Geology topics

Dag Vongraven

Publications and source records attributed to Dag Vongraven.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Efficacy of bear spray as a deterrent against polar bears

Although there have been few attempts to systematically analyze information on the use of deterrents on polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ), understanding their effectiveness in mitigating human-polar bear conflicts is critical to ensuring both human safety and polar bear conservation. To fill this knowledge gap, we analyzed 19 incidents involving the use of bear spray on free-ranging polar bears from 1986 to 2019 in Canada, Russia, and the United States to evaluate the effectiveness of bear spray as a polar bear deterrent. We found that bear spray was an effective deterrent in close-range encounters with polar bears, stopping undesirable behavior in 18 of 19 incidents. Bear spray effectively deterred both curious and aggressive polar bears, including polar bears attempting to attack people. The mean distance between user and bear at the time of spraying was 2 m (min–max = 0.2–10.0 m, mode = 1 m), though bears were usually first seen at greater distances. Bear spray was successfully deployed against polar bears in all 4 seasons. Wind affected spray performance in 1 of 19 of incidents. In 8 of 14 bear spray incidents, other deterrents were used without success before bear spray was used effectively to deter polar bears. No humans or polar bears were killed or injured in any of the incidents in which bear spray was used. We also analyzed 54 polar bear attacks and attempted attacks on humans where bear spray was not carried. The data suggest that in 93% of those incidents, the use of bear spray might have saved the lives of both the people and bears involved if it had been available and used. Our analysis improves our understanding of the effectiveness of bear spray for polar bear conflict mitigation.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2020

Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus)

This chapter comprises the following sections: names, taxonomy, subspecies and distribution, descriptive notes, habitat, movements and home range, activity patterns, feeding ecology, reproduction and growth, behavior, parasites and diseases, status in the wild, and status in captivity.

Book chapter↗

USGS2018

Survey-based assessment of the frequency and potential impacts of recreation on polar bears

Conservation plans for polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) typically cannot prescribe management actions to address their primary threat: sea ice loss associated with climate warming. However, there may be other stressors that compound the negative effects of sea ice loss which can be mitigated. For example, Arctic tourism has increased concurrent with polar bears increasingly using terrestrial habitats, which creates the potential for increased human-bear interactions. Little is known about the types, frequency, or potential impacts of recreation. We conducted a Delphi survey among experts who live and work in polar bear habitats, followed by an internet-based survey to which 47 managers, tour operators, community members, and scientists contributed. Participants identified viewing-based recreation as increasing and affecting the largest proportion of bears within subpopulationsthat come ashore during the ice-free season. Survey respondents suggested that negative effects of viewing, including displacement and habituation, could be reduced by restricting human use areas and distances between bears and people. Killing of bears in defense was associated more with camping or hunting for other species than other recreations, and may be mitigated with deterrents. Snowmobiling was the most common recreation across the polar bears' range, and reportedly caused some den abandonment and displacement. However, respondents estimated that <10% of polar bears are exposed to most types of recreation and <50% surmised any negative impacts. Nevertheless, mitigating some of the negative impacts identified in this study may become increasingly important as polar bears cope with sea ice loss.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2017

Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate

Understanding causes of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) attacks on humans is critical to ensuring both human safety and polar bear conservation. Although considerable attention has been focused on understanding black (U. americanus) and grizzly (U. arctos) bear conflicts with humans, there have been few attempts to systematically collect, analyze, and interpret available information on human-polar bear conflicts across their range. To help fill this knowledge gap, a database was developed (Polar Bear-Human Information Management System [PBHIMS]) to facilitate the range-wide collection and analysis of human-polar bear conflict data. We populated the PBHIMS with data collected throughout the polar bear range, analyzed polar bear attacks on people, and found that reported attacks have been extremely rare. From 1870–2014, we documented 73 attacks by wild polar bears, distributed among the 5 polar bear Range States (Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and United States), which resulted in 20 human fatalities and 63 human injuries. We found that nutritionally stressed adult male polar bears were the most likely to pose threats to human safety. Attacks by adult females were rare, and most were attributed to defense of cubs. We judged that bears acted as a predator in most attacks, and that nearly all attacks involved ≤2 people. Increased concern for both human and bear safety is warranted in light of predictions of increased numbers of nutritionally stressed bears spending longer amounts of time on land near people because of the loss of their sea ice habitat. Improved conflict investigation is needed to collect accurate and relevant data and communicate accurate bear safety messages and mitigation strategies to the public. With better information, people can take proactive measures in polar bear habitat to ensure their safety and prevent conflicts with polar bears. This work represents an important first step towards improving our understanding of factors influencing human-polar bear conflicts. Continued collection and analysis of range-wide data on interactions and conflicts will help increase human safety and ensure the conservation of polar bears for future generations.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2012

