<%BANNER%>

Public Opinion Toward Bears and Bear Management in Japan and North America

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024526/00001

Material Information

Title: Public Opinion Toward Bears and Bear Management in Japan and North America
Physical Description: 1 online resource (69 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Sakurai, Ryo
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitudes, bears, beliefs, conflicts, culture, education, interventions, japan, management, opinions, survey
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The threatened Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) are considered nuisances in Japan because of agricultural and property damage as well as occasional human casualties. I reviewed 64 articles from the research and gray literature both in Japan (26) and North America (38) which discuss the human dimensions of bear management. Findings revealed that in Japan, most respondents (average of 90.9%) thought bears are scary. A cross-cultural comparison showed that significantly more Japanese thought bears should be extirpated than US respondents (?superscript two=2569.223, p < 0.0005 for black bears and ?superscript two=1585.067, p < 0.0005 for brown bears). Most Japanese and North American researchers emphasized the importance of education for residents and visitors to reduce bear-human conflicts. This study found that damage by bears can be contributing to the negative attitudes toward these animals in Japan, and therefore wildlife managers and governments need to focus on reducing these damages. Also, effective educational programs need to be conducted for residents so that they can acquire accurate information and skills to prevent bear conflicts, and make informed decisions as well as reasoned action for sustainable management of bears.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryo Sakurai.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024526:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024526/00001

Material Information

Title: Public Opinion Toward Bears and Bear Management in Japan and North America
Physical Description: 1 online resource (69 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Sakurai, Ryo
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitudes, bears, beliefs, conflicts, culture, education, interventions, japan, management, opinions, survey
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The threatened Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) are considered nuisances in Japan because of agricultural and property damage as well as occasional human casualties. I reviewed 64 articles from the research and gray literature both in Japan (26) and North America (38) which discuss the human dimensions of bear management. Findings revealed that in Japan, most respondents (average of 90.9%) thought bears are scary. A cross-cultural comparison showed that significantly more Japanese thought bears should be extirpated than US respondents (?superscript two=2569.223, p < 0.0005 for black bears and ?superscript two=1585.067, p < 0.0005 for brown bears). Most Japanese and North American researchers emphasized the importance of education for residents and visitors to reduce bear-human conflicts. This study found that damage by bears can be contributing to the negative attitudes toward these animals in Japan, and therefore wildlife managers and governments need to focus on reducing these damages. Also, effective educational programs need to be conducted for residents so that they can acquire accurate information and skills to prevent bear conflicts, and make informed decisions as well as reasoned action for sustainable management of bears.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryo Sakurai.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024526:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 PUBLI C OPINION TOWARD BEARS AND BEAR MANAGEMENT IN JAPAN AND NORTH AMERICA By RYO SAKURAI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE O F MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Ryo Sakurai

PAGE 3

3 To all who nurtured my intellectual curiosity, academic interests, and sense of scholarship throughout my lifetime, making this milesto ne possible We are where we are not by random chance but by following a logical course over four years. Philippe Troussier

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are numerous people to thank for assisting with or encouraging this project. First, I would like to thank the Supporting Organization for Research of Agricultural and Life Science in Tokyo, for sponsoring the project, and the Rotary Foundation for supporting my graduate school life both financially and morally. Second, I thank the n on p rofit o rganizatio n, S hinshu Black Bear Research Group, especially the president Dr. Hidetake Hayashi, for helping me conduct the research as well as providing the lodging. Third, I thank Dr. Ayako Uchikoshi for providing instructive comments and advice for the project. Fourth I thank Dr. Masato Kameda, Mr. Mike Brown, Dr. Oscar Huygens, Dr. Chihiro Fujiwara, for providing their papers for this research. Fifth special thanks go to the School of Natural Resources and Environment for admitting me to their Interdisciplinary Ecol ogy program; my committee members Dr. Mel Sunquist and Dr. Mickie Swisher, and to my advisor Dr. Susan Jacobson of the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. Susan has been always helpful, enthusiastic, encouraging and creative and I cannot po ssibly put my gratitude into words. I could not accomplish my research and the graduate study so successfully without such a wonderful advisor. Last but not least, sincere and long -overdue thanks go to my parents for their endless support and encouragement

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 10 Bears in Japan .............................................................................................................................. 10 Asiatic Black Bear and Brown Bear ................................................................................... 10 Images of the Bear in Japan ................................................................................................ 11 Life History .................................................................................................................................. 12 Management of Bears in Japan .................................................................................................. 13 Human -bear Conflicts in J apan .................................................................................................. 14 Black Bear ............................................................................................................................ 14 Brown Bear .......................................................................................................................... 15 Reasons for Humanbear Conflict in Japan ....................................................................... 15 Threats to Bears in Japan ............................................................................................................ 16 Nuisance Kills ...................................................................................................................... 16 Habitat Degradation ............................................................................................................. 18 Utilization of Bear Bile ....................................................................................................... 19 Public Attitudes toward Bears in Japan .............................................................................. 19 Bears in North America .............................................................................................................. 20 American Black Bear .......................................................................................................... 20 Grizzly Bear ......................................................................................................................... 21 Peoples Attitudes toward Bears in North America .......................................................... 22 Socia l Approaches for Solving Wildlife -Human Conflicts ...................................................... 22 Importance of Understanding Peoples Attitudes and Beliefs .......................................... 23 Importance of Cross Cultural Research ............................................................................. 24 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 25 Objectives of this Study .............................................................................................................. 27 2 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 28 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 36 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Objective 1: Japanese Experience and Attitudes toward Bears and Behaviors to Guard against Bears ......................................................................................................... 36

PAGE 6

6 Studies regarding b lack b ears ...................................................................................... 36 Studies regarding b rown b ears .................................................................................... 37 Objective 2: Comparison of Peoples Attitudes toward Bears in Japan and North America ............................................................................................................................ 38 Objective 3: Comparison of Recommended Interventions to Prevent HumanBear Conflicts ............................................................................................................................ 39 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 39 Japanese Perceptions of Bears ............................................................................................ 40 Reducing Human -bear Conflicts ........................................................................................ 41 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 58 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 69

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Research and gray literature reviewed for this study ........................................................... 30 2-2 Surveys used for Objective s 1 and 2 ..................................................................................... 35 3-1 Experience, belief, and cognitive attitude associated with black bears .............................. 46 3-2 People who dislike black bears ............................................................................................. 46 3-3 People who want to protect black bears ................................................................................ 46 3-4 Experience and cognitive attitudes associated with black bears, and a linear regression model .................................................................................................................... 47 3-5 Experiences regarding brown bears ...................................................................................... 47 3-6 Attitudes toward brown bears ................................................................................................ 48 3-7 Behavior to guard against brown bear encounters ............................................................... 48 3-8 A linear regression model of association between number of people who experienced damages and who had negative attitudes toward bear appe arance s around human settlements .............................................................................................................................. 49 3-9 Evaluative attitudes toward black and brown bears in Japan and North America (Key: bb = black bear; Ursus thibetanus and Ursus americanus, BB = brown be ar; Ursus arc tos) .......................................................................................................................... 50 310 People's attitudes toward bears based on average percentage of studies ............................ 52 311 Results of Chi -square t ests comparing peoples attitudes toward black bears and brown bears, between Japan and North America ................................................................. 52 312 Recommended interventions to reduce bear conflicts ......................................................... 53 313 Hunting and compensation management options recommended by respondents .............. 54 314 Results of Chi -square tests comparing number of people who recommended h unting and compensation for the management options ................................................................... 54

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The distribution of brown bear (Ursus Arctors), and Asiatic b lack bear (Ursus thibetanus) (Picchio 2008) and study sites in Japan. ........................................................... 27 3-1 Information people want regarding bears (%). ..................................................................... 55 3-2 Correlation of number of people who experienced damages and who disliked black bears among towns (Iiyama, Fujimi, Kitakata, Kitashiobara, Horikawa). ......................... 56 3-3 Correlation of number of people who experienced damages and who wanted to protect black bears among towns (Iiyama, Fujimi, Kitakata, Kitashiobara, Horikawa). .............................................................................................................................. 56 3-4 Cognitive and evaluative dimensions of peoples attitudes towa rd bears in Japan. .......... 57

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science PUBLI C OPINION TOWARD BEARS AND BEAR MANAGEMENT IN JAPAN AND NORTH AMERICA By Ryo Sakurai M ay 2009 Chair: Susan Jacobson Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology The threatened Asiatic black bear ( Ursus thibetanus ) and brown bear ( Ursus arctos) are considered nuisances in Japan because of agricultural and property damage as well as occasional human casualties. I reviewed 64 articles from the research and gray literature both in Japan (26 ) and North America (38 ) which discuss the human dimensions of bear management. Findings revealed that in Japan, most respondents (average of 90.9%) thought bears are scary. A cross cultural comparison showed that significantly more Japanese thought bears should be extirpated than US respondents ( 569.223, p<0.0005 for black bears and =1585.067, p<0.0005 for brown bears). Most Japanese and North American researchers emphasized the importance of education for residents and visitors to reduce bear human conflicts. This study found that damage by bears can be contributing to the negative attitudes tow ard these animals in Japan, and therefore wildlife managers and governments need to foc us on reducing these damages. Also, e ffective educational programs need to be conducted for residents so that they can acquire accurate information and skills to prevent bear conflicts, and make informed decisions as well as reasoned action for sustainable management of bears.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Two kinds of bears in habit Japan: Asiatic black bear ( Ursus thibetanus ) a nd brown bear (Ursus a rctors). B oth are considered game species and are not protected The current distribution of the two species is showed in Figure 1 -1 Asiatic black bears are spread widely in Asia from Japan to Iran, and this species is categorized as a Vulnerable Species by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Japan Bear Network 2007b). International trade of this species is controlled by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (UNEP -WCMC 2009). The Japa nese subspecies of Asiatic black bear is generally called Tsukinowa-guma, meaning moon bear as it has white fur like a new moon on its chest (Hazumi 1999). Asiatic black bear has similar characteristics with the American black bear ( Ursus americanus) inc luding its size (Roy 1998). In Japan, black bears used to be wide -spread in Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu, however human population and land use has increased since the 1950s and led to a reduction of black bear habitats (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Meanwhile, as people expanded their land use, damage to crops and forestry by bears increased and many bears were captured and mostly killed by hunters for their nuisance activities (Japan Bear Network 2007b). As a result, black bears are thought to be extirpated in Kyushu, and the population is endangered in Shikoku (Brown 2005; Hazumi 1999). Current population of black bear in Japan is estimated to number 10,00015,000 which may count as more than 20% of the whole population of Asiatic black bears in the world (Hazumi 1999). Although, seven isolated local populations of black

PAGE 11

11 bears are considered threatened in Japan, the national population of this species is considered stable (Ishii 2006). Brown bears inhabit most parts of Asia, and in Japan this species lives i n the northernmost island, Hokkaido (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Human-bear conflicts, such as crop damages and occasional human casualties, occur in those areas adjacent to bear habitat (Tsuruga et al. 2002). Hundreds of brown bear has been killed annually to control for damage (Tsuruga et al. 2002). Despite this strong pressure of harvest, this species still appears in 70% of the land of Hokkaido (Japan Bear Network 2007b) and the population is estimated to number 2,0003,000 (Kameda et al 2006), which outnumber brown bears living in the western United States outside of Alaska (Roy 1998). Although a small and isolated population in the Western Ishikari is listed as endangered in the Japanese Red List (Red Data Book of Hokkaido 2003), the population of brow n bears in Hokkaido is considered stable (Ishii 2006). People traditionally had a variety of beliefs about bears in Japan. Both in Hokkaido, where brown bears live, and in other parts of Japan where black bears exist, bears are associated with mountain spirits (Knight 2003). The indigenous Ainu, who traditionally hunted bears in Hokkaido, believed that bears are a form of mountain spirits who visit the human world to give fur and meat (Knight 2003). In other parts of Japan, bears are thought as gods of mountains (Knight 2003). On the other hand, resemblance of the characteristics of bears with human such as the ability to use their hand s and stand up erect generated anthropomorphism of bears in Japan (Knight 20 00). Bears are somet imes call ed as mountain man, mountain uncle, lonely person, and single dweller (Knight 2003). Bears also are a symbol of family ties, particularly mothers love and nurturance. Mother bears which give a birth in the mountain at the coldest time of the year are respected for their maternal dedication (Knight 2003).

