A team of researchers from several countries in Europe and Canada has found that approximately half of all attacks on humans by large carnivores in the wild can be attributed at least in part, to risky behavior by those that have been attacked. In their paper published in Scientific Reports [open, DOI: 10.1038/srep20552], the team describes the study they carried out, their results and their hope that better education will prevent more such attacks from happening in the future.
To learn more about attacks on humans by large carnivores, which included several types of bears, wolves, coyotes and cougars, the team searched wildlife databases that held such information for attacks in North America, Russia, and three European countries—they discovered that over 697 reported attacks occurred over the time span 1955 to 2014. They also found that the number of attacks each year has been rising steadily. The databases also held information regarding the circumstances surrounding the attacks which allowed the team to sort and count various scenarios. The group also conducted research regarding human activities in the wild and found that the number of people venturing into remote areas has been rising rapidly during the same time frame.
In studying their data, the researchers found that roughly half of the documented attacks they studied occurred during what they describe as risky human behavior, e.g. leaving children alone in wilderness areas, walking a dog without a leash, or tracking a game animal that has been shot and wounded. They theorize that the steady increase in the number of such incidents is likely due to the growth in numbers of wildlife due to conservation efforts, and the rise in the number of people entering areas where wildlife live.
Moose attack more people every year than bears and wolves combined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @11:50AM
Not seing it as such is the root of such problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:16PM
Moose attack more people every year than bears and wolves combined.
I think you mean meese.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @01:29PM
I hate meeses to pieces!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:18PM
89.3% of such stats are bogus.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:49PM
Witness evolution in progress. The human population is too high anyway. The growing group of people intentionally provoking these creatures to make this like, crazy viral video on their smartphones might make good Darwin Award candidates.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by BK on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:02PM
There is some detail missing in TFA. I suspect that the researchers are defining "Wilderness" a bit loosely. This can be inferred from the most common "risky behavior".
Remember helicopter parents, letting your children play near trees without you holding their hand is dangerous. Keep them indoors!
In my world, anyplace close enough to a structure, road, or marked trail to make unattended play possible isn't "wilderness".
They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Could someone explain to me why I would want to have the range of a carnivore large enough to view me or my children as a meal to encroach or overlap with areas of human habitation? Maybe sharing isn't something you can do with organisms incapable of understanding the concept.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:59PM
Disney has spent a century propagandizing wild animals as cute, fluffy, friendly, at least to the special snowflakes they paint up as heroes. It's an extra mark of favor that wild animals are friendly to them only.
Fairly harmless, as long as everyone understands that's just fantasy. However, Disney is not the only one inadvertently pushing a distorted view of the wild. City living does that too.
(Score: 2) by BK on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:48PM
Add to that the modern fascination with "repopulating" the large (cute?) carnivores... I live in a city of about 90,000 -- admittedly 3.5 miles from the city center -- and we've recently been warned about bears in the area.
So no playing outside. No walking to the school bus stop. WTF.
30 years ago you had to drive 100 miles from this neighborhood to find a bear. Now the risky behavior may be "living within sight of some trees".
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @05:33PM
Progress.
Dogs still do attack humans, but given the huge numbers of them and how close they get to humans, seems to be that human-human attacks are typically more common and dangerous. So all that breeding of dogs actually has worked to produce dogs that are less likely to attack humans, in contrast humans have had rather haphazard breeding.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 06 2016, @10:52PM
and we've recently been warned about bears in the area.
Bears in the area are nothing to worry about. Leaving your garbage can outside is.
People these days get all bent out of shape anytime a bear is seen. Yet unprovoked bear attacks, especially on children, are virtually unheard of.
Yes you can stumble upon one, and get between a sow and her cub (one of the most dangerous encounters in north america), but simply seeing a random bear is no real cause for concern. Except for the bear. Because sensationalist news media stir up helicopter parents, which call the cops, demanding that they shoot the bear.
Just tell your kids to play in groups which will result in chatter, which will send the bears away.
Even grizzly bears (brown bears as they are called in Alaska) move off if they hear you coming. I once unknowingly "pushed" a young brownie along a ridge, all the while my bell was clinking and I was yaking to my kid, making noise intentionally. The bear ran out of ridge, turned and came back, veering off to our side at full speed just to get away from us.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday February 07 2016, @12:18AM
To give an idea of how harmless bears can be: I used to work in a nice rural summer camp back in my college days, and the director had identified a family of bears that would come down off the mountainside, walk right through the camp while the kids were elsewhere, take a drink from the lake and possibly catch a fish or something, and walk back up the mountainside with the kids none the wiser.
