DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of Brown Bears in Kamchatka, Russian Far East

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of Brown Bears in Kamchatka, Russian Far East STATUSOF BROWNBEARS IN KAMCHATKA,RUSSIAN FAR EAST IGORA. REVENKO,Kamchatka Ecology Institute,Russian Academy of Science, Rybakov19a, PetropavlovskKamchatskiy, Russia, email: [email protected] Abstract: The KamchatkaEcology and Nature ManagementInstitute has been censusing brown bears (Ursus arctos) in the southernpart of the Kamchatkapeninsula (Russian Far East) since 1991. The censused area comprised 11,045 km2within the districtsof Yelizovo, Ust' Bolsheretsk, Sobolevo, and Ust' Kamchatsk. We used an aerial total count method while flying in small fixed-wing planes duringlate spring (May-early Jun) to collect data on bear numbers,their distribution,den location, birthrate, and cub survival. A total of 1,051 bears was observed during 83 hours of overflight time during 1991, 1993, and 1994. Our yearly estimates of average bear densities in the southernpart of Kamchatka(54,100 km2 study area)ranged from 0.81 to 1.30 bears/10 km2. Some areashad high bear density (>1.7 bears/10 km2)despite huntingpressure. Bear numbers declined (<0.8 bears/10 km2)near settlementsalong main roads. The main threatto brown bears in Kamchatkais poaching for bear partsby local residents. We recommend that aerial censuses be expanded and improved to more accuratelyestimate population status and trends. Alternate means of employment in ecotourism and outfitting should be developed for local residents to encourage their support of measures to sustain Kamchatka'sbrown bears. Ursus 10:11-16 Key words: aerial census, brown bear, density, Kamchatka,Russia, Ursus arctos. In 1991 the KamchatkaEcology and NatureManage- Our study was done in 84,600 km2of the southeastpart ment Instituteinitiated a study on the status and dynam- of the peninsula, a mountainousarea divided by broad ics of the brown bear populationin Kamchatka,Russian river valleys with most peaks reaching 1,500 m of eleva- Far East. Prior to that time wildlife authorities in tion (Fig. 1). The study area is a very active volcanic Kamchatkahad insufficientdata aboutbrown bear popu- zone that includes >20 volcanoes (1,900-5,850 m eleva- lations to manage them, including estimates of the num- tion). The long coastline consists of steep banks, cliffs, ber and distributionof bears or knowledge of habitatuse, and beaches. More than 95% of the human population recruitment,and survivorship. Ostroumov (1968) esti- and all majorcities are along the coast. These centers of mated Kamchatka'sbrown bear populationto be 18,000 humanactivity are servicedby only 2 main roads, with a to 22,000 in the early 1960s. Dunishenko (1987) esti- total length of approximately1,000 km. mated a populationof 12,000 to 14,000 bears in the late The vegetationcover on Kamchatkais very dense and 1960s. Accordingto an official reportof Kosheev (1991) mainly consists of pine (Pinuspumila) and alder bushes there were 8,000 to 10,000 bears in Kamchatkain 1986- (Alnus kamtschatika)from the coast to 1,200-1,300 m 90. These estimates described a downward trend in above sea level, stone birch (Betula ermanii) forests on Kamchatka'sbrown bear population. In the late 1980s lower slopes to 700-800 m elevation, and willow (Salix and early 1990s brownbears also faced increasedpoach- undensis) and cottonwood (Populus komarovii) forests ing. Worsening economic conditions in Russia forced along drainages. The rugged terrainand lush vegetation authoritiesand natureconservation agencies to pay less provided high security cover for bears during the en- attentionto brown bears. These developmentsincreased tire snowfree period. Approximately half the study the need for more accurateinformation on Kamchatka's area (46.7%) provided bears with a variety of foods brown bears. Consequently,we initiatedthis aerial sur- (e.g., grasses, salmon [Oncorhynchus spp.], berries, vey to estimate the density of bears in this population. and pine nuts), protection, and den sites (Table 1) For help during this project I thank: A. Kovalenkov, (Revenko 1993). These high quality bear habitatshave V. V. Kudryavtsev, Martynov, V. Mosolov, A. helped bears to maintain their number through a long and V. Gordienko. Nikonorov, history of bear-human relations. Moderate quality bear habitats (6.3% of the study area) lacked food di- versity, good denning sites, and There are STUDY AREA protection. many settlements and logging activity within this area. Kamchatkais a 1,200-km long peninsula in the Rus- Low quality