Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39585855›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses.

Diana J R Lafferty, Sarah M Trujillo, Grant V Hilderbrand, Andee Sears, Peter Christian, David Payer, Mary Hake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Diana J R LaffertyDepartment of Biology, Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Science Lab, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8938-7130
Sarah M TrujilloDepartment of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6867-2837
Grant V HilderbrandNational Park Service-Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0051-8315
Andee SearsNational Park Service-Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.
Peter ChristianNational Park Service-Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.
David PayerNational Park Service-Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.
Mary HakeNational Park Service-Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bear baiting is authorized in 12 states, 2 territories, and 8 provinces across North America. In Alaska, more than 70% of lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS) are open to some form of hunting including National Preserves where non-conflicting state wildlife hunting regulations apply. Alaska state regulations authorize bear baiting with few restrictions on the type or amount of bait that can be used to attract bears; although, restrictions related to bait station distance from roads and trails (¼ mile) and cabins/dwellings (1 mile) apply. However, National Preserves host diverse recreational activities in addition to hunting (e.g., hiking, camping, fishing). Because road and trail access to and within Alaska National Park and Preserve lands is limited, hunting and non-hunting-related activities often occur in the same areas-increasing potential for conflict between potentially non-compatible activities. We developed questionnaires about potential impacts on NPS lands, which were distributed to 14 NPS and 27 non-NPS bear research and management experts. We collated respondents' opinions regarding consistency of bear baiting practices with state and federal mandates for wildlife management. While minor differences in expert opinions were noted, findings from this study are unequivocal. Bear baiting is functionally equivalent to feeding bears, bears may defend a bait station similar to how they would defend a carcass, and bear baiting can lead to human food-conditioning in bears. Bear baiting also increases the likelihood bears will be killed in defense of life and property, and alters natural bear behaviors and ecological processes. Further, current mitigation strategies to minimize public safety risks and potential property damage are inadequate. For example, because bears are known to defend food resources, avoiding food conditioning of bears is central to the educational messaging of all entities that manage bears. In short, bear baiting is a harvest practice that challenges harmony between State mandates, which emphasize hunter opportunity, and NPS mandates that include public safety and natural processes.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesUrsidaeAlaskaAnimalsHumansHuntingParks, RecreationalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39585855
PMCPMC11588233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.