In the heart of British Columbia's Bella Coola Valley, a new study sheds light on the intricate relationship between eco-tourism and grizzly bear conflicts. The research reveals that eco-tourism is not a primary driver of human-wildlife conflict in the region, despite its high concentration of settlements and human activity. Of the 30 bears involved in conflicts in the valley, only one was linked to those frequenting eco-tourism hotspots. This surprising finding challenges assumptions and highlights the need for effective strategies to mitigate human-bear interactions.
The study, led by PhD candidate Kate Field, involved two years of dedicated fieldwork in Bella Coola Valley. Field collected over 1,800 DNA samples from grizzly bears using barbed-wire snags along trails commonly traversed by these majestic creatures. Her efforts aimed to determine the impact of eco-tourism on bear behavior and conflicts.
"Humans are the most dangerous thing on the landscape for grizzly bears," – Dairmont
Researchers found that eco-tourism outfits in the valley have a neutral impact on human-wildlife conflict. This result was unexpected, given Bella Coola Valley's reputation as the biggest hot spot for such conflicts in the province. The likelihood of a bear involved in a conflict matching one frequenting eco-tourism areas was described as "less likely than predicted by chance."
"It's far lower than the average bear in the entire population," – Darimont
The Bella Coola Valley's high rate of human-grizzly bear conflicts can be attributed to unsecured attractants, rather than eco-tourism. Unsecured food sources and garbage are significant drivers of these interactions, with younger and older bears taking more risks when foraging becomes challenging.
"And like any animal… wildlife, people included, tend not to take chances when they have resources." – Dairmont
Eco-tourism is viewed through two lenses: guided ecotourism and recreational tourism. Guided ecotourism adheres to best practices and aims for minimal impact on bears. Kathy MacRae, an expert in the field, emphasizes the distinction:
"Eco-tourism can be thought of in two different ways. Guided ecotourism follows a set of best practices and certification. We strive to have a bear-neutral impact. We want to have the least impact as possible," – Kathy MacRae
In contrast, recreational tourism often involves visitors getting too close to wildlife, posing risks to both humans and bears.
"Then there’s recreational tourism — people standing on the side of the road, getting too close." – Kathy MacRae
The study's findings highlight the importance of managing unsecured attractants to reduce conflicts. Measures such as securing food sources and installing electric fences around salmon cleaning stations and fruit trees can significantly mitigate risks.
"Wet fur. Salmon carcasses on the bank." – Kate Field
Kate Field's research confirms that eco-tourism outfits may need to adapt their practices during times of low salmon abundance when bears are more likely to take risks.
"This is not to say that all eco-tourism, all individuals involved in ecotourism, will not be involved in conflict anywhere, anytime, anyplace on the planet," – Darimont
Field's immersive experience living in a camper van provided invaluable insights into bear behavior and habitat use. Her work underscores the delicate balance between preserving natural habitats and accommodating human activity.
"It’s a great place to live if you're a grizzly bear, but it's packed with people on the valley bottom and some people don't make space for bears," – Darimont