bear habitats on 47% of the study area sian Far East bounded the by Sea of Okhotsk,the Bering provide limited food resources and had little protec- Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. Its maximum width is 440 tion for bears. km, and area is km2. Brown 472,300 bears occupy ap- Two nature preserves comprise 14% of our study proximately 81.3% (384,200 km2) of the Kamchatka area: Kronotskiy State Preserve and South Kamchatka almost Peninsula, without fragmentation(Anon. 1995). Sanctuary. Bear hunting has been prohibited within 12 Ursus 10:1998 Fig. 1. The study area (withindotted line) for aerial surveys of brown bears in southeastern KamchatkaPeninsula, Russia, 1991. Shaded areas include bear preserves. their bordersfor the last 20 and 10 years, respectively. we spent 2 years studyingbear activity in differentparts Bear huntingis permittedin the rest of the study area. of the study area and the effect of snow conditions on bear activity and our ability to detect activity. Due to the high visibility of bears and their tracks on snow, we METHODS chose early May to early June for aerial surveys. We We conducted aerial strip counts of bears during the tried to time our surveys to coincide with the 1-2 weeks late springof 1991, 1993, and 1994 to estimatebear den- duringwhich most bears emerged from their dens while sity, distribution,and birth rate. Prior to these surveys snow was still present. Weatherpermitting, we tried to BROWNBEARS IN KAMCHATKA * Revenko 13 Table 1. Extentand qualityof habitattypes occupied by duringthe 3 years of survey (Table 2). We recordedthe brownbears in Russia on Anon. Kamchatka, (based 1995). following data on a portabletape recorderwhile flying: flight date, time of day, weathercondition, percent snow Bear habitatquality, type Area, x 1000 km2 Percent cover, habitattype, and numberof bears seen. For each High quality adult bear we recordedsize, color, activity, and number Birch forest 64.2 16.7 and age of any offspring. For the census we did not count Willow forest 15.0 3.9 beartracks on snow as have previousresearchers because Dwarf pine shrub 74.0 19.3 it resultedin biases in We counted tracks Alder shrub 26.0 6.8 extrapolation. Subtotal 179.2 46.7 of females with cubs and yearlingsto estimatebirth rate. The time spentconducting surveys for any year depended Medium quality on the available funds for aircraftrental. Larch forests 14.1 3.7 The of bearsin the areawas estimatedas Spruce forests 2.2 0.6 density study Clearcuts, burs 7.7 2.0 follows: density of bears = bears observed in transect/ Subtotal 24.0 6.3 area of strip transect. I applied area-specificcorrection factors to account for the different of bears Low quality sightability Flat tundraand swamps 125.0 32.5 undervarying conditions of snow cover, terrain,weather, Mountain tundra 56.0 14.5 andtime of the day. The factorrepresented an averageof Subtotal 181.0 47.0 the sightabilityof bears over the yearly survey. To com- Total 384.2 100.0 putethe averagesightability we assumedthat we observed 80% of the bears in birch forests on steep mountainous time our surveys to occur when bears were most ac- slopes, 90% in less brokenterrain, and all bears on open tive. Our preliminary study revealed that to be 0700- snow covered surfaces on sunny days. We did not con- 1000 hours and 1700-2200 hours. duct aerial surveys duringcloudy weather. To compare During 1991 we used a 10-passengerplane (AN-2) and beardensities within the study areawe divided the region an 18-passengerhelicopter (MI-8) which were the stan- into zones. Each zone representeda homogeneousland- dard vehicles for aerial surveys in Kamchatkauntil the scape with respect to the quality of bear habitatand hu- early 1990s. In 1993 and 1994 we used a small fixed- man occupation. The bear density for a zone was the wing Polish plane (3 passenger, Vilga-35) and a small mean numberof bearsobserved/10 km2 of transectflown helicopter(6 passenger,MI-2). In 1991 we surveyedthe within the zone. Lastly we asked residents about their Yelizovo and Bol'sheretsk districts. We also surveyed attitudestoward bears to understandthe main threatsto the Ust'-Kamchatskand Sobolevo districtsduring 1993 bears from humans. and 1994. Withindistricts we avoided open coastal flats with tundrasand wide swampsand mountains higher than 1,500 m because brown bears do not use these areas in RESULTS spring. We flew mostly over forests, shrub lands, and We observed a total of 1,051 bears during83 hours of mountaintundra. We did not fly in a straightpath but overflightsduring 1991, 1993, and 1994 (Table 2). Esti- followed the major geographicalfeatures such as main mateddensity was 0.81 bears/10km2 in 1991, 1.30 bears/ rivers, ridges, and coastline. 