Bears generally don't want to fight people. It's not that they don't think they would win, but like a person fighting a weasel it's a lot of work for a bear to take out a human. They do, however, want to take your food if they can get it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday February 07 2016, @08:20AM
carnivores are essential to preserving and improving an ecosystem. the re-introduction of wolves to yellowstone, for example, improved its ecosystem [yellowstonepark.com] in many ways that could not be predicted. i'm sure there are plenty of other examples of carnivore reintroduction saving a habitat and improving an ecosystem but the yellowstone wolf reintroduction is the only one i know off the top of my head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:06PM
i agree but at the same time you probably have dumb ass yuppies taking their sheltered brats to national forests and leaving them by the "picanic" basket while they go get a nice buzz or shower or something and then crying their ass off while talking to their lawyer about suing the national forest for not having enough fences, signs, armed guards or adequate bear etiquette classes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:50PM
It's dumb for them to behave like that, but only because we have failed to fully tame the wilderness. We've even been taking steps backwards lately. Really, we should be able to enjoy the national forest without bears. If we can't, then we might as well get rid of the national forest. Build condos. That's at least more worthwhile than a forest we can't freely enjoy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @11:52AM
The only value of a forest is the value humans give to it. If it isn't doing something for us, it's worthless.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:45PM
They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Could someone explain to me why I would want to have the range of a carnivore large enough to view me or my children as a meal to encroach or overlap with areas of human habitation? Maybe sharing isn't something you can do with organisms incapable of understanding the concept.
The idea that we allow humans to move into these areas and then decide we have to sterilize the area to make it safe is repugnant. Maybe we should stop allowing human habitation to continually encroach on the ranges of these animals? They have nowhere else to go, people have a choice. If you move into their range, accept the risk and modify your behavior accordingly. If you can't, live somewhere else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:45PM
We humans can claim territory. We shouldn't give it up without a fight. This is our world now. We win. Bears don't want to share. They can go die in a fire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @08:24AM
So can large carnivores, and they're not giving up their territory without a fight either. Rather than getting into a dick-measuring contest with large, hungry carnivores, perhaps you should learn not to poke the bear.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:19PM
I bet one of the animals that does the most damage is the moose. They can be fucking MEAN.
One of the first things the military told us when I was stationed in Alaska is "Don't Fuck with the moose, they will fuck you up."
Apparently they get used to people feeding them cause "OMG LOOK ITS A MOOSE" and then the animal assumes all humans have a tasty treat for him. When you don't make with the treat they get upset. But not as upset if you are between them and their baby. They DO NOT like that at all.
Also, if the moose is fucking with you. Do not climb the tree, they will try to knock you out of it. Run around the tree. Keep the tree between you and the moose. Never had to do it, but the explanation is they don't turn well so they will get bored trying to gore you after a few minutes of chasing you around a tree. But just try not to fuck with the moose.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gnuman on Saturday February 06 2016, @05:09PM
And remember, moose can kick 360-degrees since their joins are not like yours or mine. They are not like normal deer. That's why even wolves tend not to fuck with adult moose either.
Also, if moose are in heat, then they can really be mean. And I will just leave this here - even police don't chase moose!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/angry-bull-moose-smacks-down-rcmp-cruiser-1.1243353 [www.cbc.ca]
"Both the culprit and accomplice departed the area on hoof," said Douglass in a written statement.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:46PM
There are very few animals that don't fear man. Wolverine, badger, cottonmouth, polar bear. Grizzly bears don't fear us much, but they prefer to keep their distance from us. Lions, tigers, American wolves, coyotes - they all prefer to keep their distance. They don't come hunting for you. If you've somehow attracted the attention of most carnivores, then yes, you HAVE engaged in risky business. Herbivores attacking you? Then it goes at least double - YOU have screwed up, big time.
If you don't understand animals, then stay the hell away from them. Your household pets can be dangerous, if you're stupid and careless, what would you expect form wild animals? Ranchers and farmers never turn their back on their animals, you should take a lesson from them.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday February 06 2016, @05:03PM
If you don't understand animals, then stay the hell away from them.
Exactly.
The author Doug Peacock (Grizzly Years: in Search of the American Wilderness) has spent quite a bit of time in grizzly habitat, filming and studying the bears. He doesn't take risks, he's learned the signs and behavior of the bears, how to react if you run into one at close quarters, to be especially alert if he runs across kills or other feeding areas, etc. He doesn't carry a gun, he claims it changes your psychology in dealing with the bears. He's managed to avoid injury in an inherently risky endeavour by all of the above.
I suppose you can't expect everyone to be good/smart/lucky enough to avoid all possibility of attack, but if people would take the time to learn about the "wilderness" places and their inhabitants before visiting instead of assuming it is as safe as a zoo, then wildlife attacks would probably drop to a negligible level. They would probably see more and enjoy it more as a bonus.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:12PM
"Moose attack more people every year than bears and wolves combined."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 06 2016, @05:24PM
I'm not very familiar with the moose wang guy, but it would seem that he is the one attacking the moose. How else does he get his wang? I doubt that he's so sexy that the moose are attacking him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @11:15PM
A Møøse once bit my sister... No realli!
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:51PM
How do you start going about defining "risky" here?
In studying their data, the researchers found that roughly half of the documented attacks they studied occurred during what they describe as risky human behavior
So another researcher might have come up with a figure of 25%, or 75%.
Putting a number on it really doesn't seem all that useful. How about ranking "simple things you can do to avoid being eaten by a bear" by how much each thing reduces the risk?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk