Jump to content

Course:Bear in mind: Human Polar Bear Conflict in North America

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

Although human-polar bear interactions are rare,[1] the number of altercations has gradually increased over time as climate change and anthropocentric expansion persist.[2] This page will look specifically at conflicts in North America, the frequency of these interactions and explain how and why they happen. It will also discuss what is currently being done to prevent these interactions from happening, as well as what should be done in the future. The main focus is on environmental impacts, but other causes will also be touched on briefly.

Background

Polar bear crossing the road near Churchill, Manitoba.

Human-polar bear conflicts arise when polar bears exhibit stress-related behaviour, causing humans to take extreme evasive action.[1]

History

Encounters between humans and polar-bears have been of ongoing concern in North America with debate surrounding the ethics native-guided and trophy hunting. Around 60% of the world's polar bears exist in or around Canada's eastern Arctic.[3] Whilst countries including the United States, Norway and the Soviet Union banned all recreational hunting of polar bears in the early 1970s, Canada initiated a program of native-guided hunting, enabling Indigenous people with the right to benefit from their wildlife resources. [4] Historically, addressing the human-polar bear conflict has been of low priority, however as the ethics have been reviewed and as polar bears continue to become more reliant on land due to the Arctic warming, minimising the interactions have become high management priority. [1] Churchill, a town in far North Manitoba has continuously been an area common for polar bear attacks on humans. Churchill is home to the Western Hudson Bay polar bear and is a culturally heterogeneous area, composed of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. [5] In Fort Churchill, the garbage dumps are proximal to apartment areas which draws in the polar bears and often, humans can be found walking around the feeding bears, feeding them, taking photos and making fun of them. In 1996, a sub-adult male polar bear attacked a young boy near Fort Churchill.[6]Further attacks followed in 1967 when a different sub-adult polar bear attacked 2 Cree Indians and in 1968 when another polar bear attacked a 19 year-old Eskimo boy in this area. All 3 of these polar bears were then killed by royal Canadian mounted officers. [6] Between 1970-2000, a total of 618 polar bear kills were recorded as human defence of life and property, and majority of those kills came from native camp types that were base camps for hunting.[3] In Alaska, the discovery of one of the world's largest oil fields at Prudhoe Bay contributed to a dramatic increase in human populations since the 1960s, when it was discovered.[7] Whilst this region contains 40% of the remaining oil and gas in the United States, it is also home to many polar bears, causing a conflict between the level of human activity and conditions of the polar bear habitat. [7] Polar bears are further impacted by human activity due to hunting, contamination, anxiety caused by motor vehicle traffic and reductions in food availability which cause added stress within polar bear populations and can create real problems for polar bears due to disturbances to their habitats. [7]

Why does it occur?

Key Drivers

Climate change and human impact are the two main drivers that blur the boundaries between the territories of humans and polar bears resulting in conflict between the two parties. [2]

Climate change

Climate change is the main driver attributed to the increase in human-polar bear conflicts in Canada. As a result of climate change, the warming sea can be considered as a main cause of human-polar bear conflicts. As the sea warms, rapid ice loss becomes more common with longer ice-free seasons. With these stressed conditions, polar bears are forced to spend more time on land because of the limited access to sea ice. These ice restrictions minimise their feeding opportunities and cause major nutritional stressors that may be heightened during their mating seasons.[8]

Indirect effects include major disruptions to Arctic marine food webs, due to the abnormally warm sea temperatures. Causing large population declines in polar bear's preferred prey, for instance the Ringed Seal. Additionally, due to the increase in ice-free seasons polar bears are forced to spend more time on land in search of food. This significantly increases the possibility of human exposure, as the polar bears tend to search for food in close proximity to human settlements, such as near garbage dumps.[9]

With the increasing length of ice-free periods polar bears have been forced to migrate to terrestrial land to establish dens.[10] Dens that were established on ice packs has declined from 62% from 1984-1994 to 37% from 1998-2004.[10] This transition from pack ice denning to terrestrial denning can increase the risk of human-polar bear conflicts.[10] Additionally human bear interactions can add to denning females’ stress, abandonment of dens as well as lower reproductive success.[10] Den abandonment can be detrimental for female bears and their offspring as they faced with extreme weather and environmental conditions which lowers offspring survival.[10]

Human Impact

Human expansion into polar bear inhabited regions is another main driver that has increased human polar bear interactions, which simultaneously results in more conflict. Examples of these expansions can include logging, oil and gas operations, tourism, and the increasing human population.[2] Additionally, food waste from dumps and litter can be considered an alternate food source for polar bears when their main food sources are limited, which can increase the likelihood of conflict between humans and polar bears.[2]