10 km2in 1993, and 1.13/10 km2bears in 1994. Most of We observed bears from aircraftduring strip transect these bears we observed either in mountainousterrain surveys; sightings were used to estimate the total num- between 300 and 1,100 m elevation or in birch forests or bers and density in each study area. The strip width was aldershrubs along the Pacific coast. Very few bearswere 1-km wide when observerscould see the groundon both seen on open, low elevation areas. Fresh grasses along sides of aircraft,or 0.5-km wide when there was 1 ob- the coast or river banks appearedto attractbears begin- serveror when the plane was flying along the coast. We ning in late May. Most of the bears observed in June flew 150 m above the groundat speeds of 140-160 km/ were feeding on fresh grasses along river banks.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sea of Okhotsk: Seals, Seabirds and a Legacy of Sorrow
    SEA OF OKHOTSK: SEALS, SEABIRDS AND A LEGACY OF SORROW Little known outside of Russia and seldom visited by westerners, Russia's Sea of Okhotsk dominates the Northwest Pacific. Bounded to the north and west by the Russian continent and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east, with the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Island guarding the southern border, it is almost landlocked. Its coasts were once home to a number of groups of indigenous people: the Nivkhi, Oroki, Even and Itelmen. Their name for this sea simply translates as something like the ‘Sea of Hunters' or ‘Hunters Sea', perhaps a clue to the abundance of wildlife found here. In 1725, and again in 1733, the Russian explorer Vitus Bering launched two expeditions from the town of Okhotsk on the western shores of this sea in order to explore the eastern coasts of the Russian Empire. For a long time this town was the gateway to Kamchatka and beyond. The modern make it an inhospitable place. However the lure of a rich fishery town of Okhotsk is built near the site of the old town, and little and, more recently, oil and gas discoveries means this sea is has changed over the centuries. Inhabitants now have an air still being exploited, so nothing has changed. In 1854, no fewer service, but their lives are still dominated by the sea. Perhaps than 160 American and British whaling ships were there hunting no other sea in the world has witnessed as much human whales. Despite this seemingly relentless exploitation the suffering and misery as the Sea of Okhotsk.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study of Kamchatka Peninsula Rivers)
    Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 12, EGU2010-15653, 2010 EGU General Assembly 2010 © Author(s) 2010 Human activities impact on mountain river channels (case study of Kamchatka peninsula rivers) Aleksandra S. Ermakova Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography, Moscow, Russia ([email protected]) Human-induced driving factors along with natural environmental changes greatly impact on fluvial regime of rivers. On mountain and semi-mountain territories these processes are developed in the most complicated manner due to man-made activities diversity throughout river basins. Besides these processes are significantly enhanced because of the disastrous natural processes (like volcanic and mud-flow activity) frequent occurrences in mountainous regions. On of the most striking example on the matter is Kamchatka peninsula which is located at the North-West part of Russian Federation. This paper contributes to the study of human activities impact on fluvial systems in this volcanic mountain region. Human effects on rivers directly alter channel morphology and deformations, dynamics of water and sediment movement, aquatic communities or indirectly affect streams by altering the movement of water and sediment into the channel. In case study of Kamchatka peninsula human activities affect fluvial systems through engineering works including construction of bridges, dams and channel diversions and placer mining. These processes are characterized by spatial heterogeneity because of irregular population distribution. Due to specific natural conditions of the peninsula the most populated areas are the valleys of big rivers (rivers Kamchatka, Avacha, Bistraya (Bolshaya), etc) within piedmont and plain regions. These rivers are characterized by very unstable channels. Both with man-made activities this determines wide range of fluvial system changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Kamchatka Peninsula and Salmon Research with Pro Plus
