BIOGEOGRAPHY,DEMOGRAPHY AND MANAGEMENTOF URSUS ARCTOS IN THEWESTERN CARPATHIANS

MILANJANIK, Sprava Narodneho parku Mala Fatra, 013 02 Gbel'any,

Abstract: During the 1930s the brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in the western Carpathianswas endangeredand numbered<60 animals. Following total protection during 1932-60 and harvest managementsince 1960, this population graduallyincreased in both number and range. Now, about 600 animals inhabit approximately12,500 km2 in Slovakia. Within this area 8,000 km2 is optimumhabitat and supports>0.6 bears/ 10 km2. In addition 2,500 km2 supports<0.6 bears/km2with the remaining2,000 km2having only transientbear occurrences. Harvesthas been allowed since 1960, and population dynamics are significantly influenced by harvest regulations. From 1960 through 1980, 291 bears were harvested. Of these 230 (79%) were males and 61 (21%) were females. This excessive harvestingof males changed the sex and age structureof the population, allowed excessive population growth, and reduced natural selection pressure. During 1981-91 the growth coefficient of the populationaveraged 11.2%. Some improvementwas noted after the establishmentof a selective harvestregime. Of 176 bears harvestedduring 1981-91 weighing <100 kg, 36% were males and 64% females. On the basis of these data, yearly quotas were designed to encouragethe harvest of subadultanimals weighing <100 kg. Although this harvest design was not strictly observed, from 1981 through 1991, 441 bears were har- vested, of which 281 (66%) were males and 160 (34%) were females.

Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2):125-128

Key words: brownbear, habitat protection, harvest, population dynamics, population regulation, population size, Ursusarctos, WesternCarpathians.

The WesternCarpathians are an importantarea for the (Sorbusaucuparia), and beech (Fagus sylvatica). In the brown bear population in the Carpathianrange. The Carpathiansthe best habitatencompasses approximately Western Carpathians are the most western mountain 8,000 km2, with bear density ranging from 0.6-1.6/10 range containing brown bears in Central Europe, and km2 (Fig. 1). The peripheralmountain ranges encom- the populationpersisted here when bears were extirpated pass 2,500 km2and supportbear densities of 0.1-0.6/10 elsewhere. Although excessive harvest during the early km2. On the remaining2,000 km2bears occur on a tem- 1930s rapidly decreased numbers, during this period porary basis, especially in the fall when using easily bears also settled in most parts of the central mountain accessible food sources. Excessive disturbanceduring ranges of the WesternCarpathians, where they survived winter hibernationmay prevent bears from inhabiting in inaccessible areas seldom disturbedby humans. This this area permanently. populationbecame a source of bearsto recolonize neigh- An importantfactor influencing the occurrence and boring areas. density of brown bears is a network of forest roads and touristtrails. Modeling efforts suggest that in areaswith little topographic relief a density of 0.6 km of forest GEOGRAPHICEXPANSION corridorsper squarekilometer is the maximumthat will Bear numbersin the WesternCarpathians began to in- allow bears to permanentlyoccupy habitat. In areas of crease after complete legal protection was established variegatedrelief the maximum density of the road net- in 1932. By 1950, brown bears occupied all the central work is 1.2 km/km2(Janik 1984). mountainranges. During the 1970s the populationex- panded into some of the peripheralmountain ranges of the WesternCarpathians. The range of permanentbear POPULATIONNUMBERS AND populationexpanded approximately 40 km to the north- GROWTHDYNAMICS west, 50 km to the east, and into the mountains of Estimates of the number of bears in Slovakia at the 's Carpathians.(Janfk et al. 1986). lowest point in 1932 vary. Zuffa (1932) estimatedabout At present, bears inhabit 12,500 km2 of forest and 20 animals, but several other publications from this mountainouspastures in the Slovak part of the Western period suggest that the number probably was not <60 Carpathians(Fig. 1). In this area, optimum ecological (Domin 1935, Duda 1935). After the end of the Second conditions for brown bears occur in naturalconiferous World War the population began to increase. In 1949 and mixed coniferous-deciduous forest communities the estimatednumber of bears was 50-80 (Turcek1949); (Novikova and Hanzl 1970). These communities exist however in 1953 Feriancova(1955) reported200 bears. at >800 m in elevation and are made up of mountain In 1964 Sprocha(1964) reported270 bears. On the basis spruce (Picea abies), subalpine dwarfed pines (Pinus of questionnaireresearch in 1966-67 Randfk(1971) re- mugo), great sycamore (Acer pseoplatanus), rowan ported 334 bears. 126 Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997

N POLAND A

CZECHREPUBLIC

STATE f POPULATIONDENSITY 0.6-1.6 IND./10 KM2 HUNGARY = POPULATIONDENSITY 0.1-0.6 IND./10KM2 TEMPORARY/SEASONALRANGE

Fig. 1. Recentdistribution of brownbear in the WesternCarpathians in Slovakia.

