POLAR BEARS ATTACKS
According to a report on polar bear attacks: From 1870–2014, we documented 73 attacks by wild polar bears, distributed among the 5 polar bear Range States (Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and United States), which resulted in 20 human fatalities and 63 human injuries. We found that nutritionally stressed adult male polar bears were the most likely to pose threats to human safety. Attacks by adult females were rare, and most were attributed to defense of cubs. We judged that bears acted as a predator in most attacks, and that nearly all attacks involved two or more people. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
To date, polar bear attacks on humans have been rare. When they do occur, they evoke negative public reaction, often to the detriment of polar bear conservation. In some communities, those negative reactions can persist for decades and result in less social tolerance for polar bears and increased defense kills. it is commonly asserted that polar bears are the most aggressive of bears and polar bears are the only large predator that will actively hunt people. An important factor that fuels such common folklore is that only a small fraction of the interactions between polar bears and people are reported; the exceptions are attacks that lead to human injuries or death.
We analyzed 73 confirmed attacks in which 20 people were killed and 63 were injured by wild polar bears. Of the attacks, 38 occurred in Canada, four in Greenland, 10 in Norway, 15 in Russia, and six in the United States. Seven other probable fatalities and 5 injuries occurred in Russia and Norway during this same period but are not included in our analyses because we could not confirm them. (i.e., those attacks were referenced in other literature, but the details could not be confirmed or there were no witnesses to the incidents to confirm that they were actually attacks, even though all evidence indicated that as the most likely explanation).
Based on the criteria described in our methods, we judged that the bear involved acted as a predator in 59 percent (37 of 63) of attacks on people. Sixty-four percent (7 of 11) of attacks by females with cubs resulted from defense of cubs; two of these occurred at den sites. Where probable cause could be determined, 100 percent (5 of 5) of attacks by single females were predatory in nature, four of which were by subadults and 1 by an adult. Only 1 attack could be attributed to a bear defending a carcass. In 38 percent (14 of 37) of attacks,anthropogenic attractants (environmental change originating with human activity) .were present. There was no indication that natural attractants (e.g., whale carcass) were present in any polar bear attacks on people.
RELATED ARTICLES:
POLAR BEARS ATTACKS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA factsanddetails.com
POLAR BEARS ATTACKS IN CANADA factsanddetails.com
POLAR BEARS: CHARACTERISTICS, BEHAVIOR AND REPRODUCTION factsanddetails.com
POLAR BEARS, HUMANS. CONSERVATION: CLIMATE CHANGE, POLLUTION, TOURISM factsanddetails.com
BEAR BEHAVIOR: TERRITORIALITY, HABITUATED TO HUMANS, OPENING CARS factsanddetails.com
BROWN BEAR ATTACKS factsanddetails.com
BEAR ATTACKS IN ALASKA factsanddetails.com
BEAR ATTACKS IN RUSSIA factsanddetails.com
BROWN BEARS ATTACKS IN JAPAN: VICTIMS, HOKKAIDO, SANKEBETSU factsanddetails.com
Early Accounts of Polar Bear Attacks
Before Europeans began exploring the Arctic encounters between humans other than Inuits (Eskimos) and other Arctic natives with polar bears was minimal. The Inuit lived with polar bears and knew how to deal with them. The extent of human-polar bear interactions began to change in the 16th century with the advent of widespread maritime exploration, especially the search for the fabled Northwest passage. The first known recorded polar bear attack dates to 1595 when members of William Barent’s second expedition were reportedly killed and eaten by a polar bear in the Russian arctic. The incident occurred in September on an islet near Vaygach Island. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
Two men were lying in a wind-free depression resting, when: “a great lean white bear came suddenly, stealing out, and caught one of them fast by the neck, the bear at the first falling upon the man, bit his head in sunder.” The ship’s crew rallied, and tried to drive the bear off of the victim: “having charged their pieces and bent their pikes ,set upon her, that still was devouring the man, but perceiving them to come towards her, fiercely and cruelly ran at them, and got another of them out from the company, which she tore in pieces, wherewith all the rest ran away (de Veer 1876:63).” Eventually the crew was able to again rally, and finally killed the bear as it continued to devour its victims.