    YSI Environmental Application Note Kamchatka Peninsula: Where the Waters Run Free and Salmon Thrive In Russia’s Far East lies the 1,250 km (780 mile) Kamchatka The habitat on the Kol is nearly ideal for salmon. The salmon run Peninsula. Situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Sea of includes over seven million fish returning to spawn. The fish fill Okhotsk, Kamchatka is home to Steller’s sea-eagles, brown bears, the river channel so fully that some sections block the view to the World Heritage List volcanoes, and a remarkable amount of Pacific river bottom. The Kol also has the world’s first whole-basin refuge salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) that are being studied, protected, and for the conservation of Pacific salmon - the Kol-Kekhta Regional even filmed for television. Experimental Salmon Reserve. Kamchatka may contain the world’s Research greatest diversity of salmonids including Along the Kol’s north bank is the Kol River chinook, chum, coho, seema, pink and Biostation established for the sole purpose sockeye salmon. Rainbow trout and dolly of serving as a binational research station varden char are also highly abundant. between Russia and the U.S. Researchers Biologists estimate at least 20% of all wild are studying the dynamics of the Kol Pacific salmon originates in Kamchatka. ecosystem and addressing the question of the importance of the salmon to the health The life of a salmon is far from easy as a of the entire river’s ecosystem. fish life goes. Millions of fry, roughly five inches long after a few months of growth, While there is no question to the have to navigate close to a hundred miles All six species of Pacific salmon spawn in the importance of the healthy ecosystem on to the sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Bear Communication Hubs: Patterns and Correlates of Tree Rubbing and Pedal Marking at a Long-Term Marking Site
    Brown bear communication hubs: patterns and correlates of tree rubbing and pedal marking at a long-term marking site Eloy Revilla1, Damián Ramos Fernández2, Alberto Fernández-Gil1, Agnieszka Sergiel3, Nuria Selva3 and Javier Naves1 1 Department of Conservation Biology, Estación Biológica de Doñana CSIC, Seville, Spain 2 Consejería de Infraestructuras, Ordenación del Territorio y Medio Ambiente, Gobierno del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain 3 Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland ABSTRACT Chemical communication is important for many species of mammals. Male brown bears, Ursus arctos, mark trees with a secretion from glands located on their back. The recent discovery of pedal glands and pedal-marking at a site used for tree-rubbing led us to hypothesize that both types of marking form part of a more complex communication system. We describe the patterns of chemical communication used by different age and sex classes, including differences in the roles of these classes as information providers or receivers over four years at a long-term marking site. Using video recordings from a camera trap, we registered a total of 285 bear-visits and 419 behavioral events associated with chemical communication. Bears visited the site more frequently during the mating season, during which communication behaviors were more frequent. A typical visit by male bears consisted of sniffing the depressions where animals pedal mark, performing pedal-marking, sniffing the tree, and, finally, rubbing against the trunk of the tree. Adult males performed most pedal- and tree-marking (95% and 66% of the cases, respectively). Males pedal-marked and tree-rubbed in 81% and 48% of their visits and sniffed the pedal marks and the tree in 23% and 59% of visits, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection of Rubbing Trees by Brown Bears in Slovakia
    University College of Southeast Norway Faculty of Technology, Natural sciences and Maritime sciences Department of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health Master’s Thesis Study programme: Environmental science Spring 2018 Jan Barilla Selection of rubbing trees by brown bears in Slovakia University College of Southeast Norway Faculty of Technology, Natural sciences and Maritime sciences Department of Natural sciences and Environmental health PO Box 235 NO-3603 Kongsberg, Norway http://www.usn.no © 2018 <Jan Barilla> This thesis is worth 60 study points ___ 2 Abstract Chemical communication in bears is not fully understood, despite the importance of this topic for the behavioral ecology as well as for the conservation