Is relative risk perpetuating human–wildlife conflicts?

Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are increasing globally, a consequence of human population growth and expansion of the wildland–urban interface along with concerted conservation efforts to enhance wildlife populations. Among HWCs, those often most contentious involve large carnivores, primarily due to real and perceived risks to humans, including death, injury, and property damage. Several carnivore species have benefitted from decades of conservation and management. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) continue to increase in abundance and range across Europe and the US; sightings of cougars (Puma concolor) are increasing in eastern North America, including recent documentation of kittens; and American black bears (Ursus americanus) are recolonizing much of their former range in the eastern US. These range expansions and population increases coincide with increasing encounters with humans, many of which qualify as conflicts. Despite decades of information on conflict prevention developed and distributed by government agencies, NGOs, and communities, why do we observe relatively stable (or even increased) numbers of conflicts between humans and black bears through time? Of course, increasing populations of both have undoubtedly resulted in greater interactions, including conflicts. Furthermore, weather events (e.g., droughts, late-spring frosts) can reduce abundance of natural foods for black bears, resulting in bears seeking human food sources as alternatives. However, if we consistently implemented available knowledge and tools to prevent conflicts at scale, an overall decline might reasonably be expected. So why do HWCs remain so common? Regarding black bears, possible causes include the types of information developed and format delivered, enforcement of existing ordinances, and implementation challenges, including costs of adoption. Another explanation could be relative risk. In Colorado, two categories of human–bear incidents are recorded: conflict interactions represent conflicts associated with human food sources, contact between a bear and human, aggressive bears, etc., whereas non-conflict interactions are mainly bear sightings. Between 1 January and 30 September 2026, Colorado recorded more than 11,000 total human–black bear interactions, 6100 of which were conflicts, each more than double as compared to that during the same period in any of the previous 3 years. Throughout black bear range in Colorado and elsewhere, the most common cause of conflicts with humans involves access to human-based foods including garbage, bird feeders, and pet food. Yet, given that the human population of Colorado is about 6 million, the individual odds of being involved in an incident (conflict or non-conflict) are nearly 1 in 500, even during the unprecedented interaction levels seen in 2026. During this period, only 10 of the reported total incidents involved physical contact between a person and bear, representing odds of about 1.7 in a million. For context, the annual risk for a person dying in a traffic accident in the US is about 1 in 8700. Although perceptions and consequences of various risks can differ markedly based on conflict type, even within a given species, we suggest that the individual risk from experiencing a conflict with a bear, including direct contact, might be perceived as too low to warrant the effort required to implement practices to prevent a conflict. This relative risk could also extend to communities and municipalities with limited resources, which must weigh the relative costs and benefits of reducing conflicts against myriad other competing needs. This perception of relative risk may further extend to the impacts of individual humans on individual bears. By securing food attractants and removing human food sources, many conflicts can be avoided by human actions, thereby reducing the risk of bear mortality. In Colorado, 386 black bears were euthanized by the state wildlife agency between 1 January and 30 September 2026, mostly due to conflicts with people and human food sources. In many of those cases, humans likely did not perceive their lack of action—in removing food sources, using bear-resistant trash containers, or securing other attractants—as creating a meaningful risk to a bear. If recent conflicts between humans and bears contribute to a belief that human inattention to securing trash elevates the relative risk for individual bears, maybe humans would deem such additional efforts worthwhile? Perhaps this year's unusual peak of human–black bear conflicts can serve as a tipping point to invoke a call for action for conflict prevention. Even though relative risk remains low, the near tripling of incidents comparable to that in recent years may help to exceed a threshold of concern and prompt greater action. This is important because increasing conflicts can intensify negative perceptions of wildlife, harming conservation efforts. For many wildlife species, we understand what drives many forms of conflict and have developed tools and strategies to prevent most from occurring. In the case of black bears, simple and straightforward individual approaches—such as proper food storage outdoors, use of bear-resistant trash receptacles, and removing bird seed from feeders during the non-denning period—could prevent many conflicts. At the community level, establishment and enforcement of municipal trash ordinances, improved education, and funding for homeowner associations and local governments can help to bring conflict mitigation efforts to scale. But until tolerance thresholds are exceeded and corresponding funding is available, large-scale implementation of practices to prevent conflicts will be difficult. The recent surge in human–bear conflicts may be an important opportunity to reduce HWCs both by highlighting low-cost near-term strategies for preventing conflicts and by investing in long-term solutions that will benefit both people and wildlife.