Scientific research on why bears emerge from the wild to approach humans

I continue to study the situation surrounding bears emerging towards humans and the attempts by hunting lobbies (worldwide) to expand the scale of animal shootings. I have previously discussed how linear shootings lead to bears increasingly leaving the wild, escalating conflicts. Now, I want to share with you the scientific research I have been examining. This data is crucial for our work in nature conservation.

So, take a look.

The most significant scientific study, “A worldwide perspective on large carnivore attacks on humans”, focused on large predators and was published in 2023. It was conducted by scientists from various countries: Italy, Spain, Russia, India, among others. Russian Academy of Sciences specialists were also among the researchers.

What did they do? They collected data on 5,440 recorded attacks by 12 species of large predators worldwide from 1950 to 2019. The results are as follows: 3,192 recorded attacks were attributed to five bear species: sloth bears — 1,337, Himalayan bears — 765, brown bears — 664, American black bears — 403, polar bears — 23. The number of recorded attacks by large predators increased over the studied period, especially in low-income countries.

The overall conclusion, as expected: it is simplistic to explain the occurrences solely by animal behavior from a scientific standpoint. The researchers clearly demonstrate that the circumstances of attacks on humans are significantly determined by socio-economic conditions and human land use. This was precisely what needed to be proven.

The study is available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001946

Next, I examined a global study on brown bear attacks, titled “Brown bear attacks on humans: a worldwide perspective”, conducted in 2019. Russian scientists participated alongside colleagues from other countries. They studied 664 brown bear attacks from 2000 to 2015, covering North America, Europe, and certain regions of Asia. A significant portion of dangerous encounters occurs during human activities in bear habitats. Essentially, the deeper humans venture into the forest, the higher the risk of conflicts.

The study can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44341-w

Subsequently, I came across an international review of 159 scientific works, titled “Large carnivores living alongside humans: Brown bears in human-modified landscapes,” published in 2020. I appreciate such meta-studies. I believe that everyone should move from a local perception to a broader understanding of the world.

In this review, scientists systematized nine main anthropogenic factors affecting bears: settlements, habituation to humans, artificial food resources, transportation, hunting, forestry, industry, bear watching, and other recreational activities. Seventy-two publications studied the impact of transportation infrastructure, 30 on settlements, 15 on anthropogenic food, and 31 on hunting and fishing. Categories overlapped. It was established that human activities are linked to increased bear mortality, behavioral changes, movements, and physiological indicators. As you already understand, the studies from the entire range of brown bears confirm the multiple impacts of humans on the ecology of this species. Human infrastructure, economic activities, and artificial food systematically alter the living conditions of animals, creating preconditions for conflicts.

Perhaps I should mention another study. It is from the United States, titled “Beware of Bear? Long-Term Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Human–Bear Conflict in Connecticut”. This relatively recent study (2025) provides interesting data showing that in the USA, over 21 years, 25,557 conflicts with black bears were recorded. Note, unlike our situation — 60+ conflicts for the entire year of 2026 — this is a substantial number. Researchers analyzed 93,976 reports of bear sightings, including 25,557 conflict incidents.

Again: human food waste was associated with nearly 38% of all recorded conflicts. Forest fragmentation and the expansion of human presence are essentially inevitable catalysts for future conflicts.

The study is available here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-024-02094-x

CONCLUSIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

Everything I have studied fully aligns with what we are currently articulating about the bear situation in our country, Russia. It is possible to establish a proper management system, integrate modern methods of interacting with the environment, and implement a conflict prevention system. This is entirely feasible.

However, the problem cannot be solved with linear, senseless killings. After one bear is killed, another will come, and it will be killed too! This will continue indefinitely. Moreover, if problems deep in the taiga are not resolved, we will develop a synanthropic bear population living around settlements, creating constant conflict situations. This means the problems will never be resolved, and severe disruptions within the wild will eventually turn into an incurable chronic condition.

The most absurd thing I have ever heard is the statement by recreational hunting lobbyists along the lines of “the population has grown, so we need to kill more.” They know perfectly well that we have no reliable population data, ecosystem exploitation is at its limit, and real problems are not being addressed at all.