1Ľ Uf ˇˇĄ CUBSFOOD.STYTEC Đ Ą ˇ Μhuber: Brown Bear in Croatia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1ľ111«11111111uF11”1ˇ1ˇ1Ą1¦1¦1CUBSFOOD.STY 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111TEC11111§1@111вĄ ˘1ˇ111¤1µ Huber: Brown bear in Croatia Zagreb, 12 August 1993 DJURO HUBER (revised 27 June 1994) Biology Department Veterinary Faculty University of Zagreb Heinzelova 55 41000 Zagreb Croatia
Phone: office (38) 41/290-111, home (38) 41/719-388 Fax: (38) 41/214-697
CROATIA 1. Status and distribution With exception of the islands in the Adriatic sea, the total area of todays Republic of Croatia was historically brown bear (Ursus arctos) range, as was most of Europe. The lowland parts of northern Croatia were first to become settled, deforested, agriculturalized or urbanized, and thereby lost as a bear habitat. This process began probably over a thousand years ago and was completed for the most part more than before 200 years ago. Most of forests survived in mountainous regions and this is where the bears may be found today. Except mad made and natural forest openings and the mountain peaks above timberline, no nonforested areas are counted as a bear habitat. Bears in Croatia are classified as a game species and are subject to specially regulated hunting quotas. The importance of Croatian brown bears in Europe increased in the last 4 years as a source for reintroductions to other countries. According to the SSC criteria (Mace et al. 1992) brown bears in Croatia are listed in the "vulnerable" category. This report was hampered by the fact that roughly half of bear habitat in Croatia is out of legal control due to the occupation by Serbian rebels and no recent data from that area are available. Habitat description Roughly 9,800 km2 (17%) of Croatia are bear range, including approximately 34% of 19,800 km2 of the Republic's forests. All brown bear habitat in Croatia is within the Dinara Mountains parallel to the Adriatic Sea coast running from northwest to southeast, extending from Slovenia through Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Monte Negro, Macedonia and Albania to Greece (Pindus Mts.). Elevations in the Croatian part of the Dinara Mountains range from 0 to 1,912 m above sea level. The area is politically divided to Lika and Gorski kotar regions with Plitvice Lakes and Risnjak National Parks, respectively, as bear core areas. Most of bear habitat in Lika has been under Serbian occupation since 1991, and thus unaccessible for all Croatian and foreign scientists and visitors. The topography of the bear habitat has typical karst features with various depressions without surface drainage. Limestone bedrock is covered by shallow soils; the mountain peaks and steep slopes (>60 degrees) are formed of bare rocks. Forest covers about 70% of habitat and this are dominated by a mixture of beech (Fagus sylvatica), fir (Abies alba), spruce (Picea abies) and other tree species varying in composition with elevation and exposure.
Brown bear population size An estimated population of 400 brown bears lives in Croatia (Huber and Mori} 1989). They are connected with the bears in Slovenia to the northwest and to bears in Bosnia and Hercegovina on the east. The highest concentrations (about 1 bear/10 km2) are in Gorski kotar and central Lika around Plitvice Lakes National Park. In other areas densities are much lower (down to 1 bear/45 km2), and there are marginal areas where bears are not always present. Occasional reports of bear sightings from previously unoccupied areas were the most frequent in the last decade. For example, in June 1993 two bears were reported (one was found dead) in Krka National Park near [ibenik at the Adriatic Sea cost where bears have not been present at least 50 years. Population estimates in Gorski kotar are made each spring by systemized counts of bears visiting permanent bait stations (Frkovi} et al. 1987). In other areas, estimates of population size are based on much weaker grounds. However, indices show that the population grew approximately four times from 1946 till about 1980 when it stabilized at present numbers (Frkovi} et al. 1987). 2. Historic and future range map There are no documents on brown bear distribution in 1800 and 1900. The enclosed map is an estimate based on increasing human populations, topography, frequency of bear names in geographic features, and limited information from the beginning of this century. The range projection in the year 2000 will likely not go beyond the current continually occupied range. If the management continues there may be some limited range expansion. 3. A map with specific present distribution Smaller towns and human developments (>10 km in diameter) within bear range are not shown as islands in populations, although they contain no bears. The extent of bear distribution in southeast Croatia is questionable. Due to the war and Serbian occupation, no recent data are available. The crosshatched marked area in the northern part of bear range in Croatia has been used by bears with increased frequency in the last decade. If management support increases resulting in tolerance of bears here, it may become regular bear range. 