Alternative food sources from dumps may consist of plastic pollution and other anthropogenic litter which can be indigestible when consumed by polar bears[11]. A study conducted in North Slope Borough, Alaska performed stomach content analyses on 42 polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation and found that 12 of them had plastics in their stomach, 5 of them had litter other than plastics, and 1 was recorded to have pollutants.[11] In this study, the litter other than plastic included food wrappers, cardboard, wax paper and paper towel.[11] The pollutants described in the study was mechanical grease.[11] All of which can cause detrimental effects on polar bear health and further affect communities that rely on polar bears for harvesting and consumption.[11] The harvesting of polar bears by indigenous communities is authorized by the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act.[11]

Starting in the 1980s, polar bear tours have only grown in popularity in Churchill, Manitoba.[12] Tourists are taken in vehicles to Gordon Point, which is an area along the Hudson Bay where polar bears migrate to in the fall to wait for sea ice to form.[12] During these tours, polar bears tend to be approached at distances less than 40 meters and sometimes harassed.[12] These recreational activities can significantly impact polar bear behaviour, such as increased predation, death and alertness, as well as decreased feeding times.[12] With the increase in ice free periods due to climate change, these tourist attraction seasons could be extended, resulting in an increased exposure of these stressors to polar bears.[12]

Current Remedial Actions: How to Mitigate These Interactions

Historically, mitigating the interactions has been a low management priority. But, as Arctic warming has increased, polar bears have become more reliant on land and thus mitigation strategies have become more of a priority.[13] Successful mitigation usually requires changing human behaviour.[13]

Two main perspectives have emerged from the literature on how best to deal with the issue of human-polar bear conflict; indigenous perspectives and government perspectives. They are both important in helping to minimise conflicts in their own ways but ideally should be used together. There have been attempts to combine the two. In 2011, Fort Severn, in Ontario, held a meeting to discuss how to deal with human-polar bear conflicts. The management system and council decided to implement indigenous ideas of the Cree. Fort Severn is present at meetings of the International Polar Worlds Conference, thanks to the help of federal representatives. This allows Ontario to build upon past initiatives and implement co-management strategies in the province, combing indigenous ideas with federal policy.[14]

Indigenous Perspectives

The indigenous perspective is focused mainly on using indigenous knowledge, perspectives and practices in order to mitigate the interactions.[15] As the knowledge of indigenous peoples are so important, they are constantly interviewed when looking into how to mitigate interactions. Indigenous knowledge holders in studies have emphasised the importance of intergenerational storytelling, ceremony, and community customs in creating a culture of coexistence between people and polar bears by teaching principles such as respect, and coexistence strategies such as avoidance.[16]

The indigenous perspective utilises proactive behaviours, hoping to prevent human polar-bear interactions before they happen rather than just reacting to them after they happen. A study in Quebec that conducted interviews with local elders and hunters aimed to use traditional ecological knowledge of polar bears. These participants were shown to have greater knowledge of polar bear biology than scientists. Those that were interviewed, showed extensive knowledge of feeding ecology and dependence of the bears on sea ice.[17] This knowledge helped provide insights into how they affect polar bear distribution and foraging patterns, two things that directly cause human polar-bear conflict.[18] Using this indigenous knowledge allows mitigation strategies to be implemented that prevent human-polar bear interactions from occurring as they help predict where the polar bears will be and when they will be closest to humans.

One of these strategies that stems from indigenous seasonal knowledge is being able to plan safe travel routes and avoid high-risk polar bear areas. The Quebec study showed that they used their knowledge to help inform safe land-use and travel decisions.[17] Another study showed how native communities used traditional ecological knowledge to track polar bear habitat use, sea-ice conditions and bear behaviour.[19] Being able to track this allows for more effective land-use and travel routes that avoid polar bears. This is useful as it involves simply finding ways to co-exist rather than having to drastically, and perhaps violently, impact the bears.

Government Perspectives

The government perspective, on the other hand, focuses on government bodies directly enforcing policies as well as passing legislations that show they are formally responsible for mitigating human-wildlife interactions.[20] The effectiveness of how these agencies respond to conflict and attempt to prevent future conflict has been explored in the literature.

In 1969 the Polar Bear Control Program was implemented in Churchill Manitoba, as polar bear interactions and conflicts started to increase.[2] This program allowed resource officers to shoot, trap and relocate polar bears that were found in and around the town, which was intended to ensure the safety of humans and the protection of polar bears.[2] 

A case study on a brutal polar bear attack in Churchill in 2013 looked into the responses of management agencies and local people. In the aftermath of the attack, interviews took place to gage what was being done to prevent further conflict. Mixed results about effectiveness were clear. Whilst Manitoba Conservation, Parks Canada and authorities from Churchill responded relatively well, their solutions were short-term. Installation of bear-proof garbage containers and increased hazing and patrols by the PBA (Polar Bear Alert) Programme were introduced. They were able to manage proximate causes but struggled with addressing systematic causes like climate change and tourism. So, although management agencies showed promising signs of reaction, more needs to be done.[21]

The use of mostly short-term solutions is a recurring theme in governmental mitigation of human-polar bear interactions. In the Arctic and areas of North America, the methods used are now outdated. Key governmental policies like the Endangered Species Act (ESA) were designed to deal with short-term disturbances like over-hunting and local pollution that caused the conflicts. It did not take into account the long-term, systematic changes like sea-ice decline or shifting ecosystems that are now leading to more conflict. These newer, larger issues are not being dealt with effectively by government bodies. It is possible that these out-of-date policies will fail when responding to threats that have evolved over decades rather than sudden events.[22]

The North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management in Alaska was put in place to maintain community-based harvest and health monitoring programs for marine mammals.[11] These programs monitor polar bears to further understand the stressors they face as the Arctic continues to change and climate change progresses.[11]

It is quite clear then that successful mitigation relies heavily on indigenous knowledge that needs to be applied to government bodies that have the most power to combat these human-polar bear interactions.

Bear Behaviour

Aside from external factors, human-bear conflict can be driven by individual bear behaviour. For instance, polar bears may act differently depending on social status, by taking more risks because they're hungry and there is limited food.[9]

A study by Larson et al, (2020) looked into the disturbance caused by humans to denning polar bears and ultimately concluded that the polar bears in the Prudhoe Bay area in Alaska seem to be more tolerant of human disturbance than previously thought.[10] However, it was also mentioned that the results of this study could be dependent on the area in which polar bears reside and their proximity to said human disturbances.[10] Meaning polar bears that reside in areas with less human disturbance could have a more adverse reaction to human disturbance.[10] The study additionally tested a 1.6km buffer around denning areas to minimize disturbance from industrial activities such as construction, traffic and the oil and gas industry, which was proven to be an effective method of disturbance minimization when monitoring is not possible.[10] Due to the bears being more tolerant to disturbance than previously thought, the study mentioned that the complete termination of industrial activities in bear denning areas may not be necessary.[10] Rather they propose that these areas be monitored until there is emergence from the den and at which point industrial operations would be temporarily stopped until the bears have left the den (this was a 13 day suspension of operations).[10]

A study by Owen et al (2021), conducted near Milne Point, Alaska, aimed to analyze at what distances industrially sourced noises would be heard by polar bears while denning and during den emergence in deep and shallow dens.[23] The study found that in a closed den (a den in mid-hibernation) there was a high probability that an aircraft would be detected at distances less than or equal to 1.6km.[23] Additionally, with the same type of den, ground-based noise disturbances had a high probability of being detected at distances of less than or equal to 0.8km.[23] It was found that noise levels in deep closed dens were more detectable and greater than those in shallow closed dens.[23] There are a few factors, such as snow porosity, snowdrift depth, prevailing winds and den orientation relative to the noise disturbance, that could affect the amount of noise detected by polar bears within their dens.[23] For shallow open dens (dens that replicated den emergence) the study found that there was a high detection probability of being detected at distances under 2.3km.[23] Furthermore, for the same type of den, ground-based noise disturbances could be detected at distances under 1.2km.[23] These results additionally indicated that aircraft detection in shallow open dens would likely be detected at distances greater than 1.6 km during emergence periods.[23] The study emphasized the importance of finding these dens prior to further advancing any operations or industrial activities to mitigate any potential disturbances, as these exclusion zones are only “impermeable” if there is a den within the zone. [23] These findings support the continuous implementation of 1.6km exclusion or buffer zones around polar bear dens, which was mentioned in the study by Larson et al. (2020).[10]

