy and potential side-effects of bear feeding remain an open question because of a lack of rigorous studies. Here we examine 5 case studies from which we attempt to draw inferences about feeding as a conflict-mitigation strategy. Studies included U.S. national parks, where after bear feeding was banned conflicts were reduced; Aspen, Colorado, where lucrative dumpsters in town did not divert bears from using human-related foods at other sources; rural Minnesota, where results of intentional feeding of a small sample of bears were confounded with other variables; the Tahoe Basin of California–Nevada, where an emergency feeding effort during a drought-caused food failure seemed to reduce conflicts within approximately 1 km of the feeding site; and Slovenia, where a high density of feeders at established locations seemed to divert bears from using settlements during autumn hyperphagia. Although none of these studies were true experiments with treatments and controls, the range of circumstances yielded insights into when feeding could be effective: when food demands are not readily met by natural foods; when the provisioned food is easily found outside the potential conflict area; when the food is attractive; and when bears do not associate the feeding with people. However, long-term feeding may increase bear population size, which may increase conflicts overall, or trigger a demand for population control. Diversionary feeding, if used, should be conducted as an adaptive management strategy by professionals so as to learn more about factors influencing its effectiveness.

Supplemental feeding is often believed to be a successful tool for reducing human–bear (Ursus arctos) conflicts, especially in Europe. However, effectiveness of this measure is poorly understood and there is growing concern for potential negative side-effects. This is particularly true for supplemental feeding using livestock carrion. Carrion feeding is considered especially effective in reducing livestock depredations by diverting bears from pastures and meeting their protein needs. In Slovenia, year-round supplementary feeding of bears with livestock carrion and corn was intensive and in some areas practiced for over 100 years. However, in 2004 the use of livestock carrion was banned in accordance with European Union regulations. This provided an opportunity to study the effects of carrion feeding on livestock depredations by bears. We used sheep as they represented 97% of all depredation events by brown bears in Slovenia. We analyzed whether bears selectively used carrion feeding stations over...

Harvesting wild animals can affect demographic parameters and life history traits of surviving individuals. Most brown bear (Ursus arctos) populations currently experience low levels of hunting. We characterized mortality patterns in a heavily exploited transboundary brown bear population in Slovenia, Central Europe. Overall, 927 brown bears were reported removed from 1998 to 2008. Most (97%) removals were human caused including removals from hunting (59% of removals), management removals of problem individuals (18%), and vehicle collisions (16%). Median age of bears removed in Slovenia was 2.3 years, and 78% of bears removed were

Illegal killings are a major threat to wildlife conservation worldwide. Combating illegal killings and understanding the motives behind them are among the top challenges for the conservation of controversial species such as large carnivores. In Europe, the Eastern Alps are a focal area for many active brown bear (Ursus arctos) conservation and restoration projects. The wider public generally has a positive attitude toward bears and bear restoration, but some hunters and farmers seem less supportive. The extent this opposition can reach was demonstrated by the well documented illegal killing of a bear in the three-country triangle of Slovenia, Italy, and Austria in June 2009. We provide detailed background information and discuss this case within the context of the lack of a northward expansion of the Dinaric–Pindos bear population and the failed bear re-introduction in central Austria.

Use of habitat and resources of large carnivores living at the expansion front of a population can differ considerably from those living in core areas. Using GPS (global positioning system) telemetry, we studied movements of male brown bears living in the northwest edge of the Alpine–Dinaric–Pindos population in Slovenia and Italy, 2005–08. Because there was a steep gradient of female densities in the periphery of the population and females occurred only in a small portion of the area used by males, we could test how the distribution of breeding females affected the spatial distribution and movements of male brown bears. The home-range size of the males in our study was inversely related to female densities. During the mating season we observed directed movement from the periphery of the population with low female densities toward the core area with higher female densities. Our observations suggest that this strategy allows even males living at the periphery of the population, where no females we...