In 1773, 15-year-old future British naval hero Horatio Nelson fought off a polar bear on Spitsbergen after his musket misfired. According to Royal Museums Greenwich: In 1773 Horatio Nelson served as a midshipman in the ‘Carcass’, bomb vessel. It was part of expedition, trying to find a north-east passage to the Pacific. The expedition was obliged to return when the ships sailed north from Spitsbergen and found the way barred by ice. During the attempt, Nelson set off with a friend to stalk a polar bear. His musket misfired and he was forced to attack the bear with the butt-end. He was saved from harm when a rift in the ice separated him from the animal. A cannon was also fired from the ship to scare the bear off and Nelson justified his action to a furious captain stating that he wished to kill the bear to take its skin home to his father.
Deterring Polar Bear Attacks and Safety in Polar Bear Country
If traveling in polar bear country it is a good idea to have bear spray, flares to scare the bear off and firearms as a last resort. Electric fences around campsites don’t appear ro work very good. Jerry Kobalenko wrote:I may be the editor of ExplorersWeb, but I’m also an Arctic traveler who has had over a dozen close calls with polar bears. I’ve never had to kill one, but it’s been close — for both of us.I do carry a firearm, and although I once went without one in an Arctic park where polar bears were historically rare, it was an uncomfortable gamble. Polar bears are great explorers and can show up anywhere, anytime. A tour group discovered this in 2006 when a polar bear nosed around their camp on northern Ellesmere Island — in a spot where polar bears had never been seen before. The hiking tour group had a shock when a polar bear poked around their camp at Tanquary Fiord, Ellesmere Island. It was in a national park, and the guides did not have a firearm. Fortunately, no one was injured.
Humans are very different from a polar bear’s usual prey, which is seals. Most polar bears want nothing to do with us. They run away, or amble off in that dignified bear manner. Polar bears are, however, one of the two animals in North America that occasionally stalk people as food. (The other is the cougar.) Typically, an interested polar bear approaches slowly, trying to make up its mind about you. “Is this something that might injure me, or should I make a play for it?”
Adolescent males — cocky like human adolescents, still poor seal hunters — are the worst offenders; almost all my incidents have been with them. However, as Russian polar bear biologist Nikita Ovsyanikov once explained to me, polar bears are among the world’s most conservative animals. Ovsyanikov became famous for walking around polar bears with just a long stick and an attitude. With an confident attitude (feigned, of course), they are relatively easy to scare away with non-lethal deterrents like flares or bear spray. A warning shot sometimes works too, though not always. But while it is not possible to say anything about the incident on Baffin Island, I would not classify most of my close calls with polar bears as “predatory attacks.” Mostly, they feel as if the polar bear is probing, to see if an escalation is justified.
According to the report on polar bear attacks: In over half of the attacks we analyzed, other people who witnessed or were involved in the attack were able to save the victim(s) by driving off or killing the attacking bear. Although we documented the use of firearms to successfully end attacks by polar bears, we also found that in 25 percent of attacks where a firearm was in possession, victims and bystanders mishandled firearms because of inexperience or the stress of the incident. here are several cases where predatory polar bear behavior was effectively deterred by people’s aggressive action, such as shouting, throwing hot water or wax in the bear’s face, rushing the bear with a vehicle, firing flares, using bear spray, or striking the bear with rocks, fists, or sticks. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
Key to minimizing the potential for conflict between humans and polar bears is proactive management of attractants such as garbage, encounter group size, evaluation of the behavior and body condition of bears encountered, and proper use of deterrent tools and techniques, which collectively can mitigate most human-polar bear conflicts. All group members should be knowledgeable and proficient with the firearms and other deterrent tools carried. The use of effective polar bear warning and deterrent systems, such as use of biologically relevant perimeter alarm systems, electric fences, and bear spray is encouraged.
Many people do not believe that bear spray is effective against polar bears. However, Fleck and Herrero (1988) suggested that bears that have experienced an unpleasant interaction with people are more likely to avoid them in the future. We have records of 16 incidents in which bear spray was used successfully to deter polar bears, including incidents where other deterrents failed. Although bear spray was not used in any attacks reported here, it was used successfully to stop three attempted attacks by polar bears. In three other incidents in which bears exhibited persistent aggressive behavior, bear spray successfully altered the bear’s behavior after other deterrent efforts failed. Importantly, no humans or bears were killed or injured in the 16 incidents in which bear spray was used to deter polar bears. Other researchers have also found bear spray to be an effective deterrent against other bear species. Bear spray is currently illegal in Norway and Greenland, and unavailable, though legal, in much of the Canadian and Russian Arctic.
