Problem brown bears Ursus arctos in Finland in relation to bear feeding for tourism purposes and the density of bears and humans
The practice of feeding brown bears Ursus arctos for recreational purposes is common in the easternmost areas of Finland, but this may, however, result in human‐habituated bears. From 1995 to 2008, 3% of all bears killed by humans (N = 1,108 bears) in Finland represented incidents where bears were e...
| Published in: | Wildlife Biology |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/11-052 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2981/11-052 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.2981/11-052 |
| Summary: | The practice of feeding brown bears Ursus arctos for recreational purposes is common in the easternmost areas of Finland, but this may, however, result in human‐habituated bears. From 1995 to 2008, 3% of all bears killed by humans (N = 1,108 bears) in Finland represented incidents where bears were either killed for reasons of human safety under a license issued by the police or as a result of actual emergency situations where bears were shot in self defence. We constructed binary logistic regression models for comparing bears shot under police license and in self defence with bears killed in regular sport hunting by using the sex of the bear, human density, bear observation density and the distance from the nearest feeding site as independent variables. High human density was the most important factor differentiating bears shot under a license issued by police from bears killed in sport hunting. The difference in human density was largest for places located far from feeding sites. Increasing distance from feeding sites differentiated bears shot under police license and in self defence from sport hunted bears. The sex of the bears and the density of bear observation were more weakly associated with the category of shooting. Our study did not provide evidence that bear feeding for recreational purposes is associated with the nuisance‐bear problem in Finland. Nevertheless, some risks for human safety might be associated with artificial bear feeding for tourism purposes. If the practice of feeding bears continues to be accepted by Finnish legislation, game management should include an action plan for occasions when bears visiting feeding sites will lose their wariness of humans. |
|---|