PAGE 12

12 Asiatic black bear males weigh around 60 120kg and females weigh 40100kg with a body length of 110140cm (Hazumi 1999). These bears are omnivorous and change their diet by season, how ever they mostly eat plant foods (Izumiyama & Shiraishi 2004). In spring, bears eat herbaceous plants and new green shoots on trees, in summer, leaves of trees, herbaceous plants, fruits of Japanese cluster cherry ( Prunus grayam ), and invertebrate such as ants ( Formica sp ), and in fall, mainly beechnuts and oak acorns (Roy 1998; Japan Bear Network 2007b). In Japan, the black bears home range corresponds with broad leaved temperate forests, such as beech and oak, which produce nuts are important diet for this species (Izumiyama & Shiraishi 2004; Japan Bear Network 2007b). Bears hibernate mostly in hollow trees, cracks of rocks, or in the ground in winter (Hazumi 1999). They start winter sleep from the beginning of November to the end of December until April for five to six months (Hazumi 1999). Females deliver generally two cubs during hibernation (Japan Bear Network 2007b). The mating season for this species is from June to August (Japan Bear Network 2007b; Ministry of the Environment 2008). Birth rate incre ases when they have a rich harvest of nuts in forests in the previous fall (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Bear home ranges are 66.06km in males and 26.37km in females on average (Hazumi 1999). Brown bears weigh around 150250kg, and 200230cm in body length (Ministry of the Environment 2008). The diet of brown bears in Japan is similar to the black bears, eating herbs from spring to summer, insects in summer and nuts in fall, and especially those foods they harvest in fall are important to put on fat for hibernation (Japan Bear Network 2007b). They go into hibernation from around the end of November to the middle of December, and sleep the whole winter until the end of March to the end of April (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Similar to black bears, female brown bears also give birth to 1 or 2 cubs during hibernation every twothree

PAGE 13

13 years (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Active ranges are 1040 km for females (Ministry of the Environment 2008), which tend to be smaller than brown bears in Europe and North America, and 200 500km for males (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Both Asiatic black bears and brown bears are designated as game species in Japan, by Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law (Ishii 2006). During hunting season for black bear, from November 15th to February 15th, about 500 bears are hunted except isolated and threatened populations in Western Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu (Ishii 2006; Japan Bear Network 2007b). Bears are removed throughout the year under a nuisance control plan, and 1, 000 to 2,500 black bear are captured and mostly killed to reduce damages to agriculture and forestry, and human casualties (Ishii 2006; Japan Bear Network 2007b). Hunting season for brown bear is from October 1st to January 31st and an average of 368 brown bears are killed for hunting and also nuisance control every year (Kameda et al. 2006). In Japan, nuisance activities by Asiatic black bears include stripping bark from trees; raiding crops, orchards, apiaries, and fish farms; feeding from compost heaps a nd garbage bins; and attacking livestock as well as humans (Hazumi 1999; Huygens et al 2001). Conflicts by brown bears include three categories: human casualties; agricultural damage such as crop damage, especially to corn, and livestock; and fear of bear attacks generated by their appearance around human settlements (Tsuruga et al. 2002; Kameda et al. 2007). T he primary reaction to black bear depredation by hunters is to set cage traps to capture and kill nuisance bears ( Hazumi 1999; Huygens et al. 2001) F or brown bears also, damage control killing is currently the only method to deal with bear associated problems (Tsuruga et al. 2002). In order to hunt bears in Japan, hunters must have an appropriate hunting license, valid for three years, issued by the governor of the prefecture of his/her residence, and in addition, he/she

PAGE 14

14 must register with the governors of the prefectures where he/she intends to hunt (Ministry of the Environment 2007c). This license is given only to those who passed a prefecture exam ination which tests characteristics of game species, as well as the applicants health (Brown 2005). Human -bear conflicts mainly consist of two factors: human casualties and damage to agriculture and forestry (Japan Bear Network 2007b). In Japan, both casualties and damage to crops by black bear are increasing (Japan Bear Network 2007b). For example, in Iwate prefecture, located in northeast of Honshu, the number of attacks on people has been increasing since 1993 (Japan Bear Network 2007b). The annual average victims of bear attacks were 5 people between 1980 and 1992; it has increased to 11.4 victims annually after 1993 and until 2005 (Japan Bear Network 2007b). In 2006, when black bears massively appeared around human settlements, 142 people were injured and 3 people were killed by bears which was the highest number on the record (Ministry of the Environment 2007b). Crop damage by black bears also is increasing (Japan Bear Network 2007b). The amount of damage has in creased rapidly since 1995, and almost every year, total damages weigh more than 10,000,000kg and the amount of damage is about 300 to 400 million yen (about $3,000,000 to $4,000,000) every year (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Black bears also cause damage to forestry by stripping the bark off the tree (Hazumi 1999). Damage has increased since 1960 in the western side of Honshu which recorded 400 to 500 ha of damage annually (Japan Bear Network 2007b). This damage has started to spread to the eastern side of Honshu recently (Japan Bear Network 2007b).

PAGE 15

15 Casualties by brown bear are decreasing in Hokkaido since 1960, yet injuries to people by bear attacks occur every year (Tsuruga et al. 2002). From 1986 to 2005, 8 people were killed and 27 people were injured by brown bears (Japan Bear Network 2007b). According to Tsuruga et al. (2002), 35% of victims were attacked during sport hunting, 9% during control killing, 39% when edible plant or mushroom picking, 4% when fishing, and 9% when doing forestry activ ities. For agricultural damages, the loss has been increasing (Tsuruga et al. 2002). The annual amount of damage reached about 100 million yen ($1,000,000) recently (Tsuruga et al. 2002). This damage by brown bears is serious and losses vary from corn, fru its and other diverse crops, livestock such as cows and horses, and apiary (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Declines in food availability, such as forest mast that happens every several years in the Fall, may cause the widespread appearance of black bears around human settlements (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Consequently, more bears appear in farm lands, forestry, or around residences, and more conflicts occur. In 2004, during a small mast year, 111 people were injured and 2 were killed, and in the same year, 2485 black bears were killed for their nuisance activities, to control numbers, and for hunting (Ministry of the Environment 2007b). In 2003 and 2005, the number of casualties were 51 and 47 respectively, and the number of bears captured for nuisance activities and to control numbers were 1,409 and 719 respectively (Ministry of the Environment 2007b). However, correlations between lean mast years and widespread appearances of bears are not well documented (Japan Bear N etwork 2007a). Other factors also may influence bears appearance such as reproductive success for females in the previous year (Japan Bear Network 2007a). Secondly, as hunters are decreasing rapidly in Japan, the harvest of bears by hunting is decreasing. Lack of negative conditioning, such as hunting, can increase bears that have lost their

PAGE 16

16 fear of humans (McCullough 198 2; Staff at the Otari village, personal communication, June 5, 2008). Numbers of Japanese hunters decreased to less than 200,000 (Japan Bear Network 2007b) which is less than one third of a peak population of 530,000 in 1970 (Ueda et al. 2004). Ueda (2009) explains that one of the biggest factors that contributed to the decrease of hunters was the revision of Guns and Swords Act in 1978 whi ch strengthened the regulation of the use of guns. The new act hindered the recruitment and retention of hunters (Ueda 2009). The hunters also are aging (Igota & Suzuki 2008) and it is certain that we will lose a main group who control wildlife in the near future in Japan (Ueda 2009). Without effective hunters, it will be difficult to manage and control numbers of nuisance bears and conflicts will likely increase in the future. The third reason for human bear conflict is the change of land use in Japan. Agr icultural and mountainous villages are losing populations and the population is aging, resulting in 49% of land cover classified as underpopulated in Japan (Japan Bear Network 2007b). In Japan, villagers used to manage forests around villages to get wood a nd necessities (Iwasa et al. 2003; Kohira et al. 2006). These forests, called Satoyama, played a role as a buffer zone between wildlife habitats and human settlements, because there were less refuges and food for wildlife in those areas, and constant appearance of humans made the areas unappealing for wildlife (Noma 2005; Kohira et al. 2006). However, because of depopulation in many villages, most of these Satoyama have been abandoned, becoming denser forests or bush, which make it easier for wildlife to ap pear around the village (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Abandoned planted forests and abandoned orchards attract bears to villages and cause human-bear conflicts. In Japan, both black and brown bears are considered nuis ances because of agricultural and property damage, as well as occasional human casualties (Knight 2003; Japan Bear Network

PAGE 17

17 2007b). Hunting and depredation kills are significant sources of mortality affecting bear populations in Japan (Knight 2003; Japan Bear Network 2007b). In Hokkaido, people especially those living near brown bears habitats think bears are fierce animals, and when bears are considered a threat to crops, properties or human safety, killing is the only choice in most of communities permitt ed by the Hokkaido government throughout the year (Tsuruga et al. 2002). There are various reasons for bears to appear near human settlements, such as a general movement and looking for natural foods. However in most cases, bears are judged as dangerous, w ithout investigating the real cause of their appearance (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Damage by bears has been increasing in many towns in Hokkaido (Japan Bear Network 2007b). Tsuruga et al. (2002) report that if the current killing system is continued, the local brown bear population might become extinct. The situation is similar with black bears. Pest control kills occur year round (Roy 1998; Brown 2005). They remove more bears from the population than sport hunting (Roy 1998). In most cases when residents or villagers see bears, they call the local government which in turn calls hunters to remove bears (Hayashi, personal communication, June, 10, 2008). In 23 of 35 prefectures where bears live, the prefecture has the right to give permission to capture bears to prevent nuisance activities (Mano et al. 2008). Nine other prefectures delegate these rights to cities, towns, and villages (Mano et al. 2008). Only 10 prefectures impose a maximum number of bears that hunters can capture (Mano et al. 2008), and even i n prefectures that set a bag limit, more bears sometimes are killed than the number established by prefectures. For example, Nagano prefecture has imposed the maximum harvest number as 150 bears a year (Nagano prefecture 2007). However in 2006, a year of w idespread bear appearances, 553 bears were killed to avoid damage to people, agriculture and forestry (Nagano prefecture 2007). In the same

PAGE 18

18 year, a total of 4,340 black bears were captured and mostly killed, which counted for 40% of the population (Ministr y of the Environment 2007b). According to Huygens et al. (2004), no significant associations between depredation costs to people and nuisance kills were found at the municipal levels, and the current system of killing bears after depredation events may not help reduce depredation costs (including damage to trees, crops and other property). The fact that human bear conflicts are increasing (Japan Bear Network 2007b) shows that the current management policy, which is mostly a lethal control method, has been i neffective (Brown 2004). Asiatic black bear used to be widespread in Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu in the past, however their distribution retreated as people increased their population and land use after 1950s, when rapid economic growth occurred in Japan (Hazumi 1999; Japan Bear Network 2007b). Out of all land (370,000km), flat land (non-mountainous areas) (30%) was developed to urban areas and farm lands, and natural forests (70%) was converted to planted coniferous forest mainly Japan ese cedar, hinoki, and larch for timber after the second World War (Japan Bear Network 2007b). These timber forests currently occupy 45% of all forests in Japan except in Hokkaido where 27% is occupied by timber forest (Japan Bear Network 2007b; Hokkaido F orest Products Research Institute 2009). Black bears which prefer broadleaved trees significantly lost their natural habitats (Japan Bear Network. 2007b). As a result, black bears are thought to be extirpated in Kyushu, and less than 20 bears are estimate d in Shikoku (Ishii 2006; Japan Bear Network 2007b). In Honshu, isolated local populations in the Shimokita and Kii peninsula, and in the eastern and western Chugoku District have less than a few hundred bears in each, and they are classified as an Endangered Local Population on the Japanese Red List, organized by the Ministry of Environment (Ishii 2006).