Predation and Where and When Polar Bear Attacks Occurred
Between 1870 and 2014, attacks occurred in every month, with 68 percent (44 of 65) occurring between July and December. Since 2000, 88 percent (22 of 25) of attacks have occurred between July and December. The majority of attacks (53 percent, 35 of 66) occurred in association with field camps and people traveling across the landscape; 27 percent (18 of 66) occurred in towns; eight percent (5 of 66) occurred in association with research activities; and 6 percent (4 of 66) occurred at industrial sites. Eleven percent (7 of 63) of attacks were on people in their tent. Two attacks involved a bear attacking a person inside a building. Sixty percent (9 of15) of attacks in towns were predatory.
Where reported, 100 percent (10 of 10) of the people killed by polar bears received major wounds to the head and neck. In 83 percent (10 of 12) of fatal incidents, the bear consumed part of the human; in one clearly predatory incident the bear was killed before feeding on the human. Only single bears were involved in fatal attacks on people: 93 percent (13 of 14) were committed by males, seven percent (1 of 14) by females, 64 percent (9 of 14) by adults, 21 percent (3 of 14) by subadults, and 14 percent (2 of 14) by yearlings.
Although polar bears are the apex predator in their environment and therefore seem to have little fear of anything save other bears, as obligate carnivores they must maintain their physical capacity to hunt seals; any serious injury they suffer could prove fatal. Unlike grizzly and black bear, which are able to survive on vegetative diets, polar bears must hunt seals to survive. Asa result, polar bears may be more averse to physical confrontations than grizzly bears, contrary to the common assertion that they are the most aggressive of bears.
The nature of attacks by polar bears appears to differ from attacks by grizzly and black bears. For example, a substantial proportion of fatal attacks by grizzly bears are defensive and carried out by females with young. We did not find a single case where a female polar bear with cubs had killed a person. However, in one clearly predatory attack, a female with a yearling attacked and dragged off a worker at an exploration camp in carnata’s Norwegian Bay, Canada in the dark of the Arctic night. The victim was saved from being killed by a co-worker, who, when alerted, tracked down the bear and drove it off the victim with a front-end loader. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
We also documented a substantial proportion of attacks by polar bears in towns, which are relatively rare for grizzly and black bears, although some exceptions exist, such as Anchorage, Alaska, USA. It is unclear why polar bears may be more likely to attack people in and around human settlements. However, increased nutritional stress experienced by some polar bears may compel them to take greater risks by venturing into settlements to seek food.
Similar to findings for grizzly bears and black bears, groups of one or two people are more likely to be attacked by a polar bear than are larger groups. Numerically larger parties are probably louder, more intimidating, and better able to fight off a bear attack. However, in stark contrast to those species, we also found that in rare cases, polar bears were willing to attack groups of 10 or more people. This difference may be explained by some polar bears’ willingness to attack large herds of prey (e.g., walrus). Finally, contrary to grizzly and black bears, bluff charges directed at people have rarely been observed in polar bears. A charging polar bear should be interpreted as a bear intent on injuring a person.
Age, Sex and Body Condition of Attacking Polar Bears
According to the report on polar bear attacks: For attacks in which sex of the bear was known, the observed percentages of male (62 percent) and female (38 percent) polar bears involved differed from hypothesized percentages. Ninety-one percent (11of 12) of attacks by adult females involved those with cubs (cubs of the year, yearlings, or two-year-olds). Incidence of attacks also varied by age class, with adults involved in 52 percent, subadults in 35 percent, and independent2-year-olds and yearlings in 13 percent of attacks in which age class was known. Fifty-four percent (7 of 13) of attacks in towns were by subadult and yearling polar bears. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
The incidence of predatory attacks differed among sex classes. Seventy-two percent (18 of 25) of predatory attacks involved male bears,20 percent (5 of 25) involved single female bears, and 8 percent (2 of 25)were committed by females with cubs. Incidence of predatory attacks also varied between age classes with 42 percent (13 of 31) committed by adults, 45 percent (14of 31) committed by subadults, and 13 percent (4 of 31) by independent yearlings or two-year-olds. Where reported, polar bears vocalized before attacking in only 13 percent (4 of 30) of attacks.
Sixty-one percent (19 of 31) of bears that attacked humans were in below-average body condition, meaning they were skinny or thin. Only 6 percent (2 of 31) were considered fat; none were considered obese. Sixty-five percent (13 of 20) of bears involved in predatory attacks on people were in below-average body condition; none were in above-average body condition. Fifty-six percent (5 of 9) of the bears that attacked people in towns were in below-average body condition; none were in above-average body condition.
