Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2026WT2/Group 2: Human Black Bear (Ursus Americanus) conflict in British Columbia: Status and potential solutions

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

A black bear (female) in Horsefly Peninsula, Quesnel Lake, British Columbia

British Columbia is home to around 150,000 black bears (Ursus americanus), and from 2013 to 2021, they were involved in around 67,000 negative human-black bear interactions[1]. Most human–bear conflicts in British Columbia are linked to anthropogenic attractants such as garbage, food storage, gardens, or campsites[2]. Another factor that plays a key role in conflict is the rural landscapes of British Columbia, which make many urban cities closer to forestlands and waterways, increasing the possibility of humans interacting with black bears [3]. At this time, a common solution to aggressive black bear conflicts is euthanization. There is evidence from research done by Ghimire in their 2024 Master's thesis proving that it is not a sustainable solution[4]. More importantly, there are other efforts such as bear smart community programs and translocations of black bears following conflicts[5]. These methods work towards reducing the number of conflicts while keeping black bears safe. This page provides an overview of human-black bear conflict in British Columbia, including the current status, exploring potential solutions, and looking at management styles that protect humans, yet also keep black bears safe.

Background Information

History of black bears across North America

Fig.1 Estimated primary and secondary range for American black bears in North America 2009-2012 [6]

American black bears (Ursus americanus) are considered an endemic species within North America [7], and were historically found across the continent. They were found in every province and territory of Canada, along with the continental states of the United States, and all the way into central Mexico[6]. However, with the ongoing land use changes and increased human activity, these populations will and have changed. These bears have been subject to hunting and poaching across North America, further causing habitat and range shifts[7]. The urbanization of many of North America's forested landscapes has worked to push out black bears from their natural habitats. Canada has maintained 95-100% of its historical range of black bears across the country, based on black bear spotting recordings, but the United States has lost a large portion of their black bear population range due to overexploitation of resources[6]. According to visual data collection from 2009-2012, Canada's black bear range is 70% of the entire country; there are no black bears found in Prince Edward Island due to extirpation in 1937[6].

To help maintain black bear populations across North America, the establishment of national parks and protected areas became more common. This was done alongside increased regulations regarding hunting, harvesting, and habitat protection[7]. Currently, black bears are considered an archetypal species. They have the widest range of the North American bear species[7].

Bear conflicts in North America

Extensive research from 1880 to 2020 shows that of 1482 recorded bear incidents in the United States, 45% caused no injury and 11% resulted in severe injury[5], with 58% occurring in Alaska. In Canada, 672 incidents were recorded, mostly in Alberta and British Columbia, with 52% involving no injury[5]. Grizzly bears were involved in more overall conflicts, but black bears accounted for the majority of fatal encounters[5]. Human-black bear conflicts have persisted for over 40 years without a clear solution. Efforts to mitigate conflicts, such as bear safe containers, have been limited due to high cost and lack of proper funding[8]. While capture and release paired with aversive conditioning has emerged as a more practical and cost-effective approach[8]. It allows the bears to remain within their home range, just farther away from urban life. Putting more effort into these solutions would help decrease the need for lethal interventions.

Black bears in British Columbia

In British Columbia, black bears occupy most regions except dense urban cores. Studies show their population density is more affected by human activity than habitat productivity, unlike grizzly bears [9]. Across areas like Parsnip Plateau and the Hart Ranges, black bear densities were about three times higher than grizzlies, based on methods such as GPS tracking, hair collection, and DNA sampling[9]. While both species are found on mountainsides, black bears also inhabit valley bottoms[9], suggesting a preference for lower elevations, likely due to competition with grizzlies. Comparisons with Alaska show densities as low as 89 bears per 1000 km2, which were much lower than the Parsnip Plateau densities[9]. Supporting the idea that black bears thrive in areas with fewer grizzly bears.

Black bear conflicts within British Columbia

Black bears have the highest encounters for large omnivores within the province[4]. In past studies related to black bear-induced injuries, a common trend that was clearly observed was that the increase of injuries did not occur within national parks; it was only outside of national parks that the spike was clearly seen[2]. Data from 1990-1997 showed that outside of national parks, 31 injuries and fatalities were observed, while within national parks, only 2 were observed[2].

