Over the past few months, nearly 50 polar bears have paid some not-so-friendly visits to the village of Belushya Guba on the Novaya Zemlya Islands in northern Russia. The bears have been searching for food and, in turn, are terrifying the residents, causing a state of emergency. The residents began spotting the animals in December 2018 and have seen the numbers grow. Bears are entering residential buildings and attacking pedestrians on their way to ransack garbage dumps. This is not the first time that humans have been terrorized by wild animals invading their communities. But the real question is whether these polar bears are the true invaders.

In a bustling city like Mumbai, leopards often jump over the fence of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, lodged in the heart of the city, and go on midnight excursions. There have been cases of leopard attacks on humans leading to injuries and fatalities in the city. In Germany, wolves have been living in certain suburbs, while in the Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles mountain lions rove around. People often turn to the government for a solution, which often involves killing these creatures. Recently, a 31-year-old man in Colorado, U.S. who was on his usual run near Fort Collins, was attacked by a mountain lion. In his desperate fight for survival, he strangled the lion, killing it in the process.

With rapid urbanization, we continue to encroach on nature, bit by bit, turning more soil into concrete. Whether humans are exploring the wild or animals are invading the cities in search of food and protection, we assume it is only humans that are in danger. Despite the awareness that climate change is causing large-scale habitat destruction it is the animals that are blamed for the consequences of their instinct to survive.

The polar bears in Russia are facing shrinking sea ice, which is crucial for them to hunt for food. Combine their loss of hunting ground with the open garbage dumps in nearby settlements and it is easy to see why the bears are naturally drawn to the abundance of food in populated areas. It is said that bears are “traditional” in their habits, which means that they always remember where they last found food. This quality increases the probability that they will return to the garbage dump even after being forced to leave.

Some researchers are looking at the possibility of co-existence in certain cases as a solution to this problem. Guillaume Chapron and his colleagues from Sweden’s University of Agricultural Sciences are studying a ‘land-sharing’ model of conservation in Europe. Chapron believes that there is hope for such a concept to thrive even in the face of obvious concerns around humans and animals living in close proximity. There are cases in Europe where wolves are living in suburban areas alongside as many as 3,050 people per square kilometre. One of the prerequisites for this approach to work is a sense of awareness among the human community of the importance of protecting wildlife. However, the co-existence model also requires costly political and financial resources in order to mitigate potential conflicts and protect humans. The reason for the success of this model in Europe has been attributed to the political stability, burgeoning populations of prey species such as wild deer, and the financial support for non-lethal livestock protection such as electric fences. This model of co-existence is also being used in Manitoba, Canada. The town of Churchill, also called the polar bear capital of the world, developed certain strategies to reduce the conflicts between the population and bears. These strategies include closing their garbage dumps and having conservation officers that respond to their citizen-led report system. The city is currently testing a military radar system to detect polar bears before they come into town. This system would help the residents steer clear of the bear’s path or to deter the bear with the use of strobe lights and loud noises.

However, with increasing pollution and climate change, species like butterflies and vultures, species that have thus far survived in cities, are now nearing extinction. As long as humans continue to cut down greenspace, there is little hope that this idealistic picture of land-sharing will in fact ensure the survival of humans alongside the survival of wildlife.

Alternatively, if humans want wild animals to stay in the wilderness then we need to protect dwindling wildlife habitats by way of responsible urbanization. As Chapron states, “It’s not always the predator that comes to the cities, it’s the cities that come to them. We encroach on what was a wildlife habitat, so we are invading the bear’s habitat and building a city where the animals live.” So, what can we do to save ourselves and the wild? Some of the solutions may include limiting humans to the land that they have already inhabited, sealing off all exclusive forest zones from human activities, monitoring climate change and pollution, and increasing awareness about wildlife among the new generation with special modules on co-existence. This is not an exhaustive list and different solutions may work in different corners of the world. But efforts under way and we can only hope that these are supplemented with much needed public support and sensibility.

Humans have made the wild uninhabitable for animals by converting their habitats into cities and then committing another injustice when they make their cities uninhabitable for wildlife. With a closer look, it seems that the “animal invasion” we are experiencing fails to identify the true invader.