Factors influencing frequency and severity of human-American black bear conflicts in New York, USA

Abstract

Free-ranging large carnivores are involved in human-wildlife conflicts which can result in economic costs. Understanding factors that lead to human-wildlife conflicts is important to mitigate these negative effects and facilitate human-carnivore coexistence. We used a human-American black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict database maintained by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to determine whether drought, conflicts within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks as compared to outside of these parks, mild severity (Class 3) conflicts early in the year (April–June), and bear harvest in the previous year (as an index of bear abundance), were associated with greater frequency of high or moderate severity (Class 1–2) conflicts later in the year (July–September) across New York, USA. During 2006–2019, we obtained 3,782 mild severity conflict records early in the year, and 1,042 high or moderate severity records later in the year. We found that a one standard deviation increase in the cumulative precipitation difference from mean early in the year (about 7.59 cm) coincided with a 20% decrease in conflicts, and that Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) within the parks were predicted to have 5.61 times as many high or moderate severity conflicts as WMUs outside the parks. We also found that a one standard deviation increase in the frequency of mild severity conflicts (equivalent to 5.68 conflicts) early in the year coincided with an increase in the frequency of high or moderate severity conflicts in a WMU later in the year by 49%, while a one standard deviation increase in the bear abundance index in the previous year (0.14 bears/10 km2) coincided with a 23% increase in high or moderate severity conflicts. To reduce the frequency and severity of conflicts to facilitate human-black bear coexistence, we recommend the following measures to be taken in place consistently and build over time in local communities: (i) further reducing black bear access to anthropogenic foods and other attractants, (ii) non-lethal measures including bear-resistant waste management, (iii) electric fencing, and (iv) modifying placement or configuration of field crops.