Recent studies in British Columbia show black bears increasingly entering urban areas in search of food due to limited natural prey[4]. From 1960 to 1997, both fatal and non-fatal incidents rose alongside human population growth[2], highlighting the strong connection between bear activity and human growth. As black bears pursue anthropogenic food sources, conflicts are more likely at the urban-rural boundary[4], emphasizing that responsibility lies with both humans and wildlife. Management strategies include bear spray, electric fences, bear-resistant locks, fruit tree removals within cities, relocation, rehabilitation, and euthanasia[4]. The government also works with community programs like Bear Smart and WildSafeBC aimed at reducing harmful conflicts[4]. However, differing public opinions and complex ecological factors have made it difficult to implement a single, widely accepted solution.

Human Black Bear Conflict in British Columbia

Frequency and Intensity

Black bear rummaging through a trash bin in Vancouver, 2023

More recently, despite the efforts of the Bear Smart Community Program in British Columbia, data from 2013 to 2021 show 3,300 black bears were removed through lethal control due to conflicts[4]. While lethal control can be justified in certain cases, many recorded encounters involve low levels of aggression. In fact, a higher number of compliant encounters has been observed overall, highlighting the need for more humane solutions.

Black bears currently account for the highest number of human-related wildlife incidents involving in British Columbia. Between 2013 and 2021, over 145,000 human-black bear interactions were observed, though not all involved injuries or close contact[4]. Of these, approximately 66,000 of the encounters were classified as human-wildlife conflicts[4]. Data from the Wildlife Alert Reporting Program (WARP) from 2012 to 2021 showed that about 66,745 human-bear conflicts took place[1]. Of course, not all of these were of an aggressive nature; a larger portion were interactions as small as a black bear rummaging through garbage. Out of the 66,745, only 7,244 were considered to be threatening[1].

This equates to roughly 8,000 black bear interactions and about 900 negative conflicts per year, underscoring the need for sustainable management. Reducing human behaviours that attract bears is critical, as many encounters are linked to food accessibility. Primary attractions include leftovers at campsites or even bird feeders in backyards. Natural food availability also has a large influence on black bear patterns and habits within their territories. During low-production seasons, typically summer and autumn, black bears are more likely to enter urban and residential areas in search of food, increasing the risk of conflict[3]. The lack of natural prey, paired with the high availability of human foods, can motivate bears to venture into urban areas, causing overlapping habitats.

On a more positive note, the behaviour of black bears in British Columbia, particularly those living near urban and rural communities, has begun to shift in ways that can reduce direct conflict with humans. These behavioural changes include reduced day-to-day movement and increased nocturnal activity[10]. However, these developments are not reliable, as bear behaviour fluctuates with seasonal pressures. While nocturnal activity may lower human-bear interactions due to fewer people being active at night, it can also increase the bears' access to unguarded garbage, livestock, and compost[10]. This shift is likely driven by limited natural food availability, yet it does not consistently or sustainably mitigate conflict. For instance, high-conflict rural communities near Sooke experience heightened conflicts in autumn[10]. Trail camera data shows peak bear activity in summer and autumn, coinciding with abundant crops and preparation for the upcoming winter denning season [10]. The black bears in the Sooke study were also concluded to adjust their habitats based on food availability and human presence[10]. The findings of this case study are reflective of overall trends, as the majority of North American wildlife management agencies report summer and autumn as peak seasons for complaints against black bears to be filed[8]. Black bears carefully choose their habitats each year to fulfill their needs, emphasizing the need for management strategies that reflect their complex and diverse seasonal behaviour. Moreover, although ongoing black bear behavioural changes may in some ways reduce direct human-bear interactions, that does not inherently equate to human-bear coexistence.

