Center, Internet, Wildlife Damage Management
Human–Wildlife Interactions
Response to Rogers and Mansfield (2011) and Stringham (2011)
Date of this Version
Fall 2011
Document Type
Article
Citation
Human–Wildlife Interactions (Fall 2011) 5(2): article 5
doi: 10.26077/gpvn-we71
Special topic: Bird strikes
Abstract
Three valued colleagues, extremely knowledgeable of bear behavior, have taken exception to some of my writing. I am grateful to be able to reply. There are a number of points of contention. Regarding habituation, I am well aware of the definitions proposed, but I find them wanting. How does “a waning of responses to a repeated, neutral stimulus” differentiate adequately between habituation and taming? Put another way: how could one disprove the claim of Rogers and others that they are working not with habituated, but with tame bears? Bears do tame, aft er all, quite easily. But if they tame, then how does that diff er from habituation?
. . .
The great achievement of Rogers, Mansfield, Stringham, and bear-viewing guides is to demonstrate how knowledgeable habituation can result in safe bear viewing. This knowledge needs to be spread (see Stringham 2002, 2007, 2009, 2010). In national parks, I have seen a lot of misbehavior towards wildlife by tourists, as well as by park staff , which is not likely to cease, nor are the dangers arising from this behavior. A good understanding of the body language of large mammals, bears included, not only makes viewing more interesting, but can save the lives of humans and wildlife. I do not think we disagree on this point. As for the rest—I pass.