Over 300 scientists, managers and educators from three continents met in Missoula, Montana, on March 20 ? 22 for the Fourth Human-Bear Conflict Workshop, reports the Wildlife Management Institute. World-renowned bear expert John Beecham described human-bear conflict today as, "An international problem involving all eight species of bears." Wildlife professionals at the conference represented North America, Europe and Asia and shared information about effective techniques to address conflicts ranging from damage to crops to attacks on people in places as different as Florida and the Canadian Arctic, or the Carpathian mountains of Slovakia and Karuizawa, Japan.

Dozens of presentations and hands-on demonstrations throughout the conference provided participants with information and tools for addressing conflicts. Given the importance of preventing bears from becoming food conditioned, much of the conference focused on measures such as use of temporary and permanent electric fencing, improved bear-resistant garbage containers, and outreach programs to people living in bear country. Managers shared information about use of aversive conditioning of bears using dogs, sub-lethal ballistic rounds and even Tasers. The advantages of using bear spray as a tool to prevent or reduce the severity of injuries from a bear attack was a common theme. Ironically, a number of presenters reported greater success in changing bear behavior than changing human behavior, due to resistance to some obvious solutions, such as carrying bear spray or keeping people off of trails along salmon streams in Anchorage, Alaska during peak bear feeding times.

Other presentations dealt with topics such as human perceptions of bears and bear-human conflict, public reaction to lethal removal of problem bears, legal issues associated with management and human injuries or death, and cultural differences in approaches to human-bear conflict management. These papers reinforced the understanding that resolving human-bear conflicts is as much ? or more ? about dealing with people as it is dealing with bear biology.

A number of presentations addressed the effect of hunting on human-bear conflict. One study from Finland showed that after cessation of spring hunting of brown bears, both bear numbers and conflicts increased steadily. In contrast, results from Pennsylvania did not reveal a decline in the number of reported conflicts in a rural area following changes in the hunting regulations designed to increase the take of potential problem bears in areas of chronic conflicts. Studies in Wisconsin and Ontario pointed out the complexities of the issue and the need for further analysis of a host of variables to determine the effects of hunting versus other factors such as availability of both natural and human-produced food.

Most participants expressed support for the mission of the international Human-Bear Conflicts Specialists' Group: to promote the conservation of all bear species by providing technical assistance and information to government agencies, non-government organizations and individuals working to reduce human-bear conflict. As summarized by the group's chairman, John Beecham, "Strategies for resolving human-bear conflict should strive to reduce conflicts to socially-acceptable levels while ensuring sustainable bear populations and seek long-term coexistence based on balanced solutions to human-bear conflict."

The conference was videotaped and recorded and many of the presentations from the conference are online at the conference website. Conference organizers plan to add more information to the website as it is compiled and edited. Planning is already underway for the next conference. (cs)