Impacts of Black Bear Conflict

Some noted black bear behavioural changes, while seeming to reduce direct negative human-bear interactions, may still cause indirect conflicts. This is due to the fact that, largely as a result of their broad, omnivorous diets, black bears are particularly capable of adapting to living near human populations[11]. Increased nocturnal activity, for example, can also result in increased access to sources of food, such as garbage, compost, and livestock [10] [11]. Such attractants tend to be less guarded at night, and may be particularly enticing during periods of food scarcity [10]. Yet, even nocturnal use of these resources can have undesirable impacts on the human communities which use and maintain them. Notably, the property damage which is likely to occur may inflict financial, procedural, or emotional hardships on human individuals or communities [10]. For instance, during the spring, black bears along North America’s West Coast are known to peel bark from conifer trees as part of their natural foraging behaviours[12]. If this behaviour is carried out on trees intended for use in human industry, it can result in economic losses of either 4-16% (if the remaining trees remain salvageable for logging), or 17-46% (if the remaining trees are not salvageable)[12].

However, it should be noted that the socioeconomic impacts of black bears are not uniformly or uncomplicatedly negative. For instance, the Coastal First Nations have highlighted the economic importance of bear viewing, a popular form of ecotourism in the Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia[13]. In this instance, the impact of human-bear conflict is negative because responses to it may result in fewer local resident black bears to attract tourists.

Mitigation Measures in Practice

Current strategy and issues

At present, wildlife management agencies across North America use a variety of methods in order to prevent or lessen the impact of conflict between humans and black bears. These include the identification and relocation of “problem” bears[8], educating the public[14] through programs such as Bear Smart[15], training via aversive conditioning[16], limiting human-black bear interactions by removing or preventing easy access to attractants[10], and euthanasia[1]. Though not infallible, each of these methods can be effective, when used appropriately.

Education and awareness campaigns

Many methods of managing human-black bear conflict, such as relocation or euthanasia, tend to focus primarily on addressing the issue by focusing efforts on problem bears[11]. In contrast, education efforts, including British Columbia’s Bear Smart project, focus on humans living or visiting in areas where human-bear conflicts are likely to occur.

Education, as a method of management, has the unusual flexibility to be enacted both reactively and proactively. Other methods, like relocation and euthanasia, can only be used to resolve conflicts caused by already extant bears with a documented history of conflict behaviours. As such, while they may be the appropriate solution, in some cases, once a conflict has already occurred, they cannot typically be used to prevent future conflicts or problematic bear behaviours from developing. Education initiatives, though, have the potential to address these issues, because they address the root cause of many bear-human conflicts. Many black bear conflict behaviours can be linked to human behaviours which can, intentionally or unintentionally, create an abundant, relatively easily accessed attractants[10]. The effects of this issue can be exacerbated by lack of public education. For instance, humans may be unaware of how to prevent bears from accessing attractants[14], or may not understand the risks of intentionally providing access to attractants[17].

Additionally, education can assist in black bear management efforts by impacting public perception. Conflict between large, carnivorous or omnivorous animals and humans can be a notable conservation concern, because the perceived risks of such interactions can influence public opinion, potentially lowing public tolerance or increasing public demand for lethal solutions[14]. This is supported by survey findings, which have shown that individuals who believe bears to be an inherent threat are more likely to support lethal management methods than those with more positive feelings[18]. Education about bear behaviour can offer the public greater agency in the effort to protect their own communities. It can lead to increased vigilance and bear-deterring behaviours among citizens, which, especially when sustained in the long term, can reduce or prevent conflict with black bears[14]. Due to the importance of attitude and beliefs in predicting citizen intention to reduce black bear attractants on private property[19], the impacts of such positive outcomes may be long lasting.

With this in mind, it should be noted that education, alone, is not the solution to all human-black bear conflicts, and may not be effective in all instances. In many cases, lack of education may be only one of a multitude of factors which result in human-black bear conflict. For instance, other relevant factors include: whether an individual is capable of acting in ways which align with their education, belief in their own capacity to act as such, whether they have access to the tools necessary to do so, and belief that acting on their education will result in their preferred outcome[14]. Further, educational efforts do not result in uniform behavioural changes, and issues such as misinterpretation or lack of interest can result in individual behaviours remaining unchanged or potentially changing in ineffective ways[14].

