Bears are associated with many problem encounters with tourists and recre-
ationists in North America. Armour and Macdonald (1998) report 19 fatal bear
attacks in British Columbia between 1969 and 1997, with
other statistics showing
a further 100 people injured in bear attacks (Anon, 1996). According to Clark, van
Manen, and Pelton (2002), between 1990 and 1998, 1,414 negative encounters
were reported between bears and visitors in the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, 18 of which were associated with human injury. Gunther (1998) provides
similar statistics for Yellowstone National Park, where 23 people were injured by
bears during the period from 1980 to 1997. Although this represents a very small
number when compared to the 47 million visitors who came to the park during the
same time, Gunther notes that an increase in backcountry recreation seems to be
associated with an increase in human injuries from bear encounters.
Cougars,
also called mountain lions, are another North American animal asso-
ciated with attacks on humans. Chester (2000) provides a summary of North
American statistics showing a similar pattern to that reported for bears with small
but increasing numbers of negative encounters. According to Chester (2000) there
have been on average 14 attacks each year in the United States since 1970. Sharks
are another predator responsible for human injury and deaths. The University of
Florida and Florida Museum of Natural History have created an International
Shark Attack File (ISAF) accessible on the Internet where it is reported that 86
people were attacked by sharks in 2002, with most occurring in Florida, Australia,
and South Africa (UFl/FMNH, 2003). Crocodiles are responsible for much media
attention when they attack humans,
with one state in Australia, Queensland, report-
ing 12 attacks, including four fatal attacks from 1985 to 2001 (M. Read,
Coordinator, Crocodile Management Unit, Queensland National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Personal Communication, November, 2003). Alligators have a
more aggressive record with 365 attacks including 13 fatalities reported for six
southern US states (UFl/FMNH, 2003).
Other animals that have been associated with human injuries and deaths include
dingoes in Australia (Roberts, 2001), snakes (Casper and Hay, 1998),
elephants
(Williams et al., 2001), marine jellyfish (Gordon, 1997), as well as scorpions, spi-
ders, and insects (Bowman, 2003). In addition, a number of other species have
been associated with aggressive, although non-fatal, attacks on humans including
birds (Thomas and Jones, 1999), a variety of Australian native wildlife, most
notably kangaroos (Skira and Smith, 1991), elk, moose, bison,
and wild pigs
(Rusch, 1999), lions, sea lions, fish, bats, raccoons, and squirrels (UFl/FMNH,
2003), and biting insects such as midges (Blackwell and Page, 2003).
Four key sets of points need to be made about these negative human–wildlife
encounters. Firstly, while the information reported in this section has provided
some insight into the phenomenon of wildlife attacks on tourists, it is difficult to
determine the extent of this particular threat to tourist safety as no standard system
exists for reporting or recording such incidents; and it is likely that many attacks
which result in limited or no actual physical harm to the
tourist are not reported at
all. Secondly, it is important to note that in many of these cases the incidents are
related to people traveling for holiday or recreational purposes. Separate statistics
are available for animal related injuries and fatalities that occur with domestic ani-
mals or as part of work or everyday residential behavior. There have been some
attempts to examine the characteristics of victims of wildlife injuries (see Armour
and Macdonald, 1998, and UFl/FMNH, 2003, for examples) but no consistent pat-
Tourism Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
212
H7898_Ch12.qxd 8/24/05 8:47 AM Page 212
terns can be identified because very little analysis is available and where evidence
has
been examined, the results differ greatly according to the nature of the wildlife
and the type of incident involved. The third key point is that although actual attacks
appear to be rare, generally it is believed that the incidence of negative wildlife–
human encounters is increasing. Typically this is attributed to the rise in tourism in
general, but more specifically to the growth in adventure tourism, wildlife based
tourism, and tourism into more remote areas (Armour and Macdonald, 1998;
Chester, 2000; Gordon, 1997; UFl/FMNH, 2003).
Finally, there has been very little research into the factors that contribute to spe-
cific negative encounters. In some cases, such as with
spiders and marine jellyfish,
it appears that mere entry into the appropriate environment at the relevant time of
year or day is all that is needed for a negative encounter to become possible. In oth-
ers, such as with kangaroos, problems with feeding animals and the presence of
food may be critical to the development of negative incidents. In other cases, such
as with bears, it may be that humans venture too close to the animal, resulting in a
defensive attack. On the whole, however, there have been
few systematic attempts
to examine the behavior of tourists and/or their responses to, and perceptions of,
threatening or dangerous wildlife.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
