Human-Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) Conflict and its Mitigation Strategies at Siran and Kaghan Valleys of District Mansehra Pakistan

Among large carnivores, bears are primarily subjected to conflicts with humans across the globe (Dar et al., 2009; Aryal et al., 2014) and face survival threats due to human intervention in their naturally associated environment (Dar et al., 2009). The common types of conflict include livestock predation, crop destruction, and human casualties (Thirgood et al., 2005; Aryal et al., 2012; Ali et al., 2018; Penjor and Dorji, 2020). Such events generate negative perceptions in local communities regarding conservation initiatives (Browne and Jonker, 2008; Can et al., 2014; Piedallu et al., 2016). People experiencing property damages mostly had negative attitudes and they were in favor of killing harmful carnivores in their surrounding areas (Browne and Jonker, 2008; Don et al., 2009). Human-black bear conflicts are now becoming an emergent force for species extinction in the future (Woodroffe, 2000; Ogada et al., 2003; Dar et al., 2009). The success of bear protection largely depends on the local community close to the forestland, however regular conflicts diminish the community support to conserve the species (Treves and Karanth, 2003; Can et al., 2014). Protection of bear population without addressing the needs of the local community is unproductive and leads to escalation of conflicts rather than conservation (Browne and Jonker, 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Piedallu et al., 2016).

Human-bear conflict is now becoming a global issue and has been reported in many countries (Madden, 2004; Ambarli and Bilgin, 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Penjor and Dorji, 2020). In Asia, particularly in Pakistan, the black bear gets more public concern (Ali et al., 2018; Ullah et al., 2020) than any other carnivore due to regular interaction with rural communities (Abbas et al., 2015; Naeem et al., 2016). This may be due to changes in forested land use patterns, such as agricultural land expansion, human dependence on forest resources, infrastructure development, and rising human population around bear habitats, as well as disturbance of bear habitats (Woodroffe, 2000; Sathyakumar, 2001; Can et al., 2014). Black bear usually competes with humans for cover, security, food, and space. Anthropogenic food is the major attractant to compel the bears toward a human settlement. This gives rise to human black-bear conflict throughout their range (Bargali et al., 2005; Escobar et al., 2015). Additionally, black bears also cause huge damage to agriculture crops, beehives, livestock, fish farms, and humans located around their habitat (Chauhan, 2003; Bargali et al., 2005; Penjor and Dorji, 2020; Khan et al., 2021; Ullah et al., 2021c).

Researchers have reported various indigenous methods useful to reduce black bear damage to crops and livestock, such as the use of barbed wire fencing around valuable crops, keeping guard dogs (Ogada et al., 2003), and drumming empty metal containers (Charoo et al., 2011; Can et al., 2014). Numerous studies have been conducted regarding human-black bear interaction in the northern region of Pakistan and highlighted an increase in incidents of human-bear conflicts through the last decade (Awais et al., 2016; Naeem et al., 2016; Ali et al., 2018; Ullah et al., 2020). We present baseline information regarding patterns of human-black bear conflict and mitigation based on field observations and conducting interviews or questionnaire-based surveys at Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

The study was conducted at Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra (34° to 35°N and 72° to 74°E), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan (Waseem and Ali, 2011). The study area lies under the Himalayan moist temperate forest zone, has diverse ecosystems, and supports an extensive variety of wildlife species (Qasim et al., 2013). Both valleys are situated to North-West and North-East sides of the district covering 35,744 hectares of the area including Reserved and Guzara forests. The land use of both valleys comprises agricultural land (2.6%), forestry (24.6%), highland pasture (55%), and 17.8% unproductive used for infrastructure (Ali et al., 2018, Ullah et al., 2021a, b).

We conducted interviews and a questionnaire-based survey from the residents of 32 villages including seasonal settlements of both valleys. These methods are mostly used and acceptable in conservation science that provide opportunities for researchers to closely assess the explicit and tacit aspects of the community regarding human-wildlife interaction (Ali et al., 2018; Ullah et al., 2020).

First, we randomly interviewed local inhabitants of both valleys based on their interests. This method is different from structured questionnaires as this provides chances of a two-way conversation and follows the discussion regarding the concerned issue. During field visits, informants were interviewed at public places, hotels, or hiking tracks to assess human wildlife conflict and factors affecting the local peoples (White et al., 2005).

The second source of data collection was a questionnaire survey. The questions of the questionnaire had open-ended answers. Key informants and affected villagers were selected for questionnaire filling by adopting participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques (White et al., 2005). Teachers, forest and wildlife staff, hunters, and labor were also questioned during the field survey. The respondents were questioned in their native languages (Urdu and Hindko). A total of 100 questionnaires were filled in with the help of local wildlife staff members and local villagers from selected villages of both the valleys (Appendix 1). Finally, the collected information was logically verified by the researcher through proxy questions by following (Waseem and Ali, 2011; Abbas et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2015).

Livestock keeping and agriculture farming were the main sources of livelihood in both valleys. Goat and sheep were the most kept animals preferred to cattle. Most of the villagers were farmers (37%) and had a high interaction rate with bears (51%). People interviewed were mostly illiterate (53%, n=53), whereas 47% (n=47) had various educational levels (Table VI).