and management of Ursids. Brown bears often mark trees by rubbing on them as well as biting and clawing of the bark. Such rubbing trees are often used for the collection of hair samples for genetic analyses needed for management purposes. The aim of this study was to document rubbing trees in the eastern part of Tatra National Park, Slovakia, and to create a predictive habitat model to guide searches for rub trees in other parts of Slovakia. We created a grid system of 100 random transects in a 140km2 study area, and walked the trails and random transects in search for rub trees from March to October 2015-2017. For each rub tree we recorded its location in the landscape, the habitat type surrounding it, as well as several variables describing the tree itself. We documented 85 rub trees in the protected area Belianske Tatry. These trees were significantly more often located along trails in comparison to random transects, however, bears also seemed to prefer less human-frequented (i.e., seasonally closed) trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a New Diet for Kodiak Bears
    Development of a New Diet for Kodiak Bears June 2008 Jolanda Polet Timo Weber Development of a New Diet for Kodiak Bears What is a good diet for Kodiak bears? Cover picture: Kodiak bear, all rights by Emmen Zoo Keywords: Kodiak bear, Ursus arctos , Emmen Zoo, zoo diets, digestibility, nutritional requirements Project number: 584404 Authors: J. Polet 850920002 T. Weber 790725004 Supervisor Van Hall Larenstein: Ing. T.R. Huisman Ing. D.G. Kuiper Supervisor Emmen Zoo: C. Berndt Leeuwarden June 2008 Preface This report has been prepared within the scope of the Bachelor programme in Animal Management at Van Hall Larenstein, Leeuwarden. The research project was supported mainly by Emmen Zoo and Van Hall Larenstein, both located in the Netherlands. We would like to thank everyone who played a role in this project. Special thanks go to C. Berndt, zoo nutritionist at Emmen Zoo, and to T.R. Huisman and D.G. Kuiper, from Van Hall Larenstein, for their general support and valuable comments on the manuscript. We also wish to thank G. Bergstra, A.T.J. Veldhuis and F.K. Wichers for their help and support during laboratory analyses at Van Hall Larenstein. We are grateful as well to Dr. C.T. Robbins, Dr. W.B. Leacock and K. Cuyten for the information they provided, and to the animal keepers at Emmen Zoo, who participated in our project. We are also grateful to the various institutions that took part in the survey. Jolanda Polet and Timo Weber Leeuwarden, June 2008 Summary Nutrition is an important consideration in zoos, as it affects the physical and mental wellbeing of the animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Siberia & the Russian Far East
    SIBERIA & THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST JULY 14-31, 2021 TOUR LEADER: DR MATTHEW DAL SANTO SIBERIA & Overview THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Embark on the tour of a lifetime to one of the world's last great travel Tour dates: July 14-31, 2021 frontiers. This 18-day tour reveals the cultural and geographical wonders of Siberia and the Russian Far East. Tour leader: Dr Matthew Dal Santo We begin in Irkutsk, a former Cossack settlement forever linked to the Tour Price: $18,975 per person, twin share memory of the immortal ‘Decembrists’ – public-minded nobles who, exiled to Siberia for their part in an 1825 rebellion against the Tsar, recreated Single Supplement: $1,900 for sole use of with their wives the cultural and artistic life of St Petersburg for the benefit double room of Siberia’s rough frontiersmen. From Irkutsk we then travel to beautiful Lake Baikal, the world’s largest, oldest and deepest lake to spend two Booking deposit: $1,000 per person nights on Olkhon Island, which, widely regarded as the “jewel” of Baikal, is Recommended airline: Korean Airlines sacred to the indigenous Buryat people. Maximum places: 20 Taking the legendary Trans-Siberian Railway along Baikal’s southern shore, we arrive in Ulan Ude, capital of the Buryat Autonomous Republic Itinerary: Irkutsk (3 nights), Olkhon Island, and centre of Russian Buddhism, with centuries of close links with Tibet. Lake Baikal (2 nights), Irkutsk (1 night), The valleys of the surrounding steppe are also a stronghold of the so- Ulan Ude (3 nights), Khabarovsk (2 nights), called ‘Old Believers’, a long-persecuted Orthodox sect who have Petropavlovk-Kamchatsky, Kamchatka (4 nights) preserved in Siberia’s remote wooded valleys a centuries-old culture that Vladivostok (2 nights) includes a rich repertoire of songs of exile.