Sixty-four percent (7 of 11) of bears involved in fatal attacks on humans were in below-average body condition; none were in above-average body condition. We judged that the bear involved acted as a predator in 88 percent (14 of 16) of fatal attacks. The predatory on human category includes predatory attacks on people in tents and buildings (9) and predatory investigations (2).
Characteristics, Motives and Behavior of Attacking Polar Bears
According to the report on polar bear attacks: Male bears were responsible for the majority of predatory attacks on people, and have been implicated in most serious and aggressive polar bear-human interactions throughout Canada and Norway. Rather than being defensive, our data suggest that the intent of a male polar bear during an attack is to kill the person. Our results also indicate that independent immature bears (subadults, two-year-olds, and yearlings), irrespective of sex, were more prone to be predatory towards humans. Males tend to be more aggressive than females, and immature bears may be less cautious, more easily habituated to humans, more nutritionally stressed than adults, and more aggressive towards people. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
Furthermore, independent young bears are not yet adept at catching their natural prey (ice seals) and thus more prone to being in below-average body condition than are older, more experienced animals. In addition, immature bears, with their smaller absolute fat stores, are likely to be among the frrst affected by prolonged fasting periods. Nutritional stress associated with the lengthening ice-free season has been linked to increases in conflicts involving subadult bears in the western Hudson Bay region.
Fleck and Herrero (1988) reported that, in contrast to male polar bears, females with offspring that attacked people were not exhibiting predatory behavior but rather were defending their cubs. Our results differ in that we found that some attacks by female polar bears with offspring were predatory. However, we do not know of any reports of a female polar bear with cubs killing a person.
As with black bears, our data indicate that polar bears acted as predators in most fatal attacks on people. All humans killed by polar bears had major wounds to their head and neck, similar to the method polar bears use to kill ice seals. Predatory behavior typically involves silent stalking, direct approaches with no sign of curiosity or hesitation, followed by a fast head down rush. Polar bears hunting their normal prey (seals) do not vocalize; neither did the majority of polar bears that attacked people in our analysis. The lack of any warning noises or other directed, investigatory behaviors by the bears that attacked people suggests that they were hunting .Lack of warning, however, is not always related to predatory intentions. For example, female polar bears will act aggressively to protect their offspring, particularly during sudden encounters.
Human Behavior During the Polar Bear Attacks
According to the report on polar bear attacks: The incidence of attacks varied with the number of people a bear encountered. Encounter group size was available for 56 attacks, 61 percent (34) of which involved one person, 27 percent (15) involved two people, and 12 percent (7) involved three or more people (i.e., 2 attacks involved 5 people and 2 involved 8 people). The encounter group size was known in 16 fatal attacks; 75 percent (12) involved one person, 19 percent (3) involved two people, and 6 percent (1) involved 5 people. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
In 59 percent (30 of 51) of attacks, the person’s behavior contributed to the attack (e.g., the person shot and wounded the bear or its cub, got too close or provoked the bear, fed the bear, slept on the ice, ran from the bear, was unarmed, carried inadequate firearms, or was inexperienced with the firearms carried). In 38 percent (24 of 63) of attacks, firearms were used to end the attack. In 84 percent (31 of 37) of nonfatal attacks, either the victim or a nearby bystander had firearms in their possession. In 57 percent (8 of 14) of fatal attacks, no firearms were in possession. In 25 percent (9 of 36) of attacks where a firearm was in possession, victims and bystanders mishandled firearms because of inexperience or the stress of the incident(sometimes multiple times by multiple people). In all cases this contributed to further human injury or death.
In 56 percent (29 of 52) of attacks, the person was surprised and had no chance to deter the bear before the attack. Thirty-nine percent (11 of 28) of attacks in which the person was aware of the bear before the attack were predatory in nature. In 7 attacks, multiple attempts to scare the bear off before the attack were unsuccessful. Bear spray was in possession of the person in only one of 36 polar bear attacks since 1986 (when bear spray became available in some regions). However, the spray was not used in that incident because the victim was attacked, reportedly without warning, and dragged from his tent in the middle of the night.