Since 1963, the populationhas been estimatedyearly. cial structureby reducing sexual and territorialcompeti- These estimates are made by qualified forestry employ- tion. Sexual competitionand territorialityamong males ees, and are based on observationsof bears throughout are the main mechanismsthat stabilize the density of a the year. However,these datacontain errors due to dupli- bear populationbelow the carryingcapacity of the envi- cate counts of animalsthat move between 2 or more for- ronment(Janfk 1982). A prevalenceof females andyoung estry areas. In 1991, after eliminating this error by animalsin the populationcontributed to high population correctingthe numberof bears appearingtemporarily in growth, and may have allowed populationdensity to ex- forestry areas, 600 bears were estimated to inhabit the ceed levels that would be found under more naturalcir- Slovak part of the WesternCarpathians. cumstances. Data from many years may indicate the dynamics of the bear population, although estimates for individual years may be inaccurate. From 1932 through 1991, the MANAGEMENT populationgrowth curve shows exponentialgrowth (Fig. In Slovakia the brown bear is legally protected. From 2). After being protectedin 1932, the populationgrew 1932-58 bearscould not be legally hunted. In 1962, when slowly butsteadily until afterthe SecondWorldWar, when the populationexceeded 350 animalsand damagecaused growth accelerated. Because of the continuing popula- by bears to sheep, bee culture,and especially cattle was tion growth, it seems likely that the bear populationhas prevalent,plans were initiatedto reduce the bearpopula- not yet reached carrying capacity in the Western tion. Shooting was motivatedmainly by the profit from Carpathians. trophyhunting. Hunting was regulatedby centralinsti- Populationgrowth appearsto have been significantly tutions of the State Administrationof Conservationof influencedby hunting. Until the 1980s, huntingwas de- Naturein cooperationwith huntingmanagement institu- signed to obtain the best trophies and focused on shoot- tions, which determinedthe approximatenumber of ani- ing the largest animals. Of 336 bears harvestedduring mals in a given locality. Before 1980, the yearly harvest 1958-80, 79% were males and 21% were females. The quota fluctuatedaround 5% of the estimatedpopulation, eliminationof many dominantmales destabilizedthe so- but later the harvest was increased to 8%. By official BROWNBEAR STATUS IN WESTERN CARPATHIANS * Jan'k 127

800-

700 - ++ +

+ + - 600- 0) + .Q + E - Z 500- ++ -0cQ + + a 400- + /+ (0 E

W 300-

200- +

C) a) 100- '- + I

...... 0 ~~~~' ~`' TFnTF 199 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year + Estimated bear numbers by forestryemployees - Fitted curve of growth of the bear population