Villagers reported 66 cases of crop damages, of which 50% (n=33) damages occurred to maize crop during Summer followed by Autumn (48%, n=32). Although most cases of crop damages (72%, n=48) occurred close to the forest edge within a distance <250m (51%, n=34) from seasonal huts or villages. The mean value of bear damage in single attacks was 197.8 ± 78.4 kg, of which maize was 192.5 ± 75.7, fruits 2.9 ± 1.4 and vegetables 2.37 ± 1.2 kg, respectively. Whereas the mean area raided was 15.1 ± 4.1 m² of total area (453 m²). Overall minimum damage to the local community was counted as 5863 kg, which is equal to Rs. 167,922 (US$ 1085.47) annually (Table I).

A total of 105 cases of killed livestock during 2015-19 were recorded, of which 47% (n=50) predated animals were goats and sheep (37%, n=39) and cattle (12%, n=13) (Table II). Mostly predation occurred in Autumn (57%, n=60), at night time (74%, n=78) within dense forest (70%, n=74). Although 63% (n=67) attacks occurred <500m distance from seasonal huts. The mean value of livestock predation was (27 ± 8.25) animals per year; goats (12.5 ± 3.7), sheep (9.7 ± 2.5), cattle (3.2 ± 1.2) respectively. Based on local market value, black bear inflicted an annual economic loss of Rs. 1,620,000 (US$ 10,731.19) to local villagers at both valleys (Tables II, III).

We recorded 30 incidents of human casualties, of which 6 incidents resulted in human death, while 24 attacks led to serious injuries. Most (46%, n=14) incidents occurred accidentally within dense forest (50%, n=15) when victims were searching cattle (33%, n=10). In addition, five incidents occurred inside the village, of which in one attacked victim was busy in defecation during night time. Further detail of the victim’s profile is shown in Table IV.

Table V shows that self guarding is the most (35%) effective method for protecting livestock herd from black bear attacks, whereas 30% of respondents suggested barbed wire fencing to check agriculture crop destruction. The majority of respondents (70%) suggested that compensation of loss was the best solution for reducing the retaliatory killing of black bear while 25% were in favor of the involvement of local people in a conservation program to resolve human-black bear conflicts.

Most of the local inhabitants (n=48) expressed a negative attitude regarding black bears’ presence in their surroundings. A relationship in attitude was found among the respondents’ age, occupation, and interaction with a black bear. Respondents living close to forestland generally showed negative attitudes, whereas shepherds disliked bears more often than farmers. Similarly, elder villagers mostly disliked bears more than younger people (Table VI).

Table I. Reported cases of black bear damage to agriculture crops, fruit, and vegetable from respondents at Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra during April 2018-April 2019.

Veg*, Vegetable.

Table II. Reported cases of livestock predation by a black bear and its local market value in Pak rupees, from respondents of Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra during 2015- 2019.

Other, Horse; Donkey, Mule.

Table III. Black bear damage to agriculture crops and livestock predation at Siran and Kaghan Valleys of District Mansehra Pakistan during April 2018- April 2019.

We assessed three major conflict types including; crop destruction, livestock predation, and human casualties, as has been reported by Awais et al. (2016) and Ali et al. (2018) at Kaghan valley. However, the researchers claim that such conflicts often occurred for shared and limited resources between a human and black bear (Graham et al., 2005; Don et al., 2009; Ali et al., 2018). Human population has a direct effect on forest landscapes, as agriculture

Table IV. Reported cases of human casualties by a black bear, and description of victim profile at Siran and Kaghan Valleys of District Mansehra Pakistan, during April 2018-April 2019.

land expansion towards forested land, increased human dependence on forest resources, leading to disturbing wildlife, particularly bears, and hasten risk of encounters (Charoo et al., 2011; Escobar et al., 2015).

In the present study, maize was the most invaded crop by a black bear, as compared to fruits and vegetables during the summer months of August and September, which showed consistency with the finding of Ali et al. (2018), although wheat crop damage has also been reported from District Diamer, Gilgit-Baltistan by Ali et al. (2018). The villagers had the experience of recognizing black bear damage, as most of the respondents claimed that black bears pulled over standing plants with their paws, removed the cob corn, ate them, and destroyed the crop by crawling and rolling over the rest of the field. Such behavior insight that black bears preferred to feed on anthropogenic food sources found proximate to forest land, which might be due to depletion of wild food consumed by livestock within bear habitat (Liu et al., 2011). Livestock pressure on forest resource and human dependence leads to depletion of natural food due to which black bear is forced to visit human settlements and cause damage to crops.

Livestock predation was the next common conflict issue reported, of which goat and sheep were the most predated animals (Charoo et al., 2011). Similar findings were reported by Huygens et al. (2003) and revealed that domestic animals might be easier for black bear or other wild predators to prey due to lack of escaping experiences.

Studies revealed that wild predators easily encountered domestic livestock as compared to natural prey (Woodroffe, 2000; Liu et al., 2011). However increasing density of carnivores leads to a decreased population of natural prey, which may be correlated with increased incidence of livestock depredation (Huygens et al., 2003; Madden. 2004; Graham et al., 2005). During the summer season, livestock was mostly disposed to black bear attacks, because local inhabitants routinely migrated towards highland pastures (temporary residences) for livestock grazing, providing an opportunity for a black bear to attack. However, in autumn, bears generally faced scarcity of food, as a result, changed their abode towards lower elevation to avail chances of livestock predation (Huygens et al., 2003; Ali et al., 2018). In addition, human casualties mostly occurred accidentally, leading to severe injuries or even death. The main contributing factor of human casualties was human interference in bear habitat during dusk or dawn time which shows consistency with the finding of Liu et al. (2011), Awais et al. (2016), and Penjor and Dorji (2020).

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.