PAGE 19

19 Brown bears once lived all around Hokkaido including coastline and flat land, however modern development after the end of 19th century expelled bears from non-mountainous areas that were changed into urban and agricultural areas (Mano & Moll 1999; Japan Bear Network 2007b). The brown bear population of the west side of Hokkaidos Ishikari region is classified as an Endangered Local Population by the Japanes e Red List (Red Data Book of Hokkaido 2003). Among bear body parts, only gall bladder, which has been utilized by people for more than 400 years in Japan, has a high financial value currently (Ishii 2006). More than 10% of Japanese have bought or obtained bear bile, and about one third of shops that sell traditional medicine sell the product of bear bile (Ishii 2006). Currently, there are no regulations to restrict usage of bear bile of captured bears and it is difficult to prove if bladders are taken legally or illegally, when they are sold at the stores (Hughens et al. 2001; Ishii 2006). Therefore, it is unknown if the use of gall bladder has been a threat to the current bear population. However, the majority of hunters said that i t has become hard to find a buyer for the bear gall bladders (Ishii 2006). Over harvesting of bears to get gall bladders may not be a threat for the two bear species in Japan (Ishii 2006). According to the literature in Japan, the image of bears, especially in rural areas, is mostly negative and people feel bears are scary (Hugyens et al. 2001; Knight 2003). The number of bear attacks has created an image of bears as an aggressor or fierce animal (Knight 2003; Japan Be ar Network 2007b). Also, depredation of agriculture and forestry by these animals has led to frustration and discontent, and negative attitudes toward bears and the conservation of bears (Hugyens et al. 2001). However, traditionally, for the Ainu, native people of Hokkaido, brown bears were respected as the god of the mountains (Tsuruga et al. 2002; Japan Bear Network

PAGE 20

20 2007b). Roy (1994) concluded from interviews with 62 bear researchers, government professionals, hunters, and farmers in Japan, that publics negative attitudes toward bears can be one of the biggest obstacles in conservation of bears in this country. The American black bear ( Ursus americanus) once occupied most forested areas in North America, and has disappeared from some regions due to habitat loss, overharvest and predator control. They currently inhabit in most of Canada, at least 35 U.S. states and northern Mexico (Pelton et al. 1999; Ternent 2003). The populations are isolated in some areas of Te nnessee, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. Black bears are categorized as a game species in 33 states, and in Louisiana, eastern Texas, and Southeastern Mississippi, they are federally listed as a threatened subspecies under the Endang ered Species Act of 1973 (Pelton et al. 1999). Currently estimated 186,881 to 206,751 black bears inhabit the US, except Alaska, Idaho, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming where population sizes are unknown (Pelton et al. 1999). American black bear males weigh around 60 140kg and females weigh 4070kg (Pelton et al. 1999) with a body length of 150180cm in average (Ternent. 2003; Taylor 2006). These bears are opportunistic omnivores and eat any available food including both plant and animal matter, however more than 75 percent of foods are generally plant (Ternent 2003). As for hibernation, the pregnant females typically den first beginning in early November and sleep until April (Ternent 2003). Adult males can remain active into January and hibernate until late February to early March (Ternent 2003). Generally two cubs are delivered in January during the hibernation (Pelton et al. 1999; Ternent 2003). Home ranges of black bears averaged 173 km in males and 41 km in females in northeast Pennsylvania (Ternent 20 03). Black bear populations in the US

PAGE 21

21 are estimated to have grown by 13% from 1970 to the late 1980s (Hrstienko & McDonald 2007). 28 US states out of 33 states which reported to have black bear populations, stated an increase in abundance of these bears (H rstienko & McDonald 2007). Concurrent to the growth of black bear populations, human-black bear conflicts are also increasing (Gore et al. 2006). Wildlife agencies in the US states estimated a 45% increase in spending for controlling bear related damages a nd a 19% increase in the total number of complaints in previous 5 years, in 2004 (Gore et al. 2006). Currently, about 30 people are attacked and average of one person is killed by black bears every year in the US (Ternent 2003). The grizzly be ar ( Ursus acrctos horribilis) inhabited at least 16 states of western United States with estimated 50,000 bears before 1800 (Servheen 1999). However the population started to decrease dramatically in response to immoderate human -caused mortality and habita t loss (Servheen 1999). The settlers shot, poisoned, and killed at wherever grizzly bears occurred because they believed that grizzlies were predators and competitors of humans (Servheen 1999). Hunting and killing of bears continued until 1970s, and by 1975 grizzly bears have declined to 7 800, occurring in less than 2% of their former ranges in the lower 48 states (Servheen 1999; Davis & Morgan 2005a). Grizzly bears in the lower 48 United States was listed as Threatened in 1975 under the U.S. Endangered Sp ecies Act (Servheen 1999). Grizzlies have been protected under Federal Law which prohibits killing of these animals except for self -defense or defense of others (Servheen 1999; Canepa et al., 2008). Grizzly bear males weigh around 200 500kg and females wei gh 100280kg with a body length of 110213cm (Talyor 2006). Omnivorous grizzly bears eat almost all food available including roots, bulbs, tubers, nuts, insects, and ungulates (Canepa et al. 2008). Grizzlies deliver an average of 2 cubs in winter (Canepa et al. 2008). Their home ranges are about 320800km in

PAGE 22

22 males and 80 480km in females (Davis & Morgan 2005a; Canepa et al. 2008). About 2 people are injured and less than 0.5 were killed in average every year by grizzly bears in Glacier and Yellowstone Nat ional Park since 1980 (Canepa et al. 2008). European settlers, who first came to the western U.S considered grizzly bear as a competitive and predatory animal, and killed them wherever they occurred. Curren tly there is a strong support for conservation of this animal as grizzlies are considered endangered in the US (Kellert 1994). A national study found that a majority of Americans expressed a willingness to create millions of acres of national forest land t o protect the habitat of grizzly bear even if people might lose jobs (Kellert et al., 1996). However, on the other hand, residents living adjacent to grizzlies habitat are generally less willing change their behaviors to conserve grizzly bears (Kellert et al. 1996). This fact might correspond to peoples attitudes toward other predators, such as wolves and coyotes, in North America, where rural residents who suffer from direct depredation or any kinds of direct problems by those animals have negative attit udes toward them, while people living in cities have positive attitudes to those predators (Conover 2002; Naughton Treves et al. 2003; Nie 2004). The perception of rare and endangered also affects peoples impression of grizzlies. North Americans generally have positive attitudes toward grizzly bears even though they have potential for human injury or property damage (Kellert 1994). Overall, North Americans see bears in a positive manner which may be related to bears symbolic value that comes from myth, leg end, and fairy tales; currently illustrated by Smokey the Bear, the Teddy Bear, etc. (Kellert 1994; Kellert et al., 1996). Concern about social and economic aspects of wildlife management grew, and ent ire sessions on people -wildlife topics appeared on the programs of major professional conferences in

PAGE 23

23 1970s in North America. The breadth of topics, stakeholders, and processes studied by human dimensions experts continues to grow as research continues in t raditional areas and has expanded to new topics, such as species restoration, people-wildlife interaction in metropolitan environments, and communication between agencies and stakeholders (Decker et al. 2001). On the other hand, in Japan, the field of hum an dimensions of wildlife management is still not well known and research in this area has scarcely begun (Sakamoto 2002; Sakurai 2007). A classic study about Japanese perceptions of wildlife was conducted by Kellert (1991). From a survey in urban and rural areas of Japan in 1986, he found that Japanese appreciation of nature is often lacking an ecological or ethical orientation, or a strong sense of responsibility to conserve or protect the natural environment (Kellert 1991). This result reflects a report by Oyadomari (1989) which stated that Japanese perception toward nature is emotional rather than analytical. Kellert (1991) found that the American public expressed a much stronger ethical and ecological perspective of nature and wildlife than the Japanese Identifying social dimensions and socially defined impacts of wildlife management has been recognized as an indispensable process to make the process successful (Riley et al. 2003; Fulton et al. 2004). Also, involving stakeholders and the public has currently become one of the most important elements of wildlife management in the US (Raick et al. 2003). Direct citizen participation in decision -making and implementation of wildlife management acti on can mitigate potential conflicts and garner long-term public support (Raick et al. 2003; Riley et al. 2003; Fulton et al. 2004). In the past, failures of the management implementation by wildlife managers occurred when they did not assess social feasibi lity of the management process (Jacobson & McDuff 1998). These cases include the reintroduction of wolves in Michigan in 1974 which failed as all four released wolves were killed by people (Decker et al. 2001), and controversial

PAGE 24

24 management of white tailed deer in New York which resulted in a lawsuit between stakeholders and managers (Leong & Haigh 2007). On the other hand, sociological assessments including survey and outreach campaigns to local residents led to successful restoration and establishment of w olves in Yellowstone National Park (Jacobson 1999; Decker et a. 2001). For this reason, understanding public perception, values, and attitudes related to wildlife and their management action is recognized as a critical step in the management process (Jacob son & McDuff 1998; Fulton et al. 2004) and these studies have been one of the most important contributions of human dimensions research (Decker et al. 2001). There is a critical need to conduct cross -cultural research for understanding the relation between wildlife and human as well as designing better management of wildlife (Manfredo & Dayer 2004; Dayer et al. 2007; Teel et al. 2007; Manfredo et al. 2009). Manfredo & Dayer (2004) suggested that cultural comparison is v aluable for wildlife managers because (1) the finding in one study site can benefit other managers having similar human wildlife conflicts at different locations, (2) the effective management of wildlife and ecosystem requires trans boundary approaches whi ch go beyond the sociopolitical borders, and (3) the efforts to accomplish wildlife management are usually launched by external groups rather than those people that will be directly affected. Researchers need to avoid assuming that certain interventions ca n work effectively in other culturally -different locations when conducting cross cultural comparison (Manfredo & Dayer 2004). Managers need to account for the differences among people (Manfredo & Dayer 2004) before introducing certain management techniques These types of investigations can uncover effective human-wildlife conflict mitigations. In addition, human -wildlife conflict is a worldwide phenomenon and cooperation by researchers from all over the world would be effective for the solution of universa l wildlife problems.

PAGE 25

25 Furthermore, Japan is far behind in the field of wildlife management compared to the US (Yamanaka 2006) and ideas and tools for conflict mitigation might work well if they are introduced from the US. However there are few cross cultur al studies conducted in the field of wildlife management in Japan, and this study is one of the first of this kind of investigation. Human dimensions research has been developed by constructing from and contributing to related theorie s which helps strengthen the generalizability and validity of the research findings (Decker et al. 2001). There are two main areas that contributed to human dimensions work which are social psychology and economics (Decker et al. 2001). A cognitive approach, which attempts to understand values, value orientations, attitudes/norms, behavioral intentions, and behaviors, is one of the most well used theoretical approaches from social psychology, in human dimensions research (Vaske & Donnelly 1999; Decker et a l. 2001). These elements of cognitions are theorized to build one upon another forming an inverted pyramid: a cognitive hierarchy model (Fulton et al. 1996; Vaske & Donnelly 1999). This model suggests that peoples values affect their attitudes via value orientations, and these attitudes, in turn, influence behaviors (Vaske & Donnelly 1999; Decker et al. 2001). Values which form the foundation of the cognitive hierarchy, are relatively stable and reflect peoples most basic desire (Fulton et al. 1996; Vaske & Donnelly 1999; Decker et al 2001). Value orientations consist of basic beliefs which indicate peoples thought about specific objects (Decker et al. 2001), and strengthen the values (Fulton et al. 1996). Attitudes are peoples evaluation toward an ob jectiv e and are predicted to be influenced by value orientations (Vaske & Donnelly 1999; Decker et al. 2001). Attitudes are typically defined by like -dislike, good -bad, or positive negative (Vaske & Donnelly 1999; Decker et al. 2001). Norms are standards of

PAGE 26

26 behaviors that an individual has with regard to his or her perception of the social pressure (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980; Decker et al. 2001). According to the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980; Ajzen 1985), which is an extensively used theor y in natural resource management (Rossi & Armstrong 1999; Ai panji g uly et al. 2002; Fulton et al. 2004), attitudes can directly predict behav ioral intentions that identif y specific behaviors (Vaske & Donnelly 1999). However, in order to predict behavior, it is important to understand an evaluative dimension: whether a person views the objective positively or negatively, and a cognitive dimension: a persons beliefs about the object, of attitudes (Decker et al. 2001). For example, even if two people had same cognitive beliefs that bears are big, they might have totally different evaluative attitudes about bears. One could feel positive about bears as if s/he thought bigger animals were more attractive, and another person could evaluate bears negatively if s/he associated big with scary and dangerous. One implication of the cognitive theory in this study is to predict peoples behavioral intentions to support or oppose conservation of bears by understanding attitudes and beliefs. Unless, attitudes and beliefs d o not change, short term behavioral change will not last long time (Decker et al. 2001). By knowing underlying cognitive components we can predict behaviors more accurately. Another use of this theory is to help managers design outreach intervention strate gies to shift attitudes which can eventually change behaviors as well (Gore & Knuth 2006). Several studies have showed that effective intervention programs can enhance informative decision making and reasonable action on an individual level as well as comm unity level (Raik et al. 2003; Gore & Knuth 2006).

PAGE 27

27 The purpose of this study is to: (1) understand local residents experience and attitudes toward bears and behaviors to guard against bears in Japan, (2) identify how Japanese eval uative attitudes toward bears compare to North America, (3) compare recommended interventions to prevent human -bear conflicts between Japanese and North American literature about bear mana gement Figure 1 -1 The distribution of brown bear (Ursus Arctors ), and Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) (Picchio 2008) and study sites in Japan.