Fig. 2. Population growth and harvest of the brown bear in Slovakia during 1932-91. reports and documentationof bear harvest from 1960 eliminatingindividual animals, or sometimesentire fami- through 1980, 291 bears were legally harvested in lies that had become accustomedto feeding on garbage Slovakia. Of this number,230 (79%) were males and storedclose to hotels and mountaincottages or that con- 61 (21%) were females. This high harvestof oldermales tinually attackedsheep or cattle. When selecting the lo- drasticallychanged the age structureof the population. calities for hunting,as well as individualbears for harvest, By observing model areas, we found that in the popula- professionalfield personnelfrom the State Conservation tion therewere morefemales andyoung bears and a short- of Natureclosely worked with the individuals hunting. age of adult male bears (Jan'k, 1982, 1987). The introductionof this hunting system encountered To bring the age structureof the populationcloser to problems because hunters were primarily interested in naturalconditions, the focus of the hunt was changed in trophies (big furs and skulls). Despite these conflicting 1980. Data from bears harvestedbefore 1980 indicated interests,we achievedpositive results. Of 441 bears har- that of 176 animals weighing <100 kg 63 (36%) were vested during 1980-91,281 (63.5%) were males and 160 males and 113 (64%) were females. A hunt structure (36.54%)were females. But of 176 bearsweighing <100 was designedin which 65% of the bearsharvested would kg only 63 (36%) were males and 113 (64%) were fe- weigh <100 kg, and 35% would weigh 101-150 kg. This males. Thus, fewer males and more females were re- hunt structuretargeted smaller animals in the population moved from the population compared to previous (i.e., females and subadults). Bears weighing >150 kg harvests. Over time, this managementshould shift the could only be hunted if they were injured or in some populationback towarda more naturalstructure. How- way handicapped. Preference would also be given to ever, over the long term, targeting of females and sub- 128 Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997 adults in the population (i.e., smaller bears) could also z ochranyprirody. Priroda, Bratislava, Slovakia. (In Slovak.) impact population growth and reproductivepotential if 1984. Vel'k6eelmy uzemiaChranenej krajinnej oblasti too many females are eliminated. Slovensky Raj. Pages 100-112 in A. Leskovjanskand A. Smatanaeds. Sueasnystav a According to the concept of area system of ecological perspektivyChranenej krajinnej oblasti SlovenskyRaj. Zbornikreferatov z odborneho stabilityapproved by the government,important biotopes seminara. USOP SpravaChranena krajina Slovensky shouldbe in a national,and incorporated regional, supra- Raj, Spisska Nova Ves., Slovakia. (In Slovak.) thatare nationalnetwork of core areas graduallydeclared .1986. Grosse Raubwildartenin den Weskarpathen nationalparks or protectedlandscape areas. More than (Ceskoslovenska Socialisticka Republika) und einige 50% of all forest areas in the territoryof Slovakia have probleme ihres Schutzes. Nat. Park Berchtesgaden. been includedinto these categoriesof managementto date. Forschungsbericht11:14-17. (In German.) Connecting corridors between these core areas are at 1987. Vplyv jednostrannej selekcie na populaciu medveia hned6hona Slovensku. 64-72 in P. Hell ed. presentbeing identified, and protectivemeasures are be- Pages Problematika medveia hnedeho na Slovensku. Zbornik ing developed to provide for movements of large mam- referatovz odbornehoseminara. Vyskumny ustav lesneho mals, bears. including hospodarstva,Zvolen, Slovakia. (In Slovak.) ,J. VOSKAR,AND M. BUDAY. 1986. Sueasne rozsirenie medveia hnedeho (Ursus arctos) v Eeskoslovensku. Folia LITERATURECITED venatoria 16:331-352. (In Slovak.) DOMIN,D. 1935. Esteo medveioch.Pages 291-293 in C. Eech, NOVAKOVA,E., AND R. HANZL.1970. Rys a medvid hnidy pat0i F. Vodieka, V. Zaborsky, eds. Nase pol'ovnictvo, jen do nikterych kulturnich lesu. Myslivost 6:128-129, "Academia".Bratislava, Slovakia. (In Slovak.) 7:161. (In Czech.) DUDA,A. 1935. Orava.Pages 395-404 in C. Eech,F. Vodieka, RANDIK,A. 1971. Rozsfreniea ochranamedveia hnedeho (Ursus V. Zaborsky.Nase pol'ovnictvo,"Academia". Bratislava, arctos L.) v Ceskoslovensku. Pages 231-256 in D. Janota Slovakia.(In Slovak.) ed. Ceskoslovenskaochrana prirody 11, Priroda,Bratislava, FERIANCOVA,Z. 1955. Rozsirenieniektorych vzacnych druhov Slovakia.(In Slovak.) cicavcovna Slovensku.Prace 2. sekcieSlovenska akademia SPROCHA,J. 1964. Ake mamnestavy medvefov, rysov, vlkov a vied,Vol. 1, Pages30-40. (In Slovak.) divych maeiek. Pol'ovnfctvo a rybarstvo 17:4-5. (In JANIK,M. 1977. Stav medvefov na Slovensku. Pol'ovnictvo a Slovak.) rybairstvo.29:11-19. (In Slovak.) TURCEK,F. 1949. Siueasny stav vel'kych masozravcov na 1982.Prispevok k poznaniuekologie medveia hnedeho Slovensku. Pol'ovnicky obzor 4(11): 162-164. (In Slovak.) (Ursus arctos) a ochrana jeho populacie v Zapadnych ZUFFA,A. 1932. Tatranskazverina. Lovec 4:20. (In Slovak.) Karpatoch.Pages 141-190 in J.Benko ed. Vyskumneprace