Fig 1.
Complaints handled by phone versus on-site.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources personnel who received complaints about bears could investigate the situation on-site or handle it by phone. Over the years, an increasing percentage of complaints were handled by phone. A regression was used to estimate complaints handled by phone in years when only on-site visits were recorded.
Fig 2.
Changes in the percentage of different types of human–bear conflicts investigated in Minnesota, 1981–2019.
Complaints concerning bears in garbage diminished while birdfeeder complaints increased.
Fig 3.
Types of complaints handled by phone versus on-site.
Recent data (2016–2019), shown here, indicate that complaints involving bears damaging property, beehives, or crops prompted disproportionately more on-site visits by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, whereas advice about deterring nuisance activity (garbage, birdfeeders) was often provided by phone.
Fig 4.
Comparison of total bear complaints, population size, and yearly rating of natural foods.
Bear complaints rose sharply as the population of bears rose (population estimates not available for most recent 2 years). Complaints were especially high in years when natural summer and fall foods for bears were sparse, and were low when foods were abundant. A sharp decline in complaints occurred during 1998–2000 when the MNDNR phased-in a policy against translocating bears and greatly reduced on-site visits (Fig 1). Reduced complaints also corresponded with fewer prime-age females in the population.
Fig 5.
Bear complaints not directly related to harvest.
No relationship was evident between harvests and bear complaints because increasing harvests during the 1980s through early-1990s did not cause a population decline. However, in 1995 an especially high harvest combined with a high kill of nuisance bears probably helped to reduce human-bear conflicts for a few years.
Table 1.
Best-ranked of candidate models (ΔAIC(c) ≤ 4) explaining number of complaints about human–bear conflicts in Minnesota.
Fig 6.
Bear damage to large crop fields.
Damage to corn or sunflowers is difficult for individual farmers to prevent or even detect (here viewed from a drone). This situation is most apt to require lethal control. (Inset) Bears in crops are difficult to see, and our research indicates that they feel comfortable feeding in such situations due to the heavy cover [39]. Photos: MDNR and D. Garshelis, respectively.