Semantic vs. Empirical Issues in the Bear Diversionary Baiting Controversy

Conventional North American management of human-bear conflicts assumes that bears become more dangerous and destructive of human property if the bears have become food conditioned. Bears perceived as dangerous or destructive are usually killed. Conflict management to protect both people and bears focuses on minimizing bear access to anthropogenic foods. That can work where bears have access to sufficient wild foods. During famines of profitable wild foods, however, the key to minimizing conflicts can be providing food to bears – so-called diversionary baiting. Wild food supply is only one of numerous factors determining why provisioning bears intensifies conflicts in some situations, but minimizes conflicts in other situations. Identifying and quantifying the role of each factor is best done through formation of a more comprehensive conceptual model, followed by hypothesis derivation and testing. Literature synthesis and paradigmatic reconceptualization have thus far been hampered by terminological ambiguity. To overcome this constraint, we propose systematically integrated definitions for key terms: (a) conflict zones and sites, conflict foods, provisioning, incursionary feeding, baiting for diversion and other purposes; (b) numerous sorts of food conditionning: respondant, instrumental, opportunistic, transient, compensatory, agonistically induced, preferential, location- specific, person- specific, direct, indirect. (c) Food source descriptors: presence, abundance, density, accessibility, harvestability, availability, attractiveness, palatability, profitability, preference, reliability (predictability), and microhabitat suitability.