Bear Smart Community Program

The Bear Smart Community Program was developed by the British Columbia Government's Ministry of Environment and Parks[20] in 2002[21]. It is intended as a preventative method of conservation, involving a set of criteria which communities must adhere to in order to be considered “bear smart”[20].

Criteria to be recognizes as “bear smart” in British Columbia is as follows:

  • Prepare a bear hazard assessment of the community and surrounding area[22].
  • Prepare a bear-human conflict management plan that is designed to address the bear hazards and land-use conflicts identified in the previous step[22].
  • Revise planning and decision-making documents to be consistent with the bear-human conflict management plan[22].
  • Implement a continuing education program, directed at all sectors of the community[22].
  • Develop and maintain a bear-resistant municipal solid waste management system[22].
  • Implement "Bear Smart" bylaws prohibiting the provision of food to bears as a result of intent, neglect, or irresponsible management of attractants[22].

As of 2026, twelve British Columbian communities have attained “bear smart” status:

Aversive conditioning

As the public increasingly calls for the use of non-lethal black bear management methods, aversive conditioning has started to be explored as an alternative[16]. It is, essentially, a method of training which attempts to cause wildlife to become more wary of humans and human infrastructure by associating it with negative stimuli[16]. Such stimuli may include “loud noises, non-lethal projectiles, pyrotechnics, and chasing bears, with or without dogs” [16]. If this is done with enough consistency, then over time the bears should hypothetically take steps to avoid behaviours that result in such negative outcomes, ideally resulting in the avoidance of humans all together.

A study on aversive conditioning, conducted in Whistler, British Columbia, found that this method does increase wariness of humans in black bears[16]. This effectiveness increased with consistent applications of the method[16]. However, the level of success was variable between individual bears[16]. Additionally, aversive conditioning did not seem to impact black bear behaviour regarding human communities in the time after the trial had ended and negative stimuli had stopped, suggesting that the short term successes may not have long term applicability without ongoing maintenance efforts[16]. Furthermore, this method is limited by the necessary proximity to humans in which negative stimuli is applied. Concerns for human safety may curtail the use of firearms[16], and it is possible that disruptions like loud noises could lead to frustration in some communities.

Relocation of black bears

One common strategy for managing problem bears, which have a recorded history of involvement in conflict interactions with humans, is relocation[8][11]. One benefit of this strategy is that it separates bears with problematic learned behaviours from the human communities which have already been impacted. Relocation does not rely on coordinated behavioural changes among human communities, and therefore does not tend to face the same contextual challenges as education campaigns[14]. Moreover, strategies like relocation or euthanasia may be preferable, as they can be more immediate and problem animal-specific than education campaigns. Further, relocation can often be preferable to euthanasia, due to public perception [17]. One study, conducted in Christina Lake, British Columbia following a notable string of human-black bear conflict incidents, found that locals supported relocation over more lethal methods of management [17]. Notably, this support seems to exist, regardless of whether it aligns with the opinions of professionals or not [17]. Yet, even with these benefits, relocation is not a flawless solution to human-bear conflicts.

Although relocation can be preferred by the public due to its perception as a non-lethal solution to human-bear conflicts [17], studies have found that relocated problem bears have lower survival rates than both resident bears living near the relocation site and non-relocated problem bears [11]. The likelihood for translocation to result in death increases the further a problem bear is taken from its original home [11]. Yet, at the same time, relocated bears will often attempt to return to their home ranges [11]. The chance of a problem bear successfully homing decreases with every kilometre of distance between them and their original territory [11], creating an inherent contradiction in the practice of black bear relocation, as both the death of the bear and its return to the original site of conflict are undesirable outcomes. Furthermore, even when problem bears fail to return to their original range, and survive in their new territory, relocation does not prevent problem bears from continuing to engage in conflict behaviours. In fact, the pressures of translocation, including lack of familiarity with their new range, may, in some cases, cause relocated problem bears to seek out human populations [11].

