WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1 SUMMER 2003 Wildlife-Human Interactions in National Parks in Canada and the USA Dr. Alistair J. Bath, Memorial University of Newfoundland Dr. Jody W. Enck, Cornell University Abstract The chance to view wildlife draws millions of visi- tors each year to the national parks of North America. The combination of a large number of people and abundant wildlife leads to a variety of wildlife-human interactions. In this paper we ex- plore the nature of those wildlife-human interac- tions, theoretical frameworks social scientists are using to understand those interactions, and ap- proaches used by national parks across North America to manage those interactions. Introduction and Scope North American national parks provide some of the best opportunities to meet public desires for viewing wildlife and enjoying the sounds of nature (Driver et al. 1991). The “bear jams” that result in places like Yellowstone National Park are continued evidence of people’s fascination with wildlife (Compton 1994). However, close proximity of people and wildlife in national parks leads to interactions that can pose threats and/or direct injury to the wild- life species people come to enjoy. Some interactions also result in human injury, death, and property dam- age. National park managers are faced in part with the difficult tasks of providing opportunities for visi- tors to enjoy and learn about wildlife, protecting wildlife from visitors, protecting visitors from wild- life, protecting rare plants and forested ecosystems from wildlife, and making all these decisions with the support and understanding of the various publics interested in national parks and their management. Various national laws in both Canada and the United States of America (USA) provide a legal context for understanding and managing wildlife- human interactions in national parks. The Canadian National Parks Act (1930) does not directly deal with wildlife-human interactions. It does state, however, that “parks are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment…and shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future genera- tions” (Parks Canada Agency 2000). In addition, the act grants the field unit manager the power to make regulations for “the protection of wild animals and the disposal of noxious, predatory or superabundant animals.” In Canada, national park regulations also permit the field unit manager to regulate access to areas to protect wildlife, prohibit the feeding of wild- life in national parks, and to set garbage regulations. These park managers also have the authority to con- trol animals deemed dangerous to human safety (e. g., supporting the removal of problem bears), and to control and dispose of surplus animals deemed harmful to the natural environment (e.g., white- tailed deer in Point Pelee National Park, Ontario). Similarly, the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has a broad policy that allows for the manage- ment of animals and plants and their environment to minimize human interference. The NPS will not al- low activities that “…present a clear danger to pub-