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 2 METHODS I reviewed 64 research publications and gray literature both in Japan (26 ) and the US (38 ) which discuss the human dimensions of bea r management (Table 21). Out of seven surveys that asked about people s attitudes and beliefs toward bears in Japan, four studies (Ushikoshi 2007; Ministry of the Environment 2007a; Kameda & Maruyama 2003; Kameda et al. 2007) were used for the a nalysis fo r O bjective s 1 and 2. Three other surveys (Fujiwara 2000; Brown 2005 ; Roy 1998) were not used because either samples were not selected randomly or sample size was small. The results of similar questions among th e four studies were compared to understand the overall characteristics of Japanese experience with bears, behaviors to guard agai ns t bears, and cognitive elements associated with bears for O bjective 1 of this study. Cognitive components included (1) a cognitive belief of attitudes : bears are scary, a nd (2) evaluative dimensions of attitudes: I want to prote ct bears/ I dislike bears, I feel positive or negative toward bears appearing around human settl e ments. Eight studies (Lafon et al. 2003; Garshelis et al. 1999; Bowman et al. 1999; Bowman et al. 2004; Responsive Management 1997; Pelton et al. 1976; McCool & Braithwaite 1989; Miller et al. 2008) out of 19 surveys in North America, were excluded from the study for O bjective 2 either because samples were no t chosen randomly or the contents of questions asked were incomparable The remaining 11 surveys in the US were compared to the four surveys in Japan for O bjective 2 by grouping question s of similar content and correspondi ng response scales. Study sites, sample size, and response rate of all studies compared for Objective 2 are provided in Table 2 -2 For Objective 2, similar responses were combined for comparison. First, responses in each survey which asked similar questions were put into 4 categories of Should be extirpated

PAGE 29

29 Neutral Should exis t in natural area and Should exist everywhere For example, in Iiyama and Fujimi in Japan, I included the response category If bears do not exist near settlements they can exist (Uchikoshi 2007), in the category Should exist in natural area I com pared results of Japanese and the US surveys using Chi -Square tests to determine significant differences. For Objective 3, review of 36 research and gray literature was conducted to see if recommendations for interventions to prevent human -bear conflicts differ between Japan and North America. Interventions suggested by bear researchers or bear managers were compared. Suburban management objectives and strategies include mainly three aspects: change wildlife populations or behaviors, change wildlife habita t, and change human attitudes and/ or behaviors. Two management options, government should open a bear hunting season and compensation for landowners for documented bear damage were compared, as several surveys in both Japan and North America asked about t hem.

PAGE 30

30 Table 2 -1. Research and gray literature reviewed for this study Authors Focus Methods Data used in the comparison study Japan 1. Uchikoshi 2007 Understanding residents attitudes toward black bears in Nagano prefecture Mail survey (some questionnaires were distributed by hand) + 2. Ministry of the Environment 2007a Understanding residents attitudes toward black bears Fukushima prefecture Mail survey (some questionnaires were distributed by hand) + 3. Kameda & Maruyama 2003 Understanding resi dents attitudes toward brown bears in Hokkaido Mail survey + 4. Kameda et al. 2007 Understanding residents attitudes toward brown bears in Hokkaido Mail survey + 5. Fujiwara 2000 Understanding residents attitudes toward black bears in Iwate prefecture Interview survey + 6. Brown 2005 Understanding attitudes of residents, junior high school students, and hunters toward black bears in Nagano prefecture Mail survey + 7. Roy 1998 Understanding bears researchers, government professionals, hunters, and farmers views of bears in Japan Interview survey + 8. Ministry of the Environment 2008 Preventing damages by both black and brown bears in Japan Secondary review + 9. Nagano Environmental Conservation Research Institute 2004 Preventing black bear damag es in Nagano prefecture Secondary review + 10. Hugyens et al. 1999 Preventing black bear damages using electric fences in Nagano prefecture Secondary review + 11. Hugyens et al. 2001 Problems and solutions for black bear conservation in Nagano prefecture Secondary review + 12. Hugyens et al. 2004 Relationships between black bear kills and depredation cost in Nagano prefecture Secondary review 13. Japan Bear Network 2007a Synthesis of widespread appearance of black bears in 2006 in Japan Secondary revie w +

PAGE 31

31 Table 2 1. Continued Authors Focus Methods Data used in the comparison study Japan 14. Japan Bear Network 2007b Current situation of bears in Asia Secondary review + 15. Hazumi 1999 Current situation of black bears in Japan Secondary review + 16. Mano & Moll 1999 Current situation of brown bears in Japan Secondary review + 17. Knight 2000 People wildlife conflicts from all over the world in anthropological perspective Secondary review 18. Knight 2003 People wildlife conflicts in Japan in ant hropological perspective Secondary review 19. Yamanaka 2006 Wildlife problems in Shiretoko National Park in Hokkaido Secondary review 20. Mano et al. 2008 Current situation of bears in Japan Secondary review + 21. Mano & Moll. 1999 Current situation o f brown bears in Japan Secondary review + 22. Tsuruga et al. 2002 Current situation of brown bears in Hokkaido Secondary review + 23. Kanamori et al. 2008 Current issues of black bears in Chugoku mountains in Japan Secondary review + 24. Sato 2003 Manag ement of black bears in Nagano prefecture Secondary review 25. Kodaira et al. 2006 Management of brown bears in Shiretoko National Park Secondary review 26. Mano & Ishii Bear gallbladder trade issues in Japan Secondary review North America 27. Mo rzillo 2007b Understanding residents attitudes toward black bears in East Texas Mail survey + 28. Responsive Management 2004a Understanding residents attitudes toward black bears in Maryland Telephone survey + 29. Siemer et al. 2003 Understanding resid ents attitudes toward black bears in New York Mail survey + 30. Rice et al. 2007 Understanding landowners attitudes toward black bears in Texas Mail survey + 31. Canepa et al. 2008 Understanding residents attitudes toward grizzly bears in Montana Tele phone survey +

PAGE 32

32 Table 2 1. Continued Authors Focus Methods Data used in the comparison study North America 32. Miller et al. 1998 Understanding residents attitudes toward black and brown bears in Alaska Mail survey + 33. McFarlane et al. 2007 Under standing residents attitudes toward grizzly bears in Alberta, Canada Mail survey + 34. Responsive Management 2006 Understanding residents attitudes toward black bears in West Virginia Telephone survey + 35. Davis & Morgan 2003 Understanding residents attitudes toward grizzly bears in Washington Telephone survey + 36. Responsive Management 2001 Understanding residents attitudes toward grizzly bears in Wyoming Telephone survey + 37. Responsive Management 2004b Understanding residents attitudes toward black bears in New Hampshire Telephone survey + 38. Bowman et al. 2001 Landowners attitudes toward black bears in Mississippi and Arkansas Mail survey + 39. Gunther et al. 1998 Casualties by bears in Yellowstone National Park Secondary review + 40. Gu nther et al. 2004 Grizzly bear human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Secondary review + 41. Spencer et al. 2007 Understanding agencies responses to human black bear conflicts Secondary review + 42. Burghardt et al. 1972 Understanding visi tors attitudes toward black bears in Great Smoky Mountain National Park Interview survey + 43. Schirokauer et al. 1998 Bear human conflicts in Denali National Park Secondary review + 44. Siemer & Decker. 2006 An assessment of black bear impacts in New Y ork Focus group + 45. Herrero & Higgins 2003 Human casualties by bears in Alberta Secondary review + 46. White et al. 1995 Black bear damages in Mississippi. Mail survey + 47. Dunn et al. 2008 Evaluating education program of black bears in New Mexico Su rvey taken on site +

PAGE 33

33 Table 2 1. Continued Authors Focus Methods Data used in the comparison study North America 48. Kimberly 2007 Understanding residents opinions about translocating nuisance black bears in Florida Secondary review + 49. Schw artz & Gunther 2006 Management of grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park Secondary review + 50. Servheen 1999 Management of grizzly bears in lower 48 United States Secondary review + 51. Gore 2004 Review of six intervention programs to reduce bear -hu man conflicts in North America Secondary review 52. Gore & Knuth 2006 Implementation and evaluation of the educational program of black bears in New York Secondary review 53. Gore et al. 2006 Review of education programs for reducing black bear -human c onflict Secondary review 54. Ternent 2006 Management of black bears in Pennsylvania Secondary review + 55. Davis et al. 2005b Assessment of the outreach program of grizzly bears in Washington Secondary review + 56. Lafon et al. 2003 Understanding stake holders opinions of black bear management in Virginia Mail survey 57. Responsive Management 1997 Understanding residents attitudes toward reintroduction of grizzly bears in Idaho and Montana. Telephone survey 58. Morgan et al. 2004 Review of outreach project of grizzly bears in Washington Secondary review 59. Garshelis et al. 1999 Understanding landowners perceptions of damages by and management of black bears in Minnesota Mail survey 60. McCool & Braithwaite 1989 Understanding campers beliefs t oward grizzly bears in Montana Mail survey + 61. Pelton et al. 1976 Understanding visitors attitudes toward damages and/or injuries by black bears in Great Smoky Mountain National Park Mail survey + 62. Primm 1996 Review of grizzly bear conservation in North America Secondary review + 63. Bowman et al. 2004 Understanding landowners attitudes toward black bears in Mississippi Mail survey

PAGE 34

34 Table 2 1. Continued Authors Focus Methods Data used in the comparison study North America 64. Hristienko & M cDonald Review of black bear management in North America Survey by telephone and email

PAGE 35

35 Table 2 -2 Surveys used for Objective s 1 and 2 Author Area of study and samples Response/Sample (response rate) Japan Uchikoshi 2007 Residents in Iiyama city and Fujimi town both in Nagano prefecture (A in Figure 1 1) 435/531 (81.9%) in Iiyama 295/975 (30.3%) in Fujimi Ministry of the Environment 2007a Residents in Kitakata city, Kitashiobara village, and Horikawa town in Fukushima prefecture (B in Figure 11) 73 1/1,115 (65.6%) in Kitakata 173/448 (38.6%) in Kitashiobara 134/480 (27.9%) in Horikawa Kameda & Maruyama 2003 Residents in Hakodate city, and villages around Hakodate in Hokkaido (C in Figure 1 1) 435/955 (45.5%) in Hakodate 439/980 (44.8%) in villages a round Hakodate Kameda et al. 2007 Residents in Assabu village and Oshamambe village in Hokkaido (C in Figure 1 1) 177/370 (47.8%) in Assabu 246/513 (48.0%) in Oshamambe North America 1. Morzillo et al. 2007b Residents in 12 counties in southeastern Te xas 1,006/ 3,000 (40%) 2. Responsive management 2004a Residents in Maryland 831/? (40 60%) (Duda, personal communication, February, 18, 2009) 3. Siemer & Decker 2003 Residents in New York State counties north of New York city 1,036/ 3,000 (40%) 4. Rice et al. 2007 Landowners in the Trans Pecos region of Texas 444/ 1,100 (40%) 5. Canepa et al. 2008 Montana residents living in proximity to the Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem 502/594 (84.5%) 6. Miller et al. 1998 People registered to vote in Alaska 2,370/ 4,725 (5 7.2%) 7. McFarlane et al. 2007 Residents in Alberta, Canada 1,700/ 4,893 (35%) 8. Responsive Management 2006 Residents in West Virginia 1,206/? (40 60%) (Duda, personal communication, February, 18, 2009) 9. Davis & Morgan 2003 Residents in Skagit and Wh atcom County in Washington 508/ 1181 (43%) 10. Responsive Management 2001 Residents in Wyoming 1,015/ 1,717 (59.11%) 11. Responsive Management 2004b Residents in New Hampshire 519/ ? (40 60%) (Duda, personal communication, February, 18, 2009)

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTE R 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Quantitative surveys used for objective 1 (Uchikoshi 2006; Ministry of the Environment 2007) foun d that a majority of Japanese respondents (average of 90.9%), regardless of exposure to black bears, thought bears were scary (Table 3 -1). T his result corresponded t o other literature (Knight 2003; Hughens 2001; Japan Bear Network 2007b) which discusse d public attitudes toward bears. In Iiyama and Kitakata, wher e many people experienced damage b y bears, people who disliked bears outnum bered those who did not (Table 3-2 ). In those two sites, about twice as many people did not want to protect bears as th ose who did (Table 3-3 ). In Fujimi, Kitashiobara, and Horikawa, where crop damages were less than Iiyama and Kitakata, people who liked bears outnumbered those who disliked them (Table 3-2 ). In Kitashiobara and Horikawa, people who wanted to protect bears also outnumbered those who did not want to (Table 3-3 ). Uchikoshi (2007) found from a cross tabulation analysis that people who dislike bears increased and people who want to protect bears decreased if they had seen wild bears (p<0.01) in Iiyama and Fujim i. Also, in Kitakata, Kitashiorbara, and Horikawa (Ministry of the Environment, 2007a), a correlation coefficient analysis showed that people who saw wild bears were significantly more likely to have experienced damage by bears (0.437), more likely to disl ike bears (0.275), and less likely to want to protect these animals ( 0.175). When people were asked what kind of information they want to know about bears, Number of bear appearances/ Type of damages and Methods to prevent human casualties

PAGE 37

37 were the mo st fre quently chosen answers (Figure 3-1 ). About half the respondents in Kitakata and Iiyama where many people experienced damages by bears answered they want to know Methods to prevent crop and property damages while in Kitashiobara and Horikawa with l ess damage experience, less people chose this category. However, this tendency did not apply to Fujimi which had less damage but about half of respondents wished to know this information. More respondents in those three sites with less damage answered they wanted to know Characteristics of bears (average of 35.7% in three sites) than those in two other sites (average of 25.6% in two sites). There might be tendency that the more people experience damages, the more they want to know how to prevent them, and the less they experience damages, the more people choose characteristics of bears as desired information. Data from two studies about black bears (Uchi koshi 2007; Ministry of the Environment 2007a ) showed that the more people experienced damages, the more people disliked bears (Figure 3 -2 ) and a significantly strong linear association between these two variables (R =0.814) was found from the statistical analysis (p<0.05) (Table 3-4 ). Also, there was a strong negative linear relation (R =0.712) between the number of people who experienced damages and who wanted to protect bears (Figure 3-3 ) (p<0.1). In Assabu, where many people had experience re garding brown bears (Table 3-5 ), almost all respondents had negative attitudes towa rd appearance of bears around human settlements and half of respondents also had negative attitude toward their existence in mountains (Table 3-6 ). In Oshamambe and villages around Hakodate with lower damage experiences, less respondents than in Assabu, ha d negative attitudes toward both bear appearance and their existence in mountains.