In 51 percent (32 of 63) of attacks, other people who witnessed or were involved in the attack were able to save victims by driving off or killing the attacking bear. Victims successfully fought off or killed the attacking bear in only nine percent (6 of 63) of attacks. In the attacks in which the bear did not kill a person, fatalities and further injuries were prevented by killing the bear, by the bear ending the attack on its own, and by hitting the bear in the head with a tool; single observations of wounding the bear with a firearm, using a helicopter, poking the bear in the eye with a thumb, firing flares at the bear, running into a building, using a cellphone light, stabbing the bear, scaring the bear away with snowmachines, throwing stones and shouting, a dog chasing the bear away, and shooting at the bear were recorded.
Things That Humans Do That Might Encourage Polar Bear Attacks
According to the report on polar bear attacks: Our findings suggest certain human behavior may influence the potential for negative interactions with polar bears. For example, it is likely important to not act like prey. Threee incidents involved bears stalked people with predatory intentions but appeared to realize their mistake at the last minute and emitted a puff of air or a hiss just before aborting their attack. This suggests that, because the bears were hunting something different than their normal prey, they used their sense of smell to give themselves additional information just before attacking. Submissive human behavior can cause an interaction with a cautious, curious bear to escalate into something far more dangerous by encouraging the bear’s natural predatory instincts. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
Furthermore, humans often exacerbate the potential for negative interactions with polar bears by not properly managing aromatic attractants such as garbage, harvested animals, meat caches, and dog yards. In the absence of attractants, polar bears are generally cautious during initial encounters with people and more susceptible to being scared away . This may help to explain the low number of attacks at industrial sites, which typically implement strict mitigation policies that address attractant management, building security, and hazing and deterrent actions.
When attractants are present, nutritionally stressed or food-conditioned bears can quickly lose their sense of caution around people. Some of these bears can become quite dangerous, and may view humans as prey. We found that the majority of attacks that occurred in towns involved subadult and yearling bears, were predatory in nature, and most of the bears involved were in below-average body condition, meaning they were hungry and likely motivated to procure food however they could, including by preying on people. We also found that anthropogenic attractants were present at 80 percent of attacks that occurred in towns. These endings support the idea that the combination of anthropogenic attractants and polar bears in poor body condition increases the risk for negative and potentially lethal interactions.
Is Climate Change Causing More Polar Bear Attacks?
According to a report on polar bear attacks: Arctic sea ice extent and thickness have declined over the last four decades, leading some to conclude that the Arctic Ocean in summer may be largely ice free soon In some parts of the polar bear range, diminishing summer sea ice has resulted in the increased use of terrestrial habitat by polar bears. When on shore, some nutritionally stressed bears are highly motivated to obtain food however they can, and appear more willing to risk interacting with humans as a result. Increased frequency of hungry bears on land due to retreating sea ice, coupled with expanding human activity in the polar bear range, is expected to result in a greater risk of human-polar bear interaction and conflict. [Source: “Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate” by James Wilder, U.S. Forest Service; Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute; Todd C. Atwood, United States Geological Survey, Wildlife Society, July 2, 2017]
Historically, polar bear attacks have occurred in every month of the year. Inuit in Northern Hudson Bay and northwest Greenland told early explorers that polar bears were generally very hungry in the spring and there were many instances of them breaking into tents and sometimes killing women or children. However, our data indicate that since 2000, 88 percent of polar bear attacks on people have occurred between July and December, which includes the period of time when sea ice is at its minimum extent. Towns et al.(2009) found that the date of sea ice freeze-up was the best predictor explaining the annual occurrence of problem bears, which is cause for concern in light of a lengthening open-water season and the consequent effects on polar bear body condition.
Without the sea ice substrate, prey are largely unavailable to polar bears; the result is increased fasting, which leads to declines in body condition and survival. These adverse consequences become increasingly dire as the ice-free period lengthens beyond 4 months. By the end of this century, ice-free conditions in the Arctic are likely to persist for 5 to 11 months out of the year. This is well beyond the point (i.e., 5 to 6 months) at which extended fasting will likely lead to increased starvation in polar bears. This, combined with the evidence that bears in below-average body condition are more prone toastrack people, should be a serious concern for all who live, work, or recreate in polar bear habitat, as well as for the agencies responsible for managing polar bears.
Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons
Text Sources: Animal Diversity Web animaldiversity.org ; National Geographic, Live Science, Natural History magazine, David Attenborough books, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Smithsonian magazine, Discover magazine, The New Yorker, Time, BBC, CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, Lonely Planet Guides, Wikipedia, The Guardian, Top Secret Animal Attack Files website and various books and other publications.
Last updated June 2025