Bears are among the most physiologically remarkable mammals. They spend half their life in an active state and the other half in a state of dormancy without food or water, and without urinating, defecating, or physical activity, yet can rouse and defend themselves when disturbed. Although important data have been obtained in both captive and wild bears, long-term physiological monitoring of bears has not been possible until the recent advancement of implantable devices.

Diversionary feeding uses food to lure animals away from areas where they are unwanted or could cause conflicts with people. With bears (Ursidae) increasingly attracted to human food sources worldwide, diversionary feeding represents a seemingly logical and publicly acceptable means of alleviating conflicts. Feeding wildlife is widely practiced in Europe to enhance hunting and reduce conflicts, but feeding of bears is discouraged across North America. The efficacy and potential side-effects of bear feeding remain an open question because of a lack of rigorous studies. Here we examine 5 case studies from which we attempt to draw inferences about feeding as a conflict-mitigation strategy. Studies included U.S. national parks, where after bear feeding was banned conflicts were reduced; Aspen, Colorado, where lucrative dumpsters in town did not divert bears from using human-related foods at other sources; rural Minnesota, where results of intentional feeding of a small sample of bears were confounded...

Among the world’s large Carnivores, American black bears (Ursus americanus) are the foremost conservation success story. Populations have been expanding across North America because the species is adaptable and tolerant of living near people, and because management agencies in the U.S. and Canada controlled hunting and other human-sources of mortality. As a result, human–black bear conflicts (damage to property, general nuisance, threat to human safety) have dramatically increased in some areas, making it urgently important to develop and deploy a variety of mitigation tools. Previous studies claimed that legal hunting did not directly reduce conflicts, but they did not evaluate whether hunting controlled conflicts via management of population size. Here, we compared temporal patterns of phoned-in complaints about black bears (total ~63,500) in Minnesota, USA, over 4 decades to corresponding bear population estimates: both doubled during the first decade. We also quantified natural bear foods, and found that large year-to-year fluctuations affected numbers of complaints; however, since this variation is due largely to weather, this factor cannot be managed. Complaints fell sharply when the management agency (1) shifted more responsibility for preventing and mitigating conflicts to the public; and (2) increased hunting pressure to reduce the bear population. This population reduction was more extreme than intended, however, and after hunting pressure was curtailed, population regrowth was slower than anticipated; consequently both population size and complaints remained at relatively low levels statewide for 2 decades (although with local hotspots). These long-term data indicated that conflicts can be kept in tolerable bounds by managing population size through hunting; but due to the bluntness of this instrument and deficiencies and uncertainties in monitoring and manipulating populations, it is wiser to maintain a population at a level where conflicts are socially-acceptable than try to reduce it once it is well beyond that point.

An important rationale for legally farmed and synthetic wildlife products is that they reduce illegal, wild‐sourced trade by supplying markets with sustainable alternatives. For this to work, more established illegal‐product consumers must switch to legal alternatives than new legal‐product consumers switch to illegal wild products. Despite the widespread debate on the magnitude and direction of switching, studies among actual consumers are lacking. We used an anonymous online survey of 1421 traditional Chinese medicine consumers in China to investigate switching among legal farmed, synthetic, and illegal wild bear bile. We examined the past consumption behavior, applied a discrete choice experiment framed within worsening hypothetical disease scenarios, and used latent class models to investigate groups with shared preferences. Bear bile consumers (86% respondents) were wealthier, more likely to have family who consumed bile, and less knowledgeable about bile treatments than nonconsumers. Consumer preferences were heterogenous, but most consumer preferences switched between bile types as disease worsened. We identified five distinct latent classes within our sample: law‐abiding consumers (34% respondents), who prefer legal products and were unlikely to switch; two all‐natural consumer groups (53%), who dislike synthetics but may switch between farmed and wild; and two nonconsumer groups (12%), who prefer not to buy bile. People with past experience of bile consumption had different preferences than those without. Willingness to switch to wild products was related to believing they were legal, although the likelihood of switching was mediated by preferences for cheaper products sold in legal, familiar places. We found that consumers of wild bile may switch to legal alternatives, given the availability of a range of products, whereas legal‐product consumers may switch to illegal products if the barriers to doing so are small. Understanding preferences that promote or impede switching should be a key consideration when attempting to predict consumer behavior in complex wildlife markets.

What light does nearly 25 years of scientific study of the Exxon Valdez oil spill shed on the fate and effects of a spill? How can the results help in assessing future spills? How can ecological risks be assessed and quantified? In this, the first book on the effects of Exxon Valdez in 15 years, scientists directly involved in studying the spill provide a comprehensive perspective on, and synthesis of, scientific information on long-term spill effects. The coverage is multidisciplinary, with chapters discussing a range of issues including effects on biota, successes and failures of post-spill studies and techniques, and areas of continued disagreement. An even-handed and critical examination of more than two decades of scientific study, this is an invaluable guide for studying future oil spills and, more broadly, for unraveling the consequences of any large environmental disruption. For access to a full bibliography of related publications, follow the Resources link at www.cambridge.org/9781107027176.