PAGE 38

38 Nearly 70% of people who enter the mountains when there is no snow (and bears are active) in Assabu, engage in behaviors to guard against bear encounters (e.g., make a noise in order to let bears know of people s existence while walking in the mountains), which were much high er than any other sites (Table 3-7). Data from two other studies about brown bears (Kameda & Maruyama 2003; Kameda et al. 2007) showed that more people living in towns where many people had some experience with bears (e.g., encounter, property damages) had negative feeling toward bears appearance around human settlements than those towns where people had less experience associated with bears. A statistica l analysis showed a positive linear association between the number of people who experienced damages by bears and who had negative feelings toward bears (R =0.570) (Table 38 ). M ore Japanese respondents believed that bears should be extirpated than those who thought bears should exist everywhere (Table 3-9 and 310). In North America studies reported that most people surveyed thought bears should exist everywhere (Table 3-9 and 310). A comparison of attitudes toward black bears ( Ursus thibetanus and Ursus americanus) found that significantly more Japanese respondents thought bears should b e extirpated than North American respondents =2 569. 22 3 p<0.0005) (Table 311). Similarly, more Japanese respondents thought that brown bears ( Ursus arctors) should be extirpated than North American respondents ( =1585.067, p<0.0005) (Table 311). However, when the percentage of people who thought black bears should exist in natural areas and should exist everywhere were combined, 70.6% of Japanese respondents thought black bears should live either in natural areas or everywhere. This percentage was similar to the number of North American respondents (70.6%) (Table 3 10).

PAGE 39

39 On the o ther hand, there was a large difference between the percentage of Japanese who thought brown bears should exist in natural area s or everywhere (31.0%) and the percentage of North Americans (84.3%) (Table 3 11). M ost Japanese and North American researchers emphasized the importance of education and outreach campaigns to residents and visitors to reduce bear -human conflicts (Table 14) Other interventions recommended in Japa n included clearing b ush at abandoned farmland and around houses, compensating for damages to agriculture and humans, establishing electric fences, planting crops that are not attractive to bears, driving back bears appearing around human settlements with or without dogs, and increasing native forest habitat for bears Some interventions, such as giving financial incentives for ranchers to retire sheep grazing on public lands, restricting human activities, and creating a communication between residents, sta keholders, and management agencies for better decision making were only mentioned in North American papers. More people thought that opening a bear hunting season would work well in North America (average of 65.0%) than respondents in Japan (average of 38. 9%) ( =4.601, p<0.05) (Table 15 and 16). The necessity of compensation to landowners is recognized by significantly more respondents in Japan (average of 69.5%) than in North America (average of 53.8%) ( =40.902, p<0.0005) (Table 15 and 16). Although the Asiatic black bear is a valuable wildlife species ranked Vulnerable in IUCN s red list (Japan Bear Network 2007b), about 40% of the bear population in Japan (over 4,340 bears) were estimated to have been removed in 2006. As fo r brown bear, h undreds of bears have been killed annually (Kameda et al 2006). If the passive and massive killing of these

PAGE 40

40 animals is continued without evaluating impacts of this elimination toward the whole population nor making efforts to reduce the number killed, bea rs in Japan will become extirpated from some areas in the future. This study showed that the majority of residents had negative attitudes toward bears (e.g. felt b ears should be extirpated) and was more negative than the find ing from Brown (2005) wh o found 58% of respondents in his survey, including residents, hunters, and junior high school students believed it is good to have bears in Japan. However, the finding of this study is reflected in the general perspective of secon dary literature (Hugyens et al 2001; Knight 2000 2003; Yamanaka 2006; Japan Bear Network 2007b; Mano & Ishii 2008). R esea rchers have found that in Japan, residents who saw wild bears around houses or farmlands tend to call local government and ask them to kill the bears (Japan Bear Network 2007b; Hayashi personal communication June, 10, 2008). These behaviors reflect people s negative attitudes toward bears Most respondents in Japan share d the same cognitive belief : bears are scary. This finding cor resp onded with the results of personal interviews conducted by Fujiwara (2000) which found that almost all respondents (14 out of 17) felt bears are scary in Iwate (D in Figure 1 1) Also two evaluative attitudes were revealed: a majority of people had negativ e attitudes toward bear appearances around human settlements, and a fair number of respondents felt bears should be extirpated. These factors indicate how people in Japan evaluate bears negatively (Figure 3-4 ). Overall, the findings of this study were not specific n or accurate enough to test the main elements of social psychological theories such as the cognitive hierarchy model (Vaske & Donnelly 1999) or the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980) More specific research need s to be conducted to identify each component of these theories to measure the

PAGE 41

41 strength of the relationship between each of those factors, in order to develop the generalizability and validity of the findings. Some studies also found cognitive misconceptions among the Japanese public. Several reports found that people misunderstood the characteristics of bears by assuming them to be bigger than the a ctua l size (Jap an Bear Network 2007b). A mail survey in Hokkaido found that about 70% of respondents assumed that the number of people attacked by bears between 1991 and 2000 was grea ter (from 10 to 90 people) than the real number (7 people) (Kameda et a l. 2003). Moreover landowners felt powerless to protect their property from bears because they lack the necessary knowledge and res ources (Hugyens et al. 2001). Therefore, people s negative attitudes toward bears might come from misunderstanding and lack of kn owledge of this animal. Several social psychological theories and models suggest that people behaviors can be changed by incre asing their knowledge (Hungerford & Trudi 1990, Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002, Schultz 2002) and therefore, education, which will be discussed later in detail, can help wildlife managers to garner public support for bear management. Wildlife species have both posi tive and negative values for society (Conover et al. 1995). This study found that in Kitashiobara, where part of Bandai -Asahi National Park is located, the majority of respondents had positive attitudes towards bears even though nearly 30% of people experienced damages by bears. Many people moved into Kitashiobara more than ten years ago, specifically to live near the natural environment, and residents appr eciation toward nature and wildlife might be the reason that a lot of villagers are tolera nt to wards bears and damages by bears ( Ministry of the Environment 2007a ). In order to alleviate wildlife conflicts, wildlife managers, local governments and researchers need to increase the benefits and decrease the liabilities of having those species in the

PAGE 42

42 community (Conover 2002). One of the liabilities of living adjacent to habitats of bear s for local residents is damage that they suffer either to crops, properties, or humans. This study found that damages by bears can be contribu ting to the negative attitud es toward these animals in Japan, and therefore w ildlife managers and governments need to focus on reducing these damages Possible interventions to prevent dama ges by bears are raised in the T able 3-12 such as proper control of trash and food clearing the bush at abandoned farmland or around houses and establishing electric fences However concurrent with implementing th e se methods, future research need s to evaluate how effective th e se interventions are in reducing damages in Japan. In a broader perspective, the cross -cultural comparison of people s attitud es toward bears showed that significantly more people in Japan wanted bears to be extirpated than those in North America although the majority of people thought black bears should exist either in natural areas or everywhere in Japan and North America In addition, a comparison of management options showed that less people think of hunting as a potential intervention in Japan. Hunting and eating game meats have not been very popular among Japanese (Igota & Suzuki 2008). Even now, hunting has not gained a status as a national spor t in the society (Ueda et al. 2004). Meanwhile, the number of hunters in Japan has been decreasing rapidly and as a result, the current percenta ge of hunters among the whole population is 0.16% in Japan while in the US, hunters represent 7% of the population (Igota & Szuki 2008). These factors help explain why hunting is not considered an effective method of the management of bears among the publi c in Japan. Interventions to reduce human -bear conflicts in Japan include recommendat ions for compensation of damage for agriculture and people. Currently, there are few government compensation programs for damage to agriculture, forestry or human s caused by wildlife in Japan, because wildlife does not belong to anyone under Japan ese civil law and it is not

PAGE 43

43 government s re sponsibility to deal with damage by wildlife (Roy 1998; Sato 2003; Ministry of the Environment 2008). However, wildlife is managed and p rotected under the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law by the government, to improve the li ving environments and protect biodiversity (Ministry of the Environment 2007d). S ome local cities and towns have damage control programs (Ministry of the Environment 2008). The first compensation program for damage by bears in Japan was established in Hiroshima (Mano et al. 2008; Outback 2008). The prefecture and the local city, town, or village is responsible to compensate for casualties by bears in this compensation program (Outback 2008). Since the establishment of this program in 1997, there were 4 cases in which people were compensated (Mi nistry of the Environment 2008). In North America, about one thi rd of states and provinces inh a bited by black bears provide r eimbursement for damages by bears (Ternent 2006) However some studies have found that compensation did not necessar ily improve the tolerance of recipients toward the species that caused damage (Naughton et al. 2003 ), nor provide incentives for residents t o solve their own problems (Wagner et al. 1997) Therefore, if the compensation systems are to be introduced in Japan, s tudies to assess the potential cost and benefit of this intervention need s to be conducted at the same time Other interventions i n Japa n include forest restoration and public education. S ome prefectures have begun to restore natural habitat for bears (Ministry of the Environment 2008), as recommended by Huygens et al. (1999), Hazumi (1998), and Mano and Moll (1999) For example, in Aki Oh ta town in Hiroshima prefecture, in response to the increase of casualties and damages to crops by bears, the town started to crea te a natural forest in remote mountains by planting chestnut trees in the 1990s (Rokin Morinogakko 2006; Ministry of the Envir onment 2008). This provides nuts for bears and wood for humans (Rokin Morinogakko 2006). This

PAGE 44

44 project is the object of bear researchers and managers attention in Japan as a model of reducing bear appearance around human settlements by restoring natural h ab itats for bears (Ministry of the Env ironment 2008). Educational programs can be successful by distributing effec tive messages and choosing specific target audiences to share s information (Jacobson 1999; Jac obson et al. 2006). If the managers and local g overnments could design and implement effective outreac h programs, local residents w ould be able to acquire accurate information and skills to prevent bear conflicts which can eventually increase the benefits of having bears as neighbor s (Decker & Purdy 1988; Conover 2002; Sato 2008). Also by understanding appropriate information, the local community can make informed decisions as well as reasoned action (Gore & Knuth 2006), which will lead to the sustainable management of bears. In addition to implementin g effective educational campaigns, it is important to understand and measure the effectiveness and success of the program (Jacobson 1999; Boone et al. 2002; Jacobson et al. 2006). Nevertheless, few evaluations have been conducted to determine if the interv ention programs designed to reduce human -bear conflict s were successful (Gore 2004; Gore & Knuth 2006; Dunn et al, 2008). Gore (2004) reviewed 6 case studies of intervention programs for reducing bear conflicts in North America, and found that only 2 of th em establish ed formal criteria to define success, and just one case in British Columbia Canada succeeded in reducing human bear conflicts significantly (about 75%) after the intervention. A n educational program in Wyoming succeeded in increasing people s support for bear conservation from 42% to 61% (Schwartz & Gunther 2006). Another study showed that respondents in treatment sites, where outreach education was conducted, had more accurate knowledge about bears than those in reference sites (Dunn et al. 2 008) In contrast the New

