Experimental test of the efficacy of hunting for controlling human-wildlife conflict

Human-wildlife conflict can cause major declines in wildlife populations and pose a threat to human safety and livelihoods. Large carnivores are among the most conflict-prone species because they range widely, eat human-associated foods, and can pose a risk to human safety. Legal harvest of carnivores by licensed hunters is an attractive method to attempt to reduce conflict; however, there is mixed evidence for its effectiveness. We leveraged a unique management project in Ontario, Canada in which a new spring American black bear (Ursus americanus) hunting season was implemented in selected wildlife management units in addition to the existing fall season. We examined human-bear interactions and incidents before (2012 and 2013) and after (2014 and 2015) this implementation in treatment and control areas. Further, using data from 2004-2019, we examined the longer-term patterns of human-bear interactions and incidents before and after this management project when a spring season was implemented throughout the entire province beginning in 2016. Harvest increased significantly upon the implementation of the spring season in selected units, but there was no concomitant reduction in interactions or incidents, and these were higher in areas with the new spring season relative to control areas. Human-bear interactions, incidents, and harvest were strongly related to the availability of natural foods in all analyses. Regulated, presumably sustainable harvest was ineffective at reducing human-bear interactions and incidents in the near-term and might have increased both. Our results support a long history of research showing that natural food availability is a primary driver of human-wildlife conflict. Programs promoting coexistence between people and wildlife, including education, capacity building, and management of unnatural food sources are likely to be the most successful at reducing conflicts between people and bears.