WHEN 30-year-old Frances Frost set off along a cross-country skiing track near Banff in the Canadian Rockies, she was alone – or so she thought. The mountain lion stalked her silently from behind until it was close enough to pounce, delivering a deadly bite to her neck. When park wardens found her later that day, the 60-kilogram cat was still standing over her body.
Although attacks like this are still rare, there’s no doubt that they’re on the rise. Between 1890 and 1970 there were just five fatal mountain lion attacks in the US and Canada. In the past 30 years there have been 14, half of them in the 1990s. Frost, the most recent victim, was killed in January 2001. And it’s not just mountain lions that are causing alarm. Last summer, campsites at national parks across the US were closed after a spate of bear and wolf attacks on hikers. The past decade is the worst on record for shark attacks (see “Jaws too”). Predators, it seems, are back. So how should we respond?
Historically, in encounters between predators and people, predators have always come off worse. When humans settled into an agricultural way of life they were determined not to share their land or their livestock with anyone or anything. Wolves are just one example. Once common all over Europe, they were hunted close to extinction by the late 17th century after clashes with livestock farmers. Meanwhile, in the new American colonies, officials offered bounties on the heads of mountain lions, bears and wolves in an attempt to expel them from farmland.
Advertisement
In the 1970s and 80s, however, people started to adopt a more open-minded attitude to predators. Ecologists realised that ecosystems needed their top predators to function normally, and many species – including bears, mountain lions and wolves – became legally protected. Thirty years on, predator populations have recovered, and for the first time in centuries we are having to consider ourselves fair game.
This is especially true for the inhabitants of western North America. From California to Alaska, people increasingly live alongside mountain lions, also known as cougars, pumas and panthers. California’s mountain lion population has increased from just 600 in 1920 to between 4000 and 6000 today. At the same time, the human population has boomed and suburbs are eating into the wilderness. A similar scenario is unfolding all over western America and Canada. It’s a simple equation: more of them plus more of us in the same places equals more frequent contact. And more frequent contact means that attacks are more likely.
Lee Fitzhugh of the University of California at Davis, who investigates mountain lion attacks, says: “Humans are moving into the areas where pumas live, but in such a way that the pumas aren’t driven out. People in these areas like to encourage wildlife, and they may attract large populations of raccoons and deer, and deer are the puma’s main source of food.”
But there may be more to mountain lion attacks than that. Humans don’t naturally feature highly on mountain lions’ list of preferred prey, but maybe the new familiarity between the two species is changing that. “There has been a huge increase in the opportunities pumas have to observe people,” explains Fitzhugh. “Cats in general, including pumas, have to learn to identify what is prey and what is not – it’s not instinctive. They spend a period of time observing a strange creature before they decide how to classify it.” Many predatory attacks on humans are made by young pumas that are still experimenting with new prey.
Familiarity with humans seems to cause problems with other predatory species too. Last year, for example, wardens at Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska closed several campsites because wolves had started approaching campers to steal food and belongings such as camping equipment and sleeping bags. Not only were the wolves associating humans with food, they were so confident around them that they were happy to steal their belongings as playthings. This year, the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) published a report on wolf attacks in response to public concerns about a rising wolf population. It concluded that, aside from those caused by rabies, the majority of predatory attacks on humans were by wolves that had become too comfortable around people.
In the long term though, closing national parks is not really an option. If we want to continue enjoying wilderness areas and are serious about conserving our top predators we’re just going to have to work around them. In short, to be safe around predators we’ll have to learn how to stop looking so tempting.
In cougar country, educational programmes are already delivering the goods. Together with predatory animal control specialist David Fjelline, Fitzhugh has published a list of “appropriate responses” to encounters with pumas. “I’m seeing more evidence of potential attacks being thwarted by people who knew what to do,” says Fitzhugh. Just in case you are ever faced with a hungry-looking mountain lion, Fitzhugh and Fjelline advise you to raise your jacket over your head to make yourself look as tall as possible, bare your teeth and bark like a dog. Running is a definite no-no: it has the same effect as rolling a cotton reel in front of a domestic cat.
But the chances are you’ll never have to scare off a mountain lion, wolf or bear. Attacks may be rising but they are still classified as rare, and the fact remains that even in the Canadian Rockies your chances of seeing a large carnivore, let alone being eaten by one, are very slim. “You can compare the statistics with almost anything else and the ‘anything else’ will have caused more deaths,” says Fitzhugh. But she admits that doesn’t cut much ice with most people. “There’s something about even a small chance of being eaten by a large carnivore that wrests the human imagination away from the logic of numbers.”
Whatever the truth behind the statistics, and hard though it may be for a species which has had a superiority complex for so long, NINA’s report on wolf attacks speaks on behalf of all predators. “We cannot expect them not to eat humans on principle. We should just be glad that they avoid us as much as they do, and manage them to keep it that way.”
Jaws too
Terrestrial predators aren’t the only things to worry about. Shark attacks seem to be on the increase too.
According to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF), the past decade has been the worst on record for unprovoked shark attacks. The figures come with a warning: they may simply be the result of more extensive monitoring over recent years. Shark experts agree, however, that there’s something strange going on. How come attacks are on the up when shark populations everywhere are in decline?
Around 100 million sharks die in fishing nets each year, and many shark species are endangered as a result. “Shark populations are only 20 to 50 per cent of what they were in the 1970s, depending on the species,” says Bob Hueter, director of the Center For Shark Research at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida.
Comparing the ISAF data with shark behavioural research and trends in human populations, Hueter argues that the answer lies not with changes in shark behaviour but with changes in our own. Over the past 30 years there have been large increases in human populations, with more and more people travelling to the areas where sharks live. And ever since the Beach Boys popularised surfing in the 1960s, there has been a massive rise in the number of surfers in the water. Since they spend a lot of time in the areas where sharks feed, surfers are the most likely to get bitten.
Some experts also believe that the common practice of using “chum” – a mixture of meat and blood – to attract sharks on shark-watching dives is training the predators to associate humans with food. Sharks naturally tend to avoid one another, but using this kind of bait to encourage them to feed can attract as many as forty or fifty individuals together in one place. According to George Burgess of the University of Florida, who collates the ISAF, this is an accident waiting to happen.
“Among groups of sharks there is an apparent pecking order, and I’ve seen junior sharks exhibiting behaviours that signify frustration – yawning, hunching of the back, dropping the pectoral fin – all of which are well documented preludes to aggression,” says Burgess.
The ISAF file records one vicious attack which took place on one of these dives. “I mean, you would never expect to throw a few steaks to a group of lions and then walk around taking pictures of them,” says Burgess. Other scientists, however, including Hueter, believe there is no good evidence linking shark attacks with feeding on dives.
The best way to avoid sharks is to keep out of their way. “We can decrease shark attacks by 30 to 50 per cent just by using common sense,” says Burgess. “Most species feed between dusk and dawn so we should avoid swimming and surfing at those times. Avoid areas where sharks feed – drop-offs and sandbars. Don’t wear shiny jewellery that attracts sharks. And above all, if you do see a shark, get out of the water.”
But here’s a chilling thought to leave you with. If you have ever swum in tropical oceans, then you’ve probably come closer to a shark than you realised. “We come into contact with them all the time and we’re not even aware of it,” says Hueter. “They’re generally not very interested in us.”