PAGE 45

45 York NeighBEARhood Watch program which attempted to change residents attitudes and knowledge by distributing educational materials d id not change respondents knowledge nor their willingness to adopt desired behaviors (Gore & Knuth 2006). Gore & Knuth (2006) suggested that implementing outreach educational campaigns for one season (6 months) might not be long enough to generate behavioral change at the community level. E ducation programs to reduce bear -human conflicts have been m ostly conduc ted by local governments in Japan: 13 prefectures of 35 where bears exist conduct outreach programs (M ano et al. 2008). Non-profit organizations also implement intervention program s in some prefectures (Hayashi, personal communication June, 10, 2008; Kojima, personal communication November, 27, 2008). In Oshima peninsula, the Oshima Branch Office provided 17 educational classes to residents on biological characteristics of brown bears as well as the skills to prevent conflicts from 20052008 (Kojima, personal communication, November 27, 2008). In Nagano prefecture, a non -profit organization Shinshu Black Bear Research Group has implemented educational programs to students in loca l schools as well as visitors to zoos (Hayashi, personal commun ication June, 10, 2008). Although, staff in these two programs occasionally a sk participants for feedback after the program (Hamaguchi, personal communication June, 26, 2008; Kojima, personal communication, November 27, 2008), a comprehensive evaluation process is need ed to measure how the impacts and success of t he program (Jac obson 1999; Boone et al. 2002). Future studies should focus on underst and ing people's knowledge of and attitudes toward bears in more detail so that the managers can design and implement interventions to reduce conflicts These interventions should be monitored and evaluated to determine th e effective activities to ensure a sustainable future for bears in Japan

PAGE 46

46 Table 3 -1 Experience, belief, and cognitive attitude associated with black bears People who saw wild bears (%) People who say bears are scary (%) People who want to protect bears (%) Iiyama ( Uchikoshi 200 7 ) (N=435) 20 94 22 Fujimi ( Uchikoshi 200 7 ) (N=295) 7 88 34 Kitakata ( Ministry of the Environment 2007) (N=731) 3 0 91 25 Kitashiobara ( Ministry of the Environment 2007) (N=173) 51 87 43 Fukushimashi Horikawa ( Ministry of the Envi ro nment 2007) (N=134) 1 91 55 Table 3-2 People who dislike black bears People who dislike black bears (%) Yes Neutral No Iiyama ( Uc hikoshi 200 7 ) (N=435) 51.3 18.9 29.8 Fujimi ( Uchikoshi 200 7 ) (N=295) 33.5 27.3 39.3 Kitakata ( Ministry of the Environment 200 7 ) (N=731) 50.8 20.8 28.4 Kitashiobara ( Ministry of the Environment 200 7 ) (N=173) 30.5 19.2 50.3 Horikawa ( Ministry of the Env i r onment 200 7 ) (N=134) 10.8 33.1 56.1 Table 3-3 People who want to protect black bears People who want to protect black bears (%) Yes Neutral No Iiyama ( Uchikoshi 200 7 ) (N=435) 21.9 23.6 54.5 Fujimi ( Uchikoshi 200 7 ) (N=295) 34.2 22.1 43.3 Kitakata ( Ministry of the Environment 200 7 ) (N=731) 25 26.7 48.2 Kitashiobara ( Ministry of the Environment 200 7 ) (N=173) 42.6 26 31.4 Horikawa ( Ministry of the Env i r onment 200 7 ) (N=134) 54.5 29.1 16.5

PAGE 47

47 Table 3-4. Experience and cognitive attitudes associated wi th black bears and a linear regression model People who experience d damages by bears (%) People who dislike bears (%) People who want to protect bears (%) Linear association between damages (predictor) and dislike bears (dependent variable) Linear associ ation between damages (predictor) and desire to protect bears (dependent variable ) Iiyama (Uchikoshi 200 7 ) (N=435) 53.9 51.3 21.9 R =0.814* Slope (SE) =0.709 (0.196) R =0.723** Slope (SE) =0.531 (0.189) Fujimi (Uchikoshi 200 7 ) (N=295) 12.1 33.5 34.2 Kitakata (Ministry of the Environment 2007) (N=731) 38.8 50.8 25.0 Kitashiobara (Ministry of the Environment 200 7 ) (N=173) 29.5 30.5 42.6 Horikawa (Ministry of the Env ir onment 200 7 ) (N=134) 0 10.8 54.5 *p<0.05 **p<0.1 Table 3 -5 Experiences reg arding brown bears Encountered (%) Saw from the distance (%) Experienced property damages (%) No experience (%) Assabu (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=177) 25 36 16 15 Oshamambe (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=246) 4 19 2 48 Villages around Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyam a 2003) (N=439) 15 28 2 34 Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=435) 6 14 1 53

PAGE 48

48 Table 3-6 Attitudes toward brown bears Positive (%) Neutral (%) Negative (%) Assabu (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=177) Attitudes toward bear appearance around human settlemen ts 9 6 81 Attitudes toward bears living in mountains 19 25 50 Oshamambe (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=246) Attitudes toward bear appearance around human settlements 11 8 76 Attitudes toward bears living in mountains 28 35 32 Villages around Hakodate (Kamed a & Maruyama 2003) (N=439) Attitudes toward bear appearance around human settlements 17 10 65 Attitudes toward bears living in mountains 27 34 32 Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=435) Attitudes toward bear appearance around human settlements 22 12 6 0 Attitudes toward bears living in mountains 36 38 20 Table 3-7. Behavior to guard against brown bear encounters People who enter mountains when there is no snow (%) People who engage in behaviors to guard against bear encounters in mountains (% out o f those enter mountains) Assabu (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=177) 75 68 Oshamambe (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=246) 50 53 Villages around Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=439) 66 56 Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=435) 50 54

PAGE 49

49 Table 3-8 A linear regr essi on model of association between number of people who experienced damages and who had negative attitudes toward bear appe arance s around human settlements Experienced property damages (%) Having negative attitudes toward bear appearance around human set tlements (%) Linear association between damages (predictor) and negative attitudes toward bears (dependent variable) Assabu (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=177) 16 81 R =0.570* Slope (SE) =1.018 (0.624) Oshamambe (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=246) 2 76 Villages ar ound Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=439) 2 65 Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=435) 1 60 *p<0.5

PAGE 50

50 Table 3-9. Evaluative attitudes toward black and brown bears in Japan and North America (Key: bb = black bear ; Ursus thibetanus and Ursus america nus BB = brown bear; Ursus arc tos ) Should be extirpated (%) Neutral (%) Should exist in natural area (%) Should exist everywhere (%) Japan Iiyama (Uchikoshi 2007) (N=435) bb 30 9 58 3 Fujimi (Uchikoshi 2007) (N=295) bb 28 12 57 4 K itakata (Ministry of the Environment 2007) (N=731) bb 17 9 61 14 Kitashiobara (Ministry of the Environment 2007) (N=173) bb 10 5 51 33 Fukushimashi Horikawa (Ministry of the Environment 2007) (N=134) bb 5 7 58 29 Villages around Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=439) BB 32 34 27 NA Hakodate (Kameda et al. 2003) (N=435) BB 21 38 36 NA Assabu (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=177) BB 50 25 19 NA Oshamambe (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=246) BB 32 35 28 NA North America East Te xas (Morzillo 2007b) (N=1006) bb 20 (Bears don't have the right to exist) 17 NA 62 (bears have the right to exist wherever they may occur) Maryland (Responsive Management 2004a) (N=831) bb 7 11 NA 77

PAGE 51

51 Table 3 9. Continued Should be extirpated (%) Neutral (%) Should exist in natural area (%) Should exist everywhere (%) North America New York (Siemer & Decker 2003) (N=1036) bb 14 (Intolerant of the presence of bears) NA 13 (Tolerant of presence of bears, but intolerant of any actual interactions) 73 (Tolerant of all bear -human interaction+ except those that involve a clear personal threat+ Tolerant of occasional, but not frequent interactions with black bears) The Trans -Pecos region of Texas (Rice et al. 2007) (N=444) bb 47 (bear s should not be allowed to naturally recolonize) NA NA 53 (should be allowed to naturally recolonize) Montana (Canepa et al. 2008) (N=502) BB 24 11 NA 64 Alaska (Miller et al. 1998) (N=2,370) bb and BB NA NA NA 48 (like having bears in and around urban areas in Alaska) Alberta (McFarlane et al. 2007) (1,700) BB NA NA NA 48 West Virginia (Responsive Management 2006) (N=1,206) bb 13 (Black bear should be decreased) 24 NA 63 (Black bear should be increase + remain the same) Skagit and Whatco m County in Washington(Davis & Morgan 2003) (N=508) BB 16 (oppose grizzly bear recovery) 5 NA 76 (support recovery)

PAGE 52

52 Table 3 9. Continued Should be extirpated (%) Neutral (%) Should exist in natural area (%) Should exist everywhere (%) N orth America Wyoming (Responsive Management 2001) (N=1015) BB 11 (disagree that grizzly bears benefit Wyoming 3 NA 74 (grizzly bears benefit Wyoming) New Hampshire (Responsive Management 2004b) (N=519) bb 10 (black bear should be decreased) 4 NA 6 5 (black bear should be increased + remain the same) Table 310. People's attitudes toward bears based on average percentage of studies Should be extirpated % (n) Neutral % (n) Should exist in natural areas % (n) Should exist everywhere % (n) J apan Black bears 20.5 ( 364 ) 8.9 ( 158 ) 58.1 ( 1032 ) 12.5 ( 223 ) Brown bears 32.8 ( 401 ) 36.3 ( 444 ) 31.0 ( 379 ) NA N orth A merica Black bears 16.9 ( 754 ) 12.5 ( 559 ) 3 ( 135 ) 67.6 ( 3,015 ) Brown bears 11.6 ( 313 ) 4.1 ( 110 ) NA 84.3 ( 2,274 ) Table 311. Results of Chi -square tests comparing peoples attitudes toward black bears and brown bears, between Japan and North America Should be extirpated (%) P value Black bears Japan 20.5 2569.223* <0.0005 North America 16.9 Brown bear Japan 32.8 1585.067* <0.0005 North America 11.6 Degrees of freedom=1

PAGE 53

53 Table 312. Recommended interventions to reduce bear conflicts Japan North America Chan ge in human attitudes and/or behaviors Proper control of trash and food 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16 D, H, Q, T Clearing the bush at abandoned farmland or around houses 2, 6, 7, 10 Education about bears ecology, how to respond against approaching bears, and how to lessen the probability of bear -human conflicts to residents and visitors to preserved areas 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L. M, N, O, P, Q, T Compensation for damages to agriculture and humans 12, 1 5 N, T Establishing electric fences 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16 D, Q, T Planting crops that are not attractive to bears 2, 9 Drive back bears appearing around human settlements with or without dogs 6 Giving financial incentives for ranchers to retire sheep grazing on public lands D Restrictions on human activities (e.g. road and travel restrictions to National Parks) F Communication between residents, stakeholders, and management agencies for better decision making R, S Change in wildlif e habitat Increase the natural food and habitat for bears away from human settlements 9, 14, 15 Citation Code Uchikoshi 2007; Kameda et al. 2007; Kamed a et al. 2003; Fujiwara 2000; Nagano prefecture 2008; Ministry of the Environment 2008; Nagano Environmental Conservation Research Institute 2004; Huygens et al. 1999; Huygens et al. 2001; Japan Bear Network 2007b; Brown 2005; Roy 1994; Japan Bear Network 2007a; : Hazumi 1999; : Mano & Moll 1999; : Kanamo ri et al. 2008 Morzillo et al. 2007b; Bowman et al. 2001; Gunther et al. 1998; Gunther et al. 2004; Burghardt et al. 1972; Schirokauer et al. 1998; Herrero & Higgins 2003; Spencer et al. 2007; White et al 1995; Dunn et al. 2008; : Kimberly 2007; : Schwartz & Gunther 2006; : Servheen 1999; : Primm 1996; : Pelton et al. 1976; : McCool & Braithwaite 1989; : Davis et al. 2005b; : Morgan et al. 2004 ; Siemer & Decker. 2006; Ternent 2006;

PAGE 54

54 Table 313. Hunting and compensation management opti ons recommended by respondents Open a bear hunting season Compensate landowners for documented bear damage Japan Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=435) 29% (opening spring hunting season) NA Villages around Hakodate (Kameda & Maruyama 2003) (N=439) 44% (opening spring hunting season) NA Assabu (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=177) 52% (opening spring hunting season) 67% (damages to crops and humans) Oshamambe (Kameda et al. 2007) (N=246) 38% (opening spring hunting season) 71% (damag es to crops and humans) North America Maryland (Responsive Management 2004a) (N=831) 65% 49% (damages to livestock) Montana (Canepa et al. 2008) (N=502) 65% 62% (damages to livestock) Table 314. Results of Chi -square tests comparing number of people who recommended hunting and compensat ion for the management options Recommended by resp ondents P value Open a bear hunting season Japan 504/1297 4.601 p<0.05 North America 866/1333 Compensate landowners for documented bear damage Japan 294/423 40.902 p<0.0005 North America 718/1333 Degrees of freedom=1

PAGE 55

55 38.1 56.7 26.1 64.9 33.7 62 38 59.5 36.1 69.9 48 72.9 26.4 57 49.8 61.9 24.4 63.9 47.1 68.4 0 20406080 Characteristics of bears Methods to prevent human casualties Methods to prevent crop and property damages Number of bear appearances/ Type of damages Iiyama (Uchikoshi, 2007) (N=435) Kitakata (Ministry of Environment, 2007) (N=731) Fujimi (Uchikoshi, 2007) (N=295) Kitashiobara (Ministry of Environment, 2007) (N=173) Horikawa (Ministry of Envrionment, 2007) (N=134) Figure 3 1. Information people want regarding bears (%).