The Path Forward

Short-Term Solutions

As the frequency of human-polar bear interactions rises due to climate change and increased land use of the polar bears, it is important to find ways to co-exist and safely mitigate possible interactions where they are known. Like the Indigenous perspective suggests, a non-harmful, temporary solution to mitigating these interactions involves using a combination of traditional ecological knowledge and recognising patterns and trends in polar bear behaviour so humans can then make safe, informed decisions about travel routes and land use around the polar bears. [17][19] Unlike the government perspective which enables authorities to shoot and trap polar bears [2], the Indigenous framework provides a non-violent solution that enables humans and polar bears to co-exist and avoid further brutalities. Additionally, tourism industries across North America should reconsider the ethics of conducting polar bear tours as they are invasive and can have harmful effects such as the increase in predation, death and decrease their feeding time. [24] Another possible short-term solution is the use of deterrents to drive polar bears away from human populations. A study in Northern Alaska found that use of vehicles as a deterrent was the most effective, viable and non-lethal mechanism for mitigating human-polar bear interactions. [25] Evidently, there are multiple short-term solutions to mitigating human-polar bear interactions that can be implemented rather than using brutality as favoured by government perspectives which largely on human welfare over the polar bears'.

Long-Term Solutions

The increase in polar bear-human conflict calls for urgent attention and intervention to protect the safety of both human and polar bears. Long-term solutions are vital to ensure polar-bear generations do not rely on humans for food in the future, which supports polar bear conservation and ensures conflict reduction. Merging multidisciplinary research can aid in strategy formation, as there’s no single solution to stop human-polar bear conflict. Human intervention such as improving waste control which minimises bear attraction to human communities, long-term monitoring of polar bears, and conservation intervention are obtainable goals which can help reduce human-polar bear conflicts.[9]

Major disruptions to polar bear habitats and food webs may create pressure for conservation interventions, such as supplemental feeding, to minimize nutritional deficits in at-risk populations. However, this conservation intervention may cause negative effects, unintentionally conditioning polar bears to associate humans with food, calling for additional intervention. Additionally, poor waste control and open garbage dumps are some of the primary drivers for human-bear conflicts in northern neighbourhoods, as the smell of food waste is a major attraction factor. Long-term solutions therefore include educating local communities on the importance of proper waste control and improving garbage management, by creating sealed garbage containers and centers.[26] Long-term polar bear monitoring is another factor that can help contribute to the long-term solution to mitigate human-polar bear conflicts. Monitoring the long term trends, we can identify what the best management systems work and which ones don't to reduce human-polar bear interactions.[27]