    [Show full text]
  • Kamchatka: the Salmon Country
    Kamchatka: The Salmon Country a short documentary by Daniel Levin www.goodhopefilms.com a Good Hope Films production CONTENTS Brief Project Summary 3 Director’s Statement 4 The Phenomenon of Poaching 6 Types of Poaching 7 Damage From Salmon Poaching 8 Fighting Poaching 9 Social And Economic Impact of Poaching in Kamchatka 11 Stylistic Approach and Visual Elements 12 Characters 13 Business Plan 16 Crew 18 Contact Information 19 1 map by E. Underwood and J. D’Amico, WWF, Adapted from a May 1999. Kamchatka Peninsula Bering Sea and Kamchatka Peninsula Scale = 1:10 446 281 m Note: Donut Hole as shown represents approximate area of international waters in the Bering Sea 2 Brief Project Summary Commercial fishing is a prosperous industry in the destitute Kamchatka peninsula in the Russian Far East. Yet, very few dollars are made through legal harvesting of fish. Corrupt from inside out, the industry channels billions through centralized government bureaucracy, threatening to destroy the region's ecosystem and its centerpiece, wild salmon. Every summer in Kamchatka during spawning season poachers kill millions of salmon to produce hundreds of tons of red caviar, a prized commodity. A handful of Russian and American environmentalists confront the poachers at great personal risk. But can they effectively fight those who pay millions in bribes to law officers, who share with local government, who share with Moscow bureaucrats? In CAVIAR TRAIL, director Daniel Levin follows environmentalists and poachers as they chase each other along the red caviar money trail that leads from Kamchatka all the way to Kremlin. Objectives: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sci Online Record Book
    HOME MY ACCOUNT LOGOUT TAKEN FROM RESOURCES SCI HOME SCI ONLINE RECORD BOOK AKA: far eastern brown bear Gold: 26 2/16" Endangered: Silver: 24 12/16” Ursus arctos beringianus Also called far eastern brown bear. DESCRIPTION (adult male) Head and body length 6-8 feet (183-244 cm), tail length 6-1/2 to 8-1/2 inches (16.5 to 21.6 cm), shoulder height 50-53 inches (12.7 to 13.5 cm). Some verified weights are 704, 675 and 627 pounds (320, 308 and 285 kg). As with the Alaska brown bear, the Kamchatka brown bear grows large because of its abundant and protein-rich diet of spawning salmon and other anadromous fish in the coastal rivers, and from the comparatively mild climate that permits a shorter period of hibernation. It is a very large, dark bear with a large, massive skull. The forehead is broad and rather steeply elevated over the relatively short nose. The coat is long, dense and soft. Its color varies from pale yellow to blackish-brown and dull black, but dark individuals predominate. The legs are usually the same color as the body. The claws are dark brown, sometimes with light yellowish streaks at the tips, and are up to four inches (100 mm) in length. DISTRIBUTION Far eastern Siberia, where it is found on the Kamchatka Peninsula, Karaginskiy Island, and northward throughout the Koryak Autonomous District. Also in the coastal strip west of the Sea of Okhotsk and east of the coastal mountains as far south as Uda Bay. Also on the Shantar Islands and the northern and southern Kuril Islands, as well as Sakhalin Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Amur Tiger Research and Conservation
    LONG-TERM AMUR TIGER RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION FINAL REPORT TO THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION SAVE THE TIGER FUND FROM THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY (WCS) Grant Number: 2005-0013-025 Project Coordinators: Dale Miquelle, PhD John Goodrich, PhD Reporting Period: 1 August 2005 – 31 July 2006 Contacts: Colin Poole Linde E. T. Ostro, PhD Director Director Asia Program Foundation Relations Wildlife Conservation Society Wildlife Conservation Society 2300 Southern Boulevard 2300 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10460 Bronx, NY 10460 T: 718.741.5885 T: 718.741.1653 F: 718.364.4275 F: 718.364.7963 E: [email protected] E: [email protected] 1 PROJECT SUMMARY With less than 400 individuals left in the wild, the Amur (Siberian) tiger is critically endangered. Threats to their survival include poaching of both tigers and their prey, and destruction and fragmentation of remaining habitat. Key to dealing with these threats is development of comprehensive conservation plans that provide for the needs of both tigers and local people. This requires a sound knowledge of tiger ecology based on detailed, long-term scientific data. The Siberian Tiger Project has