PAGE 56

56 Figure 3 -2 Correlation of number of people who experienced damages and who disliked black bears among towns (Iiyama, Fujimi, Kitakata, Kitashiobara, Horikawa) Figure 3-3 Correlation of number of people who experienced damages and who wanted to protect black bears among towns (Iiyama, Fujimi, Kitakata, Kitashiobara, Horikawa).

PAGE 57

57 Figure 3-4 Cognitive and evaluative dimensions of peoples attitudes toward bears in Japan. : Bears are scary (average of 90.8%) : negative attitudes toward bear appearance (average of 67.5%)/ bears should be extirpated (average of 25.5%)

PAGE 58

58 LIST OF REFERENCES Aipanjiguly, S., S. K. Jacobson, and R. Flamm. 2002. Conserving manatees: knowledge, attitudes, and intentions of boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida. Conservation Biology : 10981105. Ajzen, I. 1985. From Intentions to Actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, and J. Beckman, editors. Action control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, Heidelberg. Ajzen, I and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. PrenticeHall International, Inc, London. Boone, E. J., R. D. Safrit, and J. Jones. 2002. Developing programs in adult education: a conceptual programming model. Waveland Press, Inc, Long Grove, Illinois. Bowman, J. L., B. D. Leopold, F. J. Vilella, D. A. Gill, and H. A. Jacobson. 2001. Attitudes of landow ners toward American Black Bears compared between areas of high and low bear populations. Ursus : 153160. Bowman, J. L., B. C. Leopold, F. J. Vilella, and D. A. Gill. 2004. A spatially explicit model, derived from demographic variables, to predict attit udes toward black bear restoration. Journal of Wildlife Management : 223232. Brown, M. 2005. Public opinion on coexistence with Japanese Black Bears in Nagano Prefecture, central Japan. MS thesis. University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom. Burghar dt, G. M., R. O. Hietala, and M. R. Pelton. 1972. Knowledge and attitudes concerning Black Bears by users of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ursus : 255273. Carr, M. M., F. T. Va. Manen, M. R. Pelton, O. C. Huygens, H. Hayashi, and M. Maekawa. 2002. A multi -scale assessment of habitat use by Asiatic black bears in central Japan. Ursus : 1 -9 Canepa, S., K. Annis and W. Kasworm. 2008. Public o pinion and k nowledge survey of grizzly bears in the Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem: final report 2008. Available from http://www.igbconline.org/Cabinet_Yaak_Survey_Final_101708.pdf (accessed November 2008). Conover, M. R., W. C. Pitt, K. K. Kessler, T. J. DuBow, and W. A. Sanborn. 1995 Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 407414. Conover, M. 2002. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. Lewis Publishers, Florida.

PAGE 59

59 Davis, J. and C. Morgan. 2003. Grizzly bear outreach project evaluation baseline survey report: December 2003. Available from http://www.bearinfo.org/BaselineReport.pdf (accessed November, 2008). Davis, J. and C. Morgan. 2005a Grizzly bear outreach project evaluation final report: June 2005. Available from http://www.bearinfo.org/GBOPEvaluationFinalReport.pdf (accessed November 2008). Davis, J., C. Morgan., and N. Laney. 2005b North Cascades Bear Smart Assessment: results from a preliminary assessment of six communities in Eastern Skagit and Whatcom counties. Grizzly Bear Outreach Project, Bellingham, Washington. Available from http://www.bearinfo.org/GBOPBearSmartAssessmentReport1.19.05%20FINAL.pdf (accessed November 2008). Dayer, A. A., H. M. Stinchfield, and M. J. Manfre do. 2007. Stories about wildlife: developing an instrument for identifying wildlife value orientations cross -culturally. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 307315. Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wil dlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 53 57. Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer. 2001. Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Maryland. Dunn, W. C., J. H. Elwell, and G. Tunberg. 2008. Safety educat ion in bear country: are people getting the message? Ursus : 43 52 Fujiwara, C. 2000. Survey of residents experiencing damage by Black Bears: issues about Black Bears at Tono city of Iwate prefecture. Journal of Forest Economics : 13 -18 (in Japanese). Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 24 47. Fulton, D. C., K. Skerl, E. M. Shank, and D. W. Lime. 2004. Beliefs and attitudes toward let hal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 11661176 Garshelis, D. R., S. Sikes, D. E. Andersen, and E. C. Birney. 1999. Landowners perceptions of crop damage and management practices related to black bears in e ast -central Minnesota. Ursus : 219224. Gore, M. L. 2004. Comparison of intervention programs designed to reduce humanbear conflict: a review of literature. Department of Natural Resources. Cornell University. HDRU Series No. 04 4. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

PAGE 60

60 Gore, M. L., and B. A. Knuth. 2006. Attitude and behavior change associated with the New York NeighBEARhood Watch Program. Department of Natural Resources. Cornell University. HDRU Series No. 06 14. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Gor e, M. L., B. A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis, and J. E. Shanahan. 2006. Education programs for reducing American black bear human conflict: indicators of success? Ursus : 75 80. Gunther, K. A., and H. E. Hoekstra. 1998. Bear inflicted human injuries in Yellowsto ne National Park, 19701994. Ursus : 377384 Gunther, K. A., M. A. Haroldson, K. Frey, S. L. Cain, F. Copeland, and C. C. Schwartz. 2004. Grizzly bear human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 19922000. Ursus : 1022. Hazumi, T. 1999. St atus and management of the Asiatic black bear in Japan. Page 207 211 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Status survey and conservation action plan, bears. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland Switzerl and, and Cambridge, U.K. Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 2003. Human injuries inflicted by bears in Alberta: 196098. Ursus : 44 54 HFPRI (Hokkaido Forest Products Research Institute). 2009. A background of resources of larch plantation and production of m aterials. HFPRI, Hokkaido, Japan (in Japanese). Available from http://www.fpri.asahikawa.hokkaido.jp/manual/karamatsu/1.1.pdf (accessed February 2009). Hristienko, H., and J. E. J. McDornald Jr. 2007. Going into the 21st century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the management of the American black bear. Ursus : 72 88. Hungerford, H. R., and T. L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education :8 22. Huygens, O. C., and H. Hayashi. 1999. Using electric fences to reduce Asiatic black bear depredation in Nagano prefecture, central Japan. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 959964 Huygens, O. C., M. Goto, S. Izumiyama, H. Hayashi, and T. Yoshida. 2001. Asiat ic black bear conservation in Nagano Prefecure, central Japan: problems and solutions. Biosphere Conservation : 97 106 Huygens, O. C., F. T. van. Manen, D. A. Martorello, H. Hayashi, and J. Ishida. 2004 Relationships between Asiatic black bear kills and depredation costs in Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Ursus : 197202. Igota, H., M. Suzuki. 2008. Community-based wildlife management: a case study of sika deer in Japan. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 416428.

PAGE 61

61 Ishii, N. 2007. Management of bears and utilizat ion of bear bile in Japan. Page 27 36 in D. F. Williamson, editor. Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on trade of bear parts, 4 October, 2006, Nagano, Japan. TRAFFIC East Asia Japan, Tokyo, Japan. Iwasa, Y., T. Matsumoto, K. Kikuzawa, and Ec ological Society of Japan. 2003. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Kyoritsu Shuppan, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese). Izumiyama, S., and T. Shiraishi. 2004. Seasonal changes in elevation and habitat use of the Asiatic black bear ( Ursus thibetanus ) in the Northern Japan Alps. Mammal Study : 1 8. Jacobson, S. K. 1998. Training idiot savants: the lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology : 263267. Jacobson, S. 1999. Communication skills for conservation professionals. Island Press, Washingt on D. C. Jacobson, S. K., M. D. McDuff, and M. C. Monroe. 2006. Conservation education and outreach techniques. Oxford University Press. New York. Japan Bear Network. 2007a. A report of Japan Bear Network urgent bear symposium and workshop: Synthesis of massive appearance of Asiatic black bears in 2006 and suggestions from Japan Bear Network. Japan Bear Network, Gihu. Japan (in Japanese). Japan Bear Network. 2007b. Bears in Asia: Current situation and future expectation. Japan Bear Network, Ibaragi, Japan (in Japanese). Kameda, M., and H. Maruyama. 2003. Public attitudes and behaviors towards Brown Bears in the Oshima peninsula. Murokodaikiyo : 65 76 (in Japanese). Kameda, M., H. Maruyama, and N. Maeda. 2006. Residents attitudes toward brown bears and the possibility of community -based, proactive bear management in Assabu, Hokkaido, Japan. Poster Presentation at 17th International Conference on Bear Research and Management. Kameda, M., H. Maruyama, and N. Maeda. 2007. Public attitudes and behaviors towards Brown Bears in Assabu and Oshamambe. Murokodaikiyo : 1 15 (in Japanese). Kanamori, H., H. Tanaka, H. Tado, T. Fujii, S. Sawada, T. Kurosaki, and T. Oi. 2008. The present status and issues of the Specified Wildlife Conservation and Management Plans for the Asiatic black bear in the western Chugoku Mountains, Japan. Mammalian Science : 5764 (in Japanese with English abstract). Kellert, S. R. 1991. Japanese perceptions of wildlife. Conservation Biology : 297308. Kellert, S. R. 1994. Public attitudes t oward bears and their conservation. International Conference of Bear Research and Management : 4350.

PAGE 62

62 Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. R. Rush, and A. J. Bath. 1995. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology : 977990. Kimberly, M. A. 2007. The impact of translocation on nuisance Florida black bears. MS thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville. Kishimoto, R., and S. Sato. 2008. Outline and issues of population monitoring in the Asiatic black bear ( Ursus thibetanus ) management plans of Nagano Prefecture. Mammalian Science : 83 89 (in Japanese with English abstract). Knight, J. 2000. Natural Enemies: People-wildlife conflicts in anthropological perspective. Routledge, New York. Knight, J. 2003. Waiting for Wolves in Japan. An anthropological study of people-wildlife relations. Oxford University Press, New York. Kohira, M., H. Okada., and M. Yamanaka. 2006. 6. Controlled exposure: demographic trends, dispersal patterns, and management of brown bear in Shiretoko Nati onal Park. Page 238 242 in D. R. McCullough, K. Kaji, and M. Yamanaka, editors. Wildlife in Shiretoko and Yellowstone National Parks: lessons in wildlife conservation from two World Heritage sites. Shiretoko Nature Foundation. Hokkaido, Japan. Kollmuss, A. and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro -environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research : 239260. Lafon, N. W., S. L. McMullin, and D. E. Steffen. 2003. Knowledge and opinions of s takeholders of black bear management in Virginia. Ursus : 55 64. Leong, K. M., and Haigh, J. T. 2007. Deer, people and parks: human dimensions of deer issues in national parks. Available from http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/research/deerinparks/index.asp (acc essed January 2009). Manfredo, M. J., and A. A. Dayer. 2004. Concepts for exploring the social aspects of humanwildlife conflict in a global context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 317-328. Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and H. Zinn. 2009. 3. Understanding global values toward wildlife. Page 31 43 in M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker, and E. A. Duke, editors. Wildlife and society: th e science of human dimensions. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mano, T., and J, Moll. 1999. Status and man agement of the Hokkaido brown bear in Japan. Page 128131 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Status survey and conservation action plan, bears. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland Switzerland, and Ca mbridge, U.K.

