Shane Fraser, Regina Leader-Post
There are few animals Trent Bollinger has not necropsied in his 30-plus years as a wildlife pathologist.
From fish to amphibians to deer, reptiles and cougars, Bollinger has examined their insides to find pathogens of public concern like influenza, rabies and West Nile virus.
Sometimes, and especially as of late, he finds humans.
Currently a professor of veterinary pathology at the University of Saskatchewan’s Western College of Veterinary Medicine (WCVM), Bollinger is who the provincial government calls to conduct necropsies on black bears suspected of fatal attacks on humans.
All the bears from the last four fatal incidents in Saskatchewan, dating back to 2020, have spent their afterlives in Bollinger’s lab.
In an interview with the StarPhoenix, Bollinger discussed the necropsy procedure and the postmortem evidence sought from ursine offenders.
Necropsy is an autopsy for non-humans
Though the term “necropsy” is typically used for non-human animals, Bollinger also uses “autopsy” because “it’s understood by more people.” Both words mean a medical examination of a dead body.
After a bear is suspected of killing a human, it is tracked down, euthanized and transported for necropsy/autopsy. Conservation officers take the carcass to WCVM, which has the facilities and faculty, including Bollinger, to facilitate such a procedure.
What pathologists look for
Bollinger and his team address two basic questions during a post-attack necropsy.
First, is there evidence linking the bear to the human victim? Second, are there any diseases or conditions that may have precipitated the attack?
Evidence includes human DNA swabbed from teeth, claws and the gastrointestinal tract. Moreover, measurements are taken of the distance between the bear’s canines for comparison with bite marks on the victim’s body.
Self-defence wounds can also appear as evidence.
“If the individual fought back, it’s unlikely that there would be significant bruises or things like that,” said Bollinger, “but if a weapon was involved, then yes, those lesions would be there.”
In determining potential reasons for the attack, Bollinger notes the age, sex and body condition of the bear.
“Was it emaciated, skinny? Did that prompt the attack?” he further ascertains. “And then we also look at . . . any diseases that may have precipitated the attack as well.”
Bollinger checks for rabies, which is “relatively uncommon in bears,” but also distemper. Additionally, he looks for protozoan parasites that cause encephalitis or brain lesions, potentially spurring aggression.
Results not disclosed
Despite his contributions to bear attack investigations, Bollinger often learns the outcomes, if any, through media or government reports.
Conservation officers collect his swabs and samples and take them for analysis at a forensics lab (in Alberta, Bollinger thinks) and the results come back to COs who finalize the report.
“I don’t see the results of the DNA analysis,” Bollinger said. “The investigation of the scene of the attack, plus the information that’s collected from the bear, is all put together (by COs) to provide a weight of evidence that this, in fact, was the bear that attacked those people.”
Killer bears were hungry, but not starving
Since it’s an ongoing investigation, Bollinger couldn’t comment on the bear involved in the July attacks on a Regina couple at McTavish Lake, but he discussed the bears in the other two fatal incidents he oversaw.
The bear involved in the May attack near Points North Landing “had come out of hibernation, had reasonable fat stores for that time of year (and) was generally in good health,” Bollinger said.
“It was just a situation where the bear was actively looking for food and the person was there at the wrong time.”
As Provincial Bear Biologist Elizabeth O’Hara previously told the StarPhoenix, the most dangerous black bear is a predatory black bear.
The bear involved in an August 2020 attack at Buffalo Narrows also seemed to want food, but it wasn’t starving.
The bears in both incidents had “low-normal to good body condition,” Bollinger said, and “no underlying diseases that were detected.”
Other animals can be involved
Other animals can complicate necropsies/autopsies. Bollinger invoked a case from 2005 where wolves and bears were both, at various times, deemed responsible for the death of a 22-year-old man at Points North Landing.
According to a 2007 inquest, wolves were the culprits.
Bollinger was not directly involved in that case, though his colleagues were, but it illustrates how difficult an investigation can be with multiple species of potential maneaters near the attack site.
“It can be quite challenging, especially if there’s been some time that has elapsed between the attack and when the body’s found,” he explained.
“So there can be other scavengers involved in that.”
The other beings affected
Bollinger may be clinical when it comes to necropsies, but he acknowledged the casualties outside his operating room.
“Like anyone else that reads about or hears about a fatality like this, you feel for the victims and their family.”
He also stressed that such necropsies are less dramatic than we might imagine, especially compared to human autopsies and examinations done at the attack sites.
“Like a lot of the other necropsies that we do, (we’re) just collecting the information that’s needed to better understand what happened.”