nearly completed its thirteenth year of data collection on radio-collared tigers on and near Russia’s Sikhote- Alin Biosphere Zapovednik (SABZ). The primary goal of our field research is to develop the best scientific data set possible on Amur tiger ecology in pristine areas, i.e. the SABZ, and in surrounding disturbed areas. During the report period, we focused our research on two issues vital to comprehensive conservation planning: cub mortality and dispersal. Additionally, since 2000, we have been working with Inspection Tiger (a department of the Russian Ministry for Natural Resources) with the goal of alleviating tiger-human conflicts in ways that reduce tiger-mortality while protecting the welfare of local citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of IUU Salmon Fishing and Potential Conservation Strategies in the Russian Far East
    WHITE PAPER A Review of IUU Salmon Fishing and Potential Conservation Strategies in the Russian Far East May 2009 Presented by 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Across the Russian Far East, illegal and unreported catch of Pacific salmon is estimated to be at least 1.4 times and possibly as great as 1.8 times the legally reported catch. There are a number of different types of illegal, unreported and unregulated salmon fisheries in the Russian Far East. It is important to understand their differences when developing an effective anti-poaching strategy. Variations include: • Subsistence poaching for cash. • Subsistence poaching for household use. • Commercial overharvest and misreporting in shore-based pound net and seine fisheries. • High-grading and misreporting in the research driftnet fishery. • High-grading and misreporting in the Japanese Bilateral Agreement driftnet fishery. • Multi-million dollar criminalized, highly-equipped roe fishery on spawning grounds. The illegal market is extremely lucrative for those involved- illegal salmon is just one component of an overall illegal seafood trade estimated at $3.0 billion for Kamchatka alone (Trush 2009). Root causes of IUU salmon fisheries include the collapse of subsidized rural economies and lack of economic alternatives, ineffective laws and institutions, and rampant corruption. Salmon populations of most species cannot sustain extreme catch rates for many years running, without suffering declines. Estimates suggest that some regions may be experiencing catch rates (including IUU fisheries) upwards of 90% of the total run. NGO efforts to date have been implemented in a somewhat piecemeal and reactive fashion with a primary focus on providing resources for anti-poaching brigades.
    [Show full text]
  • Kamchatka Oblast Pressure Are Common
    By Newell and Zhou / Sources: Ministry of Natural Resources, 2002; ESRI, 2002. KORYAKIA UST-KAMCHATSKY Krutoberegovo Klyuchi Ust-Kamchatsk ! ! Maiskoe Anavgai Kozyrevsk Esso Krapivnaya Atlasovo ALEUTSKY C o m m BYSTRINSKY MILKOVSKY a n d e r I s l a Dolinovka n d s Kurilskoe Lake Krutogorovsky Kirganik Milkovo Sharomy SOBOLEVSKY Sobolevo Kirovsky ELIZOVSKY N Ganaly A Malki Koryaki E Elizovo Dalny !. C Paratunka P! Apacha PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY O Ust-Bolsheretsk UST-BOLSHERETSKY C Bolsheretsk I F I Map 10.1 C A Kamchatka Oblast Ozernovsky P 70,800 sq. km ¯ km 100 Russian Far East KAMCHATKA 340 Ⅲ THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Newell, J. 2004. The Russian Far East: A Reference Guide for Conservation and Development. McKinleyville, CA: Daniel & Daniel. 466 pages CHAPTER 10 Kamchatka Oblast Location Kamchatka Oblast makes up the southern portion of the Kamchatka peninsula, which is located in northeastern rfe. It is washed by the Pacifi c Ocean and Bering Strait to the east and the Sea of Okhotsk to the west. To the north, the oblast borders the Koryak Autonomous Okrug, which covers the northern section of the peninsula. Kamchatka also includes the Komandorskie (Commander) Islands within its administrative territory. Size 70,800 sq. km (17.2 million ha). Climate The infl uence of the Pacifi c Ocean and the Sea of Okhotsk makes Kamchatka’s climate milder than continental parts of the rfe. In general, winters are long with heavy snows, and summers are short, cool, and rainy. Heavy fog and sudden changes in atmospheric pressure are common. Annual precipitation is 50–100 cm, with average temperatures ranging from –11°c in February to 14°c in July.1 Geography and ecology Located on the Pacifi c Rim of Fire, Kamchatka has 29 active volcanoes, 186 geysers, countless boiling mud cauldrons, steam vents, fumaroles, and other forms of volcanic ac- tivity.
    [Show full text]