Conclusion

Human–polar bear conflict is a complex and ongoing challenge driven by multiple factors such as climate change, expansion of human activity, and shifting polar bear behaviour. This calls for multidisciplinary research and strategic action to combat these issues. While short-term solutions such as polar bear relocation to reduce immediate risk, and the incorporation of indigenous perspectives and frameworks are helpful, long-term solutions are also required. Long-term solutions include a more integrated approach that incorporates Indigenous knowledge, government policy, and scientific research. Improved waste management, focus of educating local communities, and sustained monitoring of polar bear health and habitat use are examples of long-term solutions. By prioritizing coexistence, reducing attractants, and planning for the current and expected ecological changes, educated communities are able to adapt and better protect both people and polar bears, ensuring safer and more sustainable relationships in the future.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Wilder, James; Vongraven, Dag; Atwood, Todd; Hansen, Bob; Jessen, Amalie; Kochnev, Anatoly; York, Geoff; Vallender, Rachel; Hedman, Daryll (2017). "Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 41(3): 537–547.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Towns, Lindsay; Derocher, A.E.; Stirling, I.; Lunn, N.J.; Hedman, D. (2009). "Spatial and temporal patterns of problem polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba". Polar Biology. 32(10): 1529–1537.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Dyck, Markus G (2006). "Characteristics of Polar Bears Killed in Defense of Life and Property in Nunavut, Canada, 19702000". Ursus. 17: 52–62.
  4. ↑ Freeman, M. M. R.; Wenzel, G. W. (2006). "The Nature and Significance of Polar Bear Conservation Hunting in the Canadian Arctic". Arctic. 59: 21–30.
  5. ↑ Schmidt, Aimee L.; Loring, Philip; Philip, Douglas A. (2022). "Local Experts' Observations, Interpretations, and Responses to Human-Polar Bear Interactions in Churchill, Manitoba". ARCTIC. 75: 257–271.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Jonkel, C.J. (1970). [https:doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(70)90144-8 "Some comments on polar bear management"]. Biological Conservation. 2: 115–119.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Amstrup, Steven C.; Stirling, Ian; Lentfer, Jack W. "Past and Present Status of Polar Bears in Alaska". JSTOR.
  8. ↑ Heemskerk, Sarah (December 2020). "Temporal dynamics of human-polar bear conflicts in Churchill, Manitoba".
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Clark, Douglas (2012). "Polar Bear-human conflicts: state of knowledge and research needs". line feed character in |title= at position 51 (help)
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 Larson, Wesley, G; Smith, Thomas, S; York, Geoff (June 2020). "Human Interactions and Disturbances of Denning Polar Bears on Alaska's North Slope". Arctic. 46: 195–203 – via JSTOR.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 Stimmelmayr, Raphaela; SimsKayotuk, Carla; Pederson, Mike; Sheffield, Gay; Frantz, Rita; Nayakik, Jared; Adams, Billy (July 2023). "Anthropogenic waste ingestion of Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears, Alaska (2010-2020)". URSUS. vol 34: 1–7 – via BioOne Digital Library.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Dyck, Markus G.; Baydack, Richard K. "Vigilance behaviour of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the context of wildlife-viewing activities at Churchill, Manitoba, Canada". Elsevier.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Atwood, Todd; Wilder, James (2021). "Human-polar bear interactions". Ethology and behavioral ecology of sea otters and polar bears: 325–353 – via Springer International Publishing.
  14. ↑ Kakekaspan, Matthew; Walmark, Brian; Harvey Lemelin, Raynald; Dowsley, Martha; Mowbray, Dawne (2013). "Developing a polar bear co-management strategy in Ontario through the indigenous stewardship model" Check |url= value (help). Polar record. 49(3): 230–236 – via Cambridge University Press.
  15. ↑ Datta, Ranjan; Chapola, Jebunnessa; Owen, Kara; Hurlbert, Margot; Foggin (2024). "Indigenous land-based practices for climate crisis adaptions". EXPLORE. 20 – via Elsevier.
  16. ↑ Miller, Katharina; Berg, Georgina; Lickers, Michael; McIvor, Nickia; Henri, Dominique (2025). "Coexistence between people and polar bears supports Indigenous knowledge mobilization in wildlife management and research". Communications Earth & Environment. 74(6).
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Laforest, Brandon; Hebert, Julie; Obbard, Martyn; Thiemann, Gregory (2018). "Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Polar Bears in the Northern Eeyou Marine Region, Québec, Canada". Arctic. 71: 40–58.
  18. ↑ Clark, Douglas; Beest, Floris; Brook, Ryan (2012). "Polar Bear-human conflicts: state of knowledge and research needs". Canadian Biology Wildlife and Management. 1(1): 21–29. line feed character in |title= at position 52 (help)
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Voorhees, Hannah; Sparks, Rhonda; Huntington, Henry; Rode, Karyn (2014). "Traditional Knowledge about Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in Northwestern Alaska". Arctic. 67(4): 523–536.
  20. ↑ Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof; Putkowska‐Smoter, Renata (2021). "What Is the Role of the Government in Wildlife Policy? Evolutionary Governance Perspective". Politics and Governance. 9(2): 428–438. line feed character in |title= at position 68 (help)
  21. ↑ Schmidt, Aimee; Clark, Douglas (2018). ""It's Just a Matter of Time:" Lessons from Agency and Community Responses to Polar Bear-inflicted Human Injury" Check |url= value (help). Conservation and society. 16(1): 64–75. line feed character in |title= at position 75 (help)
  22. ↑ Meek, Chanda (2011). "Putting the US polar bear debate into context: The disconnect between old policy and new problems". Marine Policy. 35(4): 430–439 – via Elsevier Science Direct. line feed character in |title= at position 70 (help)
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 Owen, Megan A; Pagano, Anthony M; Wisdom, Sheyna S; Kirschhoffer, Bj; Bowles, Ann E; O'Neill, Caitlin (December 2020). "Estimating the Audibility of Industrial Noise to Denning Polar Bears". The Journal of Wildlife Managment. 85: 384–395 – via Wiley.
  24. ↑ Dyck, Markus G.; Baydack, Richard K. "Vigilance behaviour of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the context of wildlife-viewing activities at Churchill, Manitoba, Canada". Elsevier.
  25. ↑ Miller, Susanne; Wilson, Ryan R.; Mangipane, Lindsey S.; Gordon II, Nathan; Von Duyke, Andrew L.; Sims-Kayotuk, Carla (24 April 2025). "Efficacy of deterrents for mitigating human-polar bear conflict in northern Alaska". The Wildlife Society.
  26. ↑ Smith, Tom; et al. [file:///C:/Users/laure/Downloads/Smith%20et%20al.%202022.pdf "Anthropogenic food: an emerging threat to polar bears"] Check |url= value (help) (PDF). line feed character in |title= at position 42 (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
  27. ↑ Rode, Karyn (February 2024). "Identifying indicators of polar bear population status". ScienceDirect.


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:Bear_in_mind:_Human_Polar_Bear_Conflict_in_North_America&oldid=882091"