A circumpolar monitoring framework for polar bears

Polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) occupy remote regions that are characterized by harsh weather and limited access. Polar bear populations can only persist where temporal and spatial availability of sea ice provides adequate access to their marine mammal prey. Observed declines in sea ice availability will continue as long as greenhouse gas concentrations rise. At the same time, human intrusion and pollution levels in the Arctic are expected to increase. A circumpolar understanding of the cumulative impacts of current and future stressors is lacking, long-term trends are known from only a few subpopulations, and there is no globally coordinated effort to monitor effects of stressors. Here, we describe a framework for an integrated circumpolar monitoring plan to detect ongoing patterns, predict future trends, and identify the most vulnerable polar bear subpopulations. We recommend strategies for monitoring subpopulation abundance and trends, reproduction, survival, ecosystem change, human-caused mortality, human–bear conflict, prey availability, health, stature, distribution, behavioral change, and the effects that monitoring itself may have on polar bears. We assign monitoring intensity for each subpopulation through adaptive assessment of the quality of existing baseline data and research accessibility. A global perspective is achieved by recommending high intensity monitoring for at least one subpopulation in each of four major polar bear ecoregions. Collection of data on harvest, where it occurs, and remote sensing of habitat, should occur with the same intensity for all subpopulations. We outline how local traditional knowledge may most effectively be combined with the best scientific methods to provide comparable and complementary lines of evidence. We also outline how previously collected intensive monitoring data may be sub-sampled to guide future sampling frequencies and develop indirect estimates or indices of subpopulation status. Adoption of this framework will inform management and policy responses to changing worldwide polar bear status and trends.

Ursus↗

USGS2011

Development of a pan-Arctic monitoring plan for polar bears: Background paper

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus), by their very nature, and the extreme, remote environment in which they live, are inherently difficult to study and monitor. Monitoring polar bear populations is both arduous and costly and, to be effective, must be a long-term commitment. There are few jurisdictional governments and management boards with a mandate for polar bear research and management, and many have limited resources. Although population monitoring of polar bears has been a focus to some degree within most jurisdictions around the Arctic, of the 19 subpopulations recognised by the IUCN/Species Survival Commission Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), adequate scientific trend data exist for only three of the subpopulations, fair trend data for five and poor or no trend data for the remaining 11 subpopulations (PBSG 2010a). There are especially critical knowledge gaps for the subpopulations in East Greenland, in the Russian Kara and Laptev seas, and in the Chukchi Sea, which is shared between Russia and the United States. The range covered by these subpopulations represents a third of the total area (approx. 23 million km2) of polar bears’ current range, and more than half if the Arctic Basin is included. If we use popular terms, we know close to nothing about polar bears in this portion of their range. As summer sea-ice extent, and to a lesser degree, spring-time extent, continues to retreat, outpacing model forecasts (Stroeve et al. 2007, Pedersen et al. 2009), polar bears face the challenge of adapting to rapidly changing habitats. There is a need to use current and synthesised information across the Arctic, and to develop new methods that will facilitate monitoring to generate new knowledge at a pan-Arctic scale. The circumpolar dimension can be lost when efforts are channelled into regional monitoring. Developing and implementing a plan that harmonises local, regional and global efforts will increase our power to detect and understand important trends for polar bears, with particular emphasis on how climate warming may differentially affect populations and habitats. Current knowledge is inadequate for a comprehensive understanding of the present and future impact of climate warming and its interaction with other stressors. The cumulative effects are unknown (Laidre et al. 2008). An integrated pan-Arctic research and monitoring plan will improve the ability to detect future trends, identify the most vulnerable subpopulations and guide effective conservation. There is a need to direct attention and resources where data are deficient to understand the mechanisms that drive trends, and to facilitate more effective and timely conservation response.

Report↗