It seems that the risks of relocation are higher for certain bear demographics. In particular, relocations performed on males, established adults, and highly habituated individuals are less likely to end successfully[11].

Euthanization of black bears

At the moment, euthanization or lethal control is a common intervention in response to human-wildlife conflict, the effectiveness in reducing future conflict is still unclear. There is some evidence of a temporary reduction in aggressive human-black bear conflict following euthanization, yet once again, conflict levels will rise after around 8-12 months[1]. Without proper mitigation of human drivers, black bears will continue to recolonize areas where they had been euthanized before and therefore, a continuous cycle of human-black bear conflict will occur. Human safety and the reduction of conflict are important goals for conservation and wildlife management agencies, which puts them in a tough position regarding the use of euthanasia interventions as a management strategy to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. In the long term, it may be beneficial for conservation and wildlife management agencies to shift away from using lethal control interventions and alleviate the human-induced and environmental conditions that lead to conflict, as well as educate humans about the topic.

Potential Solutions

The conflict mitigation strategy of the future

With current and historical practices being inadequate to provide human black bear conflict mitigation in a way that truly minimizes harm to both people and animals, a new combination of policies outside of euthanasia and relocation should be considered for achieving a future of coexistence.

A bear-proof dumpster in Jasper, Alberta

Firstly, the recent focus on better educating the public on how to be prepared for an encounter with a black bear remains an important fundamental measure to expand. Travelling in groups if you go hiking, making noise to reduce the risk of startling bears, carrying bear spray, and properly preparing food and garbage storage before going to sleep are all effective at reducing the likelihood of occurrence and danger of black bear encounters[5]. It must be noted, however, that certain pieces of common knowledge around how to respond to a bear encounter are not effective and can often put people at greater risk. Attempting to climbing a tree usually ends in either being attacked before reaching it or being dragged out of it; attempting to scare bears away with various hazing methods such as fire crackers or bear-bells only works on occasion in large groups pre-empting an encounter; and dogs usually act to attract bears, who often see them as a threat or as prey, rather than acting as a deterrent or effective defence[5]. Correcting these faulty notions in addition to teaching proper behaviours should be a priority of all public education programs.

Beyond improving preparedness for individual encounters, there are a few systematic changes to wildlife management practices that have proven to be most effective at making conflict less likely to occur proactively. Because most human black bear conflict is based around food searching behaviour[8] and is particularly concentrated in the autumn when hyperphagia sets in[10], removing attractants (food) is the single most effective practice for mitigating conflict and can be applied fairly easily. This is achieved through measures such as removing excess fruit from trees, using bear proof garbage and compost bins, and installing electric fences around agricultural land[10]. At a more basic level, tying back to the importance of public education, preventing individuals from actively engaging in behaviour that habituates bears to human food, such as intentionally feeding them, is also of fundamental importance. Part of why it is especially prescient to prevent bears from eating human food is that “There is a strong association between bear killings and bears conditioned to non-natural food”[4], meaning that efforts to prevent said conditioning in the first place will provide additional benefits to the underlying behaviour on top of the immediate reduction in conflict.

In broad terms, what is needed is a shift from a generally reactive model of conflict mitigation to a proactive model of coexistence[8]. Rather than simply reacting to situations as they emerge, greater emphasis must be placed on building preparedness and addressing the drivers of serious conflict at their sources.

Additionally, building tolerance and support for black bears in communities that encounter them is another key step in achieving coexistence as previously stated, since without it, there will be no appetite for the previously mentioned policies instead of simpler, lethal solutions[23]. In general, positive cognitive factors and experiences with bears improve public perception considerably[23], and so their facilitation should be included within the public education strategy if it is feasible.