PAGE 63

63 Mano, T., T. Oi, M. Yokoyama, A. Takayanagi, and the Working Group for bear management, Mammalogical Society of Japan. 2008. Current situations and perspectives on the monitoring and management of bear species populations in Japan. (Japanese) Mammalian Science : 43 55 (in Japanese with English abstract). Mano, T., and N. Ishii. 2008. Bear gallbladder trade issues and a framework for bear management in Japan. Ursus : 122129. McFarlane, B. O., R. C. G. Stumpf -Allen, and D. O. T. Watson. 20 07. Public acceptance of access restrictions to Grizzly Bear ( Ursus arctos) country. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 275287 McCool, S. F., and A. M. Braithwaite. 1989. Beliefs and behaviors of backcountry campers in Montana toward grizzly bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 514519. McCullough, D. R. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 27 33. Miller, S. M., S. D. Miller, and D. W. McCollum. 1998.Attitudes toward and relative value of Alaskan Brown and Black Bear to resident voters, resident hunters, and nonresident hunters. Ursus : 357376. Miller, C. A., J. Agee, and K. A. Loyd. 2008. Proceedings from 2008: Pathways to Success Integrating Human Dimensions into Fish and Wildlife Management, Estes Park, Colorado. Ministry of the Environment. 2007a. Methodological research of monitoring Specified Wildlife Conservation and Management Plan: Fukushima prefecture. Ministry of Environment, Fukushima, Japan (in Japanese). Ministry of the Environment. 2007b. Materials about bears in J apan. Ministry of Environment, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).Available from http://www.env.go.jp/nature/yasei/kuma_manual/pdfs/mats.pdf (accessed October 2007). Ministry of the Environment. 2007c. Biodiversity: wildlife conservation in Japan. Ministry of Envi ronment, Tokyo, Japan. Available from http://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/law.html (accessed November 2007). Ministry of the Environment. 2007d. Wildlife protection and hunting law. Ministry of Environment, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese). Available from http://law.e -gov.go.jp/htmldata/H14/H14HO088.html (accessed March 2009). Ministry of the Environment. 2008. A manual to respond the bear appearance: bears appearing from mountains. Ministry of Environment, Tokyo, Japan (in Ja panese). Available from http://www.env.go.jp/nature/yasei/kuma_manual (accessed August 2008). Morgan, C. P., J. Davis, T. Ford, and N. Laney. 2004. Promoting understanding: the approach of the North Cascades Grizzly bear outreach project. Ursus : 137-1 41.

PAGE 64

64 Morzillo, A. T., A. G. Mertig, N. Garner, and J. Liu. 2007a. Spatial distribution of attitudes toward proposed management strategies for a wildlife recovery. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 15 29 Morzillo, A, T., A. G. Mertig, N. Garner, and G. Liu. 2007b. Resident attitudes toward Black Bears and population recovery in East Texas. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 417428 Nagano Environmental Conservation Research Institute. 2004. Measures against crop damage by wildlife: management of wildlife. Naga no Environmental Conservation Research Institute. Nagano, Japan (in Japanese). Nagano prefecture. 2007. The second term Specified Wildlife Conservation and Management Plan: Asiatic black bear. Nagano prefecture, Nagano, Japan (in Japanese). Available from http://www.pref.nagano.jp/rinmu/shinrin/04chojyu/08_kuma2kikeikaku/keikaku.pdf (accessed April 2008). Nagano prefecture. 2008. In order to prevent crop damages by black bears. Nagano p refecture, Nagano, Japan (in Japanese). Available from http://www.pref. nagano.jp/rinmu/shinrin/04chojyu/04_kuma/02_nou-higai/bear nou.htm (accessed August 2008). Naughton Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. Paying for tolerance: rural citizens attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biolog y : 15001511. Nie, M. A. 2003. Beyond wolves: the politics of wolf recovery and management. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Noma, N. 2005. Managing Satoyama to prevent damages by wildlife. Available from http://homepage2.nifty .com/Larus/satonoma.htm (accessed November 2008) Outback. 2008. Information about black bears. Outback, Iwate, Japan (in Japanese). Available from http://outback.cup.com/bearinfo_blackbear_1998_2.html (accessed February 2009) Oyadomari, M. 1989. The rise and fall of the nature conservation movement in Japan in relation to some cultural values. Environmental Management : 23 33. Pelton, M. R., D. D. Scott, and G. M. Burghardt. 1976. Attitudes and opinion of persons experiencing property damage and/or injury by black bears in the Great Smoly Mountains National Park. Third International Conference on Bears. : 157167. Pelton, M. R., A. B. Coley, T. H. Eason, D. L. D. Martinez, J. A. Pederson, F. T. Van Manen, K. M. Weaver. 1999. American black bear conservation action plan. Page 144-156 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Status survey and conservation action plan, bears. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.

PAGE 65

65 Picchio. 2008. Management of black bears. Picchio, Nagano, Japan (in Japanese). Available from http://npo.picchio.jp/managem ent/04 1.html (accessed January 2008). Primm, S. A. 1996. A pragmatic approach to grizzly bear conservation. Conservation Biology : 10261035. Raik, D. B., D. J. Decker, W. F. Siemer. 2003. Dimensions of capacity in community-based suburban deer manageme nt: the managers perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 854864. Raik, D. B., T. B. Lauber, D. J. Decker, and T. L. Brown. 2005. Managing community controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopting practices that address value differences. Human D imensions of Wildlife : 109122. Red Data Book of Hokkaido. 2003. A classified table of the Red Data Book of Hokkaido. (in Japanese). Available from http://rdb.hokkaido -ies.go. jp/page/list.asp (accessed February 2009). Responsive Management. 1997. Public opinions and attitudes toward reintroducing grizzly bears to the Selway -Bitterroot Wilderness Are of Idaho and Montana. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Available from http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/Grizzly.pdf (November 2008). Responsive Management. 2001. Public attitudes toward grizzly bears management in Wyoming. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Available from http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/grizzlyoccupancy/pdf/gbmgtplanappendixi2001.pdf (accessed November 2008). Responsive Management. 2004a. Public attitudes toward black bear management in Maryland. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Available from http://w ww.responsivemanagement.com/download/r eports/MD_Black_Bear_Report.pdf (ac cessed November 2008). Responsive Management. 2004b. New Hampshire residents and hunters opinions on the status and management of big game populations. Responsive Management, Harris onburg, Virginia. Available from http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NH_Big_Game_Report.pdf (accessed November 2008). Responsive Management. 2006. West Virginia residents opinions on black bear and black bear hunting. Responsive Managemen t, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Available from http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/WV_Bear_Report.pdf (accessed November 2008). Rice, M. B., W. B. Ballard, E. B. Fish, D. B. Wester, D. B, and D. Holdermann. 2007. Predicting private landowner s upport toward recolonizing black bears in the Trans -Pecos region of Texas. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 405415.

PAGE 66

66 Riley, S. J., W. F. Siemer, D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F., Organ, and L. T. Berchielli. 2003. Adaptive impact management: an integr ative approach to wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 81 95. Rokin Morinogakko. 2006. A letter from the school of forests. Rokin Morinogakko, Shizuoka, Japan (in Japanese). Available from http://www.wens.gr.jp/morinogakko/PDF/moridayori02. pdf (February 2009). Rossi, A. N., and J. B. Armstrong. 1999. Theory of reasoned action vs. theory of planned behavior: testing the suitability and sufficiency of a popular behavior model using hunting intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 40 56. Roy M. M. 1994. Evolving human attitudes and management policy in Japanese wildlife management: a case study of the Asiatic black bear ( Ursus thibetanus japonicas ). MS thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. Sakamoto, M. 2002. Book review of Wildlife Issu es by Hayama Shinichi. Kankyo to Kogai (Environment and Pollution) : 70 (in Japanese). Sakurai, R. 2007. Considering the introduction of the wolf ( Canis Iupus ) as a national barometer of environmental consciousness: a model comparison of European, Ameri can and Japanese cases. Studies in Politics: Faculty of Law of Keio University : 111 133 (in Japanese). Sato, S. 2003. Management plan of the Japanese black bear in Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Mammalian Science : 1720 (in Japanese). Sato, T. 2008. Wildl ife as an environmental icon and local communities: formation processes of environmental icons and the role of science of ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Sociology : 70 85 (in Japanese with English abstract). Schirokauer, D. W., and H. M. Bo yd. 1998. Bear human conflict management in Denali National Park and preserve, 198294. Ursus : 395403. Schultz, P. W. 2002. Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues : 391406. Schwartz, C. C., and K. Gunther. 2006. 5. Grizzly bear management in Yellowstone National Park: the heart of recovery in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Page 232238 in D. R. McCullough, K. Kaji, and M. Yamanaka. 2006. Wildlife in Shiretoko and Yellowston e National Parks: lessons in wildlife conservation from two World Heritage sites. Shiretoko Nature Foundation, Hokkaido. Japan. Servheen, C. 1999. Status and management of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 United States. Page 50 54 in C. Servheen, S. Herrer o, and B. Peyton, editors. Status survey and conservation action plan, bears. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland Switzerland, and Cambridge, United. Kingdom.

PAGE 67

67 Siemer, W. F., and D. J. Decker. 2003. 2002 New York Stat e Black Bear management survey: study overview and findings highlights. Human Dimensions Research Unit Series Publication 03 6. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Siemer. W. F. and D. J. Decker. 2006. An assessment of black bear impacts in New York. Human Dimensions Research Unit Series Publication 06 6. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Spencer, R. D., R. A. Beausoleil, and D. A. Martorello. 2007. How agencies respond to humanblac k bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus : 217229 Tay l or, D. 2006. Black bears: a natural history. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, Ontario, Canada. Teel, L. T., M. J. Manfredo, and H. M. Stinchfield. 2007. The need and t heoretical basis for exploring wildlife value orientations cross -culturally. Human Dimensions of Wildlife : 297305. Ternent, M. A. 2006. Management and biology of Black Bears in Pennsylvania: ten year plan (20062015). Bureau of Wildlife Management, Pennsylvania Game Commission. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Treves, A. 2009. 16. The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife around protected areas. Page 214228 in M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker, and E. A. Duke, editors. Wildlife and society: th e science of human dimensions. Island Press, Washington, DC. Tsuruga, H., Y. Sato, and T, Mano. 2002. Management of brown bears in Hokkaido, Japan. The Northern Forum. Anchorage, Alaska. Available from http://www.northernforum.org/servlet/conte nt/bbm_man.html (accessed December 2008). Uchikoshi, A. 2007. Reports of monitoring research of 2007 Specified Wildlife Conservation and Management Plan: Asiatic black bear. Nagano prefecture, Nagano, Japan (in Japanese). Ueda, G. 2009. Study of hunters' activities and attitudes for wild boar management in Shimane Prefecture. Dissertation. Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Japan (in Japanese with English abstract). Ueda, G., N. Kanzaki, and Y. Kodera. 2004. Present conditions of hunter activi ties and attitudes in Shimane Prefecture. Wildlife Conservation Japan : 9 22 (in Japanese).

PAGE 68

68 UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) -WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2009. CITES species database. UNEP WCMC, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Availa ble from http://www.unep -wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/tax -species result.cfm/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/tax -species result.cfm?Genus=Ursus&Species=thibetanu s&source=animals&displaylanguage=eng (accessed February 2009). Vaske, J. J., and M. P. Donnelly. 1999. A value attitude -behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources : 523537. Wagner, K. K., R. H. Schmidt and M. R. Conover. 1997. Compensation programs forwildlife damage in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 312319. White Jr, T. H., G. C. Shropshire, and M. Staten. 1995. Black Bear damage in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Eastern Wildlife Dama ge Control Conferences : 109117. Yamaguchi Prefecture. 2007. The second term Specified Wildlife (black bear) Conservation and Management Plan: West Chugoku population of black bear. Yamaguchi prefecture, Yamaguchi, Japan (in Japanese). Available from ht tp://www.pref.yamaguchi.lg.jp/cms/a15600/tokutei/syuuryou/apd1_2_200702020811010 6.pdf (accessed October 2007). Yamanaka, M. 2006.14. Social and political problems related to wildlife and park management in Shiretoko National Park. Page 286291 in D. R. Mc Cullough, K. Kaji, and M. Yamanaka. editors. Wildlife in Shiretoko and Yellowstone National Parks: Lessons in wildlife conservation from two World Heritage sites. Shiretoko Nature Foundation, Hokkaido, Japan.

PAGE 69

69 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ryo Sakurai graduated from Keio University, Tokyo in Japan in March 2007 with a Ba chelor of Law. During his undergraduate y ear s, he has participated in various wildlife conservation activities all over Japan, including a conservation survey of wild bears at Karuizawa in Nagano and a research intern of endangered Tsushima wild cat at Tsushima Wildlife Conservation Center of Ministry of Environment at Tsushima in Nagasaki In August 2007, he began his graduate work, as an Ambassadorial Scholar of Rotary Club, in the School of Natural Resources and Environment with the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the Universi ty of Florida. He maintained an A average in his courses in graduate school and received an Outstanding Achievement Certificate from the International Cen ter of University of Florida. He plans to pursue his career as a researcher of human dimensions of wildlife management, hoping to contribute to solving human -wildlife conflicts in Japan. He published Considering the introduction of the wolf ( Canis lupus) as a national barometer of environmental consciousness: A model comparison of European, American and Japanese cases (2007) in Studies in Politics Faculty of Law of Keio University His popular writing includes, Save the armadillos: They are symbol of a rich and special tropical environment (2 007) published in The Gainesville Sun in Florida. His article A Review of Public Attitudes Toward Bears in Japan (2009) is in press in the journal, Human Dimensions of Wildl ife and was based on his presentation at the international conference: Integrating Human Dimensions into Fish and Wildlife Management in Colorado in 2008. He is also the cotranslator of a book, Wildlife and Society The Science of Human Dimensions whi ch has been translated into Japanese and now in press.