Changing the narrative on human–bear conflicts by standardizing bear management terms

Human–wildlife interactions and conflicts are increasing in many parts of the world. The ability of North American wildlife agencies to accurately record information about human–wildlife conflict and then share and compare those data is important for agency conservation efforts, inter-agency communications, and public messaging. Agency bear managers and researchers record human–bear conflict data and depend upon that information for making management decisions, determining whether those decisions were effective, and for developing public education messaging. To successfully manage human–bear conflict, it is essential that inter-agency communication, recording of data, and public messaging be consistent. Yet, defining human–bear conflicts in a consistent manner, even within jurisdictions, can be difficult and the application of common bear management terms is often inconsistent, and therefore may be unreliable. Even when these terms are clearly defined, there is often no uniformity in application, nor is there a defined entity to collect, store, and disseminate the information. Additionally, some terms commonly used in agency messaging and often repeated by the public are subjective and can have negative connotations for bears. The International Association for Bear Research and Management's (IBA) Management Committee (MC), with members representing 9 jurisdictions and all 3 bear species in North America, reviewed literature that list terms and definitions used in bear management and bear research with the following goals: (1) identifying terms and definitions that were clear, concise, and used consistently among jurisdictions; (2) defining or modifying those terms and definitions that are commonly used, yet are used inconsistently, incorrectly, or interchangeably; and (3) identifying terms that should be removed from written and verbal agency messaging that lead to mischaracterization of bears. Here we present 12 terms and definitions that will help facilitate clear and consistent inter- and intra-agency communications and allow jurisdictions to better compare information across databases. We also identify 5 terms that should be removed from professional wildlife management vernacular and publications. Finally, we propose that the IBA adopt these terms and definitions for use within their publications and request the use of these terms and definitions by other governing and publication entities.