Case study in conflict mitigation

A noteworthy real-world example of the implementation of carnivore conflict mitigation policies more broadly comes from southwestern Alberta: the community-based Carnivores and Communities Program that began in 2009. The project goal was primarily to facilitate better coexistence between human communities and the four large carnivore species that were present in the area, those being cougars, wolves, black bears, and grizzly bears, who had seen an increasing frequency of conflict[24]. To address this, efforts were focused on three main strategies: attractant management (such as the previously mentioned methods), deadstock removal (similar in concept to removing excess fruit from trees), and bear safety education, with financial assistance being made available for community members in some cases to aid in implementation[24]. Results showed a generally positive opinion of the project’s efficacy from community members and incidence records also indicate some positive change, with a reduction in deadstock and attractant incidents compared to the trend before the project initiation[24]. These positive indicators were muddied somewhat by an increase in livestock depredation and injury; however, whether this was caused by the program itself through the reduction in deadstock feeding, as some community members questioned, or if it was coincidentally caused by other factors, remained without a definitive answer[24]. Overall, although the results are not perfect and more rigorous research would be required to determine the true relationships between these mitigation policies and the animals’ responses, this project’s outcomes provide a valuable insight into the potential of these types of policies.

Conclusion

Wildlife has always intersected with human life, and will continue to do so. At this intersection, it is inevitable that conflicts will sometimes occur. In the modern era, when many people live in human-made environments, it is reasonable to conclude that the chance of conflicts occurring between humans and any given species might increase, dependant on its capacity to adapt to life in, or on the fringes of, human settlements. It is this principle which makes human-black bear conflicts so relevant in British Columbia. As human communities and industries continue to expand, black bears consistently demonstrate their capacity to adapt to life neighbouring humans[11].

Due to their varied, omnivorous diet, black bears are easily lured in by anthropogenic attractants such as trash, campsites, gardens, and livestock[2][10][11]. This is compounded by the proximity of British Columbian urban centres to forests and waterways, meaning that anthropogenic attractants are located particularly closely to natural black bear habitats[3]. Such proximity is unavoidable, given current human infrastructure and models of development, as black bears are endemic to North America[7].

