g., antlers in Cervidae) ( Putman & Staines 2004). However, supplementary feeding

can also have undesired effects on wildlife and habitats (Boutin, 1990 and Robb et al., 2008), and is therefore considered as a controversial practice (Putman & Staines 2004). Undesired potential effects include elevated risk for disease transmission or parasite burdens (Putman & Staines 2004), altered sex ratios (Clout et al. 2002), potential risks to human health (Kavčič, Adamič, Kaczensky, Tenofovir price Krofel, & Jerina 2013), concerns about selective harvest at bait sites (e.g. when certain sex and age classes make disproportionate use of bait sites) (Bischof et al. 2008), increased interspecific predation (Cortés-Avizanda, Carrete, Serrano, & Donázar 2009), and habitat degradation (Putman & Staines 2004). An additional concern is that animals may relate supplementary feeding with humans (i.e., become food-conditioned) and lose their ‘normal’ wariness (i.e., habituation) towards people (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz 2005). Animals with increased tolerance towards humans may become a ‘nuisance’, and can—dependent on the species—be a threat to human safety. Such species include elephants (O’Connell-Rodwell, Rodwell, Rice, & Hart 2000), bears (Elfström, Zedrosser, Støen, & Swenson 2014), felids (Saberwal, Gibbs, Chellam, & Johnsingh 1994), and canids (Orams 2002). The potential to condition animals on certain foods and/or habituate them to humans

also highlights the fact that supplementary feeding may cut both ways as a management tool, and raises the question: does supplementary feeding facilitate OSI-744 manufacturer nuisance behavior, or can it efficiently redistribute wildlife in relation to humans? Here, we test if and how selection for supplementary feeding correlates with management efficacy (i.e., diversionary feeding) and potential nuisance behavior in a ‘conflict-rich’ species, the brown bear (Ursus arctos). Brown bears are large omnivorous opportunists and are often perceived as a ‘problem species’ because they sometimes damage all property and kill livestock, and occasionally attack and kill people ( Elfström, Zedrosser, Støen, et al. 2014). Supplementary

feeding is commonly used as a wildlife management tool, for example to bait animals for hunting purpose (i.e., population regulation) ( Bischof et al. 2008), or to lure animals away from undesired places (i.e., diversionary feeding) ( Elfström, Zedrosser, Støen, et al. 2014). However, supplementary feeding is also generally presumed to stimulate ‘nuisance’ behavior in bears ( Herrero et al., 2005 and Elfström et al., 2014b). The dichotomous perceptions among wildlife biologists, managers, and the general public on the functionality of supplementary feeding is hotly debated, and can lead to opposing management approaches. For example, supplementary feeding brown bears is strongly discouraged in several countries, regions, or national parks (e.g., Scandinavia, Yellowstone National Park, Denali National Park, etc.