Large carnivores such as wolves and bears, who are vital members of many ecosystems, often get a bad rap for being unpredictable, dangerous, aggressive, and untrustworthy. Long-term research projects on these and other carnivores clearly show that these are sensationalist myths that damage who these animals truly are.1 For example, in my home state of Colorado, newly introduced wolves (in December 2023) were grossly misrepresented as being violent and dangerous predators by anti-wolf people who ignored what biological and social science tell us about these magnificent beings simply because they didn’t want them around.
Environmental scientist and conservationist Dr. Gosia Bryja is an expert on the psychological bases for how we perceive and interact with these amazing beings, and I’m glad she could answer a few questions about how our misperceptions have strong negative consequences for these and other animals who are vilified in all sorts of media, including species reports about who these animals supposedly are.
No conservation efforts can succeed without a profound change in our attitudes toward wildlife. We live in an increasingly urbanized world, and human interactions with large carnivores such as bears and wolves have become more frequent. Unfortunately, our perception of these magnificent animals is often driven by irrational fears, preconceptions, and prejudices. As Erica Berry writes in Wolfish: Wolf, Self, and the Stories We Tell About Fear, there is “the creature in front of you and the creature in your mind.” 2
My interdisciplinary education and professional experience made me realize that effective conservation should address the intrinsic value of individual animals. It often requires delving into human psychology, especially exploring emotional barriers that vitiate our perception of other sentient beings. These barriers may hinder compassion and caring for the well-being of individuals.
In the end, it comes down to us. Wrestling with the human psyche is not always easy, but it’s indispensable.
In the case of wildlife conservation, nowhere is the lack of compassion more apparent than in the ways we treat carnivores. We have demonized and persecuted wolves and bears for centuries. They have been labeled as unpredictable, dangerous, ferocious, and untrustworthy. None of these is true, but the labels persist. Partially, this is because we fail to distinguish between a minuscule real risk and an inflated perceived risk. Sadly, it is the latter that often determines the fate of carnivores.2
As evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby would say, “Our modern skulls house a Stone Age mind.” Fears of carnivores are deeply rooted in our ancestral past as a survival mechanism, but nowadays, they distort the perception of human-wildlife encounters.
Metaphorically speaking, we carry two brains: an instinct-driven primitive brain and an evolved rational brain. The instinct-driven brain was a vital adaptation that helped our ancestors rapidly recognize and respond to threats, including encounters with carnivores. The vivid image of powerful claws and teeth has been implanted in our brains as harbingers of mortal danger. And it resides there stubbornly, despite the wealth of scientific knowledge showing that these intelligent animals can peacefully coexist with us.
Still, the old brain is not the only obstacle. Interestingly, the relative infrequency of our encounters with carnivores also contributes to the overestimation of risk. Unfamiliarity enhances anxiety.
For example, with bears, each human injury is reported, while countless peaceful encounters remain unknown to the public. It happens because tragic encounters are so infrequent. Their rarity makes them newsworthy. We read, watch, and remember them. Novelty stands out.
The availability heuristics manifests itself as those who encounter a bear or hear about such an encounter recall sensationalized coverage in late-night news. That’s the irony. Far more perilous but familiar activities, such as driving or swimming, have lost their fear factor and remain unreported. In stark contrast to wildlife encounters, they cause tragedies daily and are thus a part of daily life. What’s the point of reporting them?
And then there’s the language. Wildlife managers, hunting groups, and the media further inflate risk perception. Words such as dangerous, aggressive, or conflict elevate our irrational fears and help justify lethal “management” solutions. On the other hand, using euphemisms like harvesting and euthanizing instead of killing or referring to bears as resources deprives animals of sentience and makes shooting them more acceptable.
Finally, our imaginative limitations play a part in how we perceive carnivores. What happens to them is often communicated to us through numerical abstractions. Wildlife advocates point to horrific statistics showing how many animals have been killed, but the public remains indifferent. Why? The concept of psychic numbing helps to explain it. As Paul Slovic argues, our compassion decreases as the number of those who need our help increases.
In British Columbia, almost 2,000 wolves have been shot from helicopters since 2015 under the guise of caribou conservation. And yet, the enormity of the tragedy induces only numbness and hopelessness. It is understandable. One can envision the agony of a single wolf but not the deaths of thousands. Large numbers are abstract, numbing, and desensitizing. They detach us from active engagement because the overwhelmed mind wants to protect itself from despair by shutting out terrifying realities.
I hope to reach those who seek a peaceful relationship with bears, wolves, and other carnivores. Some advocates might want to make their views known through participation in the political process. This is important. So much depends on politics and legislation; here, informed citizens have a voice. I also wish to provide arguments and facts to those already actively involved in conservation. My writings could assist them in sharing knowledge and speaking on behalf of carnivores.
Yes, I am hopeful; I must be hopeful, but hoping is not enough. Knowledge needs to reach both the mind and the heart. Facts alone will not erase irrational fears because these fears are not underpinned by facts. Yes, it’s about making people understand “the truth” of who carnivores really are and making them genuinely care about this “truth.”
It’s about seeing bears and wolves as distinct individuals with their own stories and lives to unfold. It can be done. The human capacity for compassion is an unstoppable force.
References
In conversation with Dr. Gosia Bryja. Gosia has a Ph.D. in environmental science and over 20 years of experience as a conservation scientist and educator. While working for the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), she collaborated on numerous projects in different parts of the world. Among her efforts, she was involved in conservation planning for tigers, jaguars, wolves, grizzlies, spectacled bears, and black bears. She also spent seven years in Ecuador, where, as the Scientific Director for WCS, she led landscape-scale initiatives and assisted indigenous groups in defending their traditional rights and lands. Now based in Vancouver, Gosia is a full-time academic instructor teaching geography and environmental studies courses. She also collaborates with local organizations and communities to promote wildlife practices that embrace the principles of compassionate conservation. She recently launched an online magazine called "Omere" as a platform to address topics related to the relationship between humans and wildlife.
1) Grizzly Bears: What Makes Them Tick and How to Coexist With Them; What Do Bears Know and Feel?; Grizzly Bear Expert Explains Who These Carnivores Really Are; Colorado Wolves Receive Mixed Hellos and Muddy Media; How Wildlife Personalities Affect Conservation Efforts; Conservation Science Must Value Individuals and Anthropomorphism; Wolves, Grizzly Bears, and Humans: Who's Moving in on Whom?; Now that Yellowstone Killed Blaze Bear What About Her Cubs?
Data show that grizzlies aren't interested in hurting or killing people. Most attacks are due to people surprising bears. Fatal wolf attacks are extremely rare. From 2011-2021, the average number of humans killed by dogs in the USA was 43. For more details, see "Do Wolves Attack Humans?"
2) For an interview with Erica Berry, see Lessons on Fear, Gender, and Ourselves From a Wayward Wolf.
Bryja, Gosia. Don’t let Compassion Drown in Numbers. Medium, 2021
_____. A Bear is not just a Bear: Recognizing the Individual in Wildlife Conservation. Medium. 2023.
_____. Language and the Knife: Silencing Nature. Medium, 2023.
Slovic, Paul. “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Cambridge Core, 2, 79-95, 2023.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
visit website