In British Columbia, black bears account for the largest proportion of conflict encounters between humans and large omnivores[4]. Therefore, it has been necessary to implement a number of management strategies. Significant methods include education campaigns[14], aversive conditioning[16], relocation[8], and euthanasia[1]. Of these methods, euthanasia remains the most common, despite being an unsustainable long term solution[4]. The other non-lethal methods, despite each having their own limitations, each show merit as potential pieces in the overall solution to human-black bear conflict in the province. Education efforts, in particular, show promise as a method of tackling the human side of the issue. This education may include information on how to avoid bears or approach encounters with bears[5], as well as how to adequately remove attractants such as food[10]. By tackling this problem from multiple, non-lethal angles, it seems possible to resolve many of the black bear-human conflicts which occur in the present day, in an ecologically sustainable way.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Pretis, F., Hicks, J., Ghimire, P., Emmis, S., & Gulati, S. (2024). "Do Lethal Control Interventions Reduce Human-Wildlife Conflict? Evidence from Black Bears in British Columbia. SSRN".CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Herrero, Stephen; Higgins, Andrew (1999). "Human Injuries Inflicted by Bears in British Columbia: 1960-1997". Ursus. 11: 209–218.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Hirakawa-Kao, L. (2023). "Human Black Bear Conflict in British Columbia: Analyzing trends in BCCOS black bear deaths between 2015-2021" (PDF).
  4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 Ghimire, Prasun (2024). "Bears in the Backyard: Understanding the Human-Black Bear Interactions in British Columbia". Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Miller, C (2025). "Human-Bear Conflict in North America (1880–2020): A Comprehensive Analysis of Patterns, Outcomes and Interactions".
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Scheick, Brian K.; McCown, Walter (May 2014). "Geographic distribution of American black bears in North America". Ursus. 25: 24–33.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Clark, Joseph D.; Beckmann, Jon P.; Boyce, Mark S.; Leopold, Bruce D.; Loosen, Anne E.; Pelton, Michael R. (November 2020). Bears of the World. Cambridge University: Cambridge University Press. pp. 122–138. ISBN 9781108692571.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 Spencer, Rocky D.; Beausoleil, Richard A.; Martorello, Donald A. (November 2007). "How Agencies Respond to Human–black Bear Conflicts: A Survey of Wildlife Agencies in North America". Ursus. 18: 217–229.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Mowat, G; Poole, K.G.; Seip, D.R.; Heard, D.C.; Smith, R.; Paetkau, D.W. (January 2002). "GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEAR DENSITIES IN INTERIOR BRITISH COLUMBIA" (PDF). Canadian Forest Products Ltd. and B.C. Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection Fish and Wildlife Branch, Omineca Subregion: 1–38. line feed character in |title= at position 36 (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 10.12 10.13 van Bommel, J. K. Sun, C., Ford, A. T., Todd, M. & Burton, A. C. (2022). "Coexistence or conflict: Black bear habitat use along an urban-wildland gradient". PLOS ONE. 17(11) – via PLOS.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ 11.00 11.01 11.02 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08 11.09 11.10 11.11 Botzet, K. J.; Braunstein, J. L.; Clark, J. D.; Williamson, R. H.; Stiver, W. H. (January, 2026). "Effectiveness of black bear translocation as a conflict management tool". The Journal of Wildlife Management. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Kline, K. N.; Taylor, J. D.; Morzillo, A. T. (April, 2018). "Estimating stand-level economic impacts of black bear damage to intensively managed forests". Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 48. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ↑ Honey, M.; Johnson, J.; Menke, C.; Cruz, A. R.; Karwacki, J.; Durham, W. H. (2016). "The comparative economic value of bear viewing and bear hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest". Journal of Ecotourism. 15: 199–240.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 Dietsch, A. M.; Slagle, K. M.; Baruch-Mordo, S.; Breck, S. W.; Ciarniello, L. M. (2018). "Education is not a panacea for reducing human–black bear conflicts". Ecological Modelling. 367: 10–12 – via DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln. line feed character in |title= at position 40 (help)
  15. ↑ Boyce, M. S.; Derocher, A. E. (June, 2025). "Bears in North America: Habitats, hunting, and politics". The Journal of Wildlife Management. 89. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ↑ 16.00 16.01 16.02 16.03 16.04 16.05 16.06 16.07 16.08 16.09 Homstol, L.; Raymond, S.; Edwards, C.; Hamilton, A. N.; St. Clair, C. C. (January, 2024). "Aversive conditioning increases short-term wariness but does not change habitat use in black bears associated with conflict". PLoS ONE. 19 – via PLoS ONE. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 Dubois, S.; Fraser, D. (2013). "Local Attitudes towards Bear Management after Illegal Feeding and Problem Bear Activity". Animals. 3: 935–950 – via MDPI.
  18. ↑ Liu, H. S.; Sharp, R. L. (December, 2018). "Influence of attitudes toward wildlife on preferences for management of American black bears". Ursus. 29: 32–42 – via BioOne Digital Library. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ↑ Parker, L. A. (2019). Public Views Towards Black Bears and Bear Smart Messaging in a Rural Context. The University of Manitoba. line feed character in |title= at position 48 (help)
  20. ↑ 20.00 20.01 20.02 20.03 20.04 20.05 20.06 20.07 20.08 20.09 20.10 20.11 20.12 20.13 Government of British Columbia (March, 2026). "Bear Smart Community Program". Retrieved April 11, 2026. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ↑ Hamilton, A. (2011). Living in Bear Country: increasing municipal compliance with the Bear Smart Program in British Columbia. Simon Fraser University.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 WildSafeBC (2026). "Bear Smart Community Program". WildSafeBC. Retrieved April 11, 2026.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Booth, Annie L.; Ryan, Daniel A.J. (June 2019). "A tale of two cities, with bears: understanding attitudes towards urban bears in British Columbia, Canada". Urban Ecosystems. 22: 961–973.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Morehouse, A. T.; Hughes, C.; Manners, N.; Bectell, J.; Bruder, T. (February 2020). "Carnivores and Communities: A Case Study of Human-Carnivore Conflict Mitigation in Southwestern Alberta". Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 8.


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2026WT2/Group_2:_Human_Black_Bear_(Ursus_Americanus)_conflict_in_British_Columbia:_Status_and_potential_solutions&oldid=893924"