4. Legal status During two years after the World War II (1946-47) brown bears in Croatia were totally protected to help them recover from the low numbers after the war. From 1947 to 1965 a hunting season for bears of two months (Nov. and Dec.) was allowed. However, no legal harvest occurred until 1955, and during the next ten years averaged only one bear/year. The total mortality in this period was 63 (3.0 per year), of which 40% (N=25) bears died from poisoned baits set for wolves (Frkovi} et al. 1987). In 1966, the bear hunting season was extended to 7.5 months, and in 1976 until present to nine months. 5. Population threats
Bear mortality Accurate data on overall bear mortality are available only for the Gorski kotar region where a total of 281 bear deaths were recorded during 1946 - 1985 (Frkovi} et al. 1987). An additional 163 bears were removed from the population during 1986 - 1992 (Fig. 1). Comparison of this two sets of data reveals some important trends (Fig. 2). The increase of total mortality rate from 7.0 to 23.2 per year is highly significant (Chi-square = 9.74, P<0.01). The main source of mortality has been hunting, legal and illegal. During 1946 - 1985, 205 bears were hunted (mean = 5.1; range = 0 to 19). In the period 1986 through 1992 hunting mortality increased to 16.0 annually (total = 112; range = 14 to 20). The illegal kill remained similar in both periods: 17.6% and 15.2%, respectively (Chi-square = 0.15, difference not significant) (Fig. 2). Poisoning, which accounted for 26 (9%) of total deaths causes in the 1946- 1985 period, is no longer a mortality factor. The last poisoned bear was recorded in 1972. The number of bears killed by vehicle collisions was 31 in each analyzed period but the percentage due to vehicle collisions has significantly increased from 11% in 1946-1985 to 19% in 1986-1992 (Chi-square = 4.83, P<0.05). From 1986-1992 eight bears were removed from the population alive: two exported for reintroduction in Austria, and six were rescued as orphaned cubs and were placed in zoos (Fig. 2). In the sex ratio of dead bears the share of females significantly increased from 23.0% in 1946-1985 to 35.2% in 1986-1992 (Chi-square = 6.22, P<0.02) (Fig. 3). Distribution of bear mortalities over the year and the share of bear age classes didn't change in the last seven years compared to older data presented by Frkovi} et al. (1987). 6. Habitat threats Forest is commercially utilized outside of Risnjak and Plitvice National Parks. Within National parks only so called "sanitary and corrective" lodging are officially allowed. Timber harvest is done by selective cutting and by occasional circular (<100 m in diameter) clear-cuts. Reforestation is usually done by spruce seedlings only (Doku{ et al. 1992). After 1960 log hauling became mechanized introducing chain saws, tractors, hydraulic cranes, and trucks for long-distance transport. Forests began to be opened by truck roads and since 1950 the total length of forest roads increased 31 times: from 3.0 to 11.8 m/ha on average. The forest road network is continuing to increase (Krpan 1992). Presently is under construction a new modern highway from Karlovac to Rijeka that runs through middle of Gorski kotar. Increasing tree mortality in Croatia has been noticed since 1980-s and has been attributed to environmental pollution. The area of Gorski kotar within Croatia, has been the most severely affected (15% of all trees damaged), and the Lika area was on the second place (12.6-15% trees damaged). Among tree species, fir was the most vulnerable; almost 80% of trees were exhibiting visible damage (Prpi} 1992).
7. Management Bears in Croatia are hunted from 1 September through 31 May. Shooting is performed exclusively from elevated stands over exposed baits during moonlit nights. The hunter pays a fee proportional to the trophy value of the harvested bear. The yearly harvest quota is calculated not to exceed 10% of the estimated population size. In 1986 and 1987, 29 and 19 bears were reported killed by hunting in the whole Croatia, respectively. For the last five years we estimate that 20 to 30 bears are hunter killed annually. Bears are managed by forest enterprises in over 80% of the habitat, and by hunting clubs in the remaining areas. The hunting club may manage bears if their hunting ground is >70 km2. That is insufficient because the range of any sex/age class of bear is much larger (Huber and Roth 1986). A new hunting law (of 1994) will regulate the management of hunting areas through a leasing/renting system. Direct bear management includes feeding of bears at bait stations with animal carrion and corn year around. Feeding is most intense during the hunting season when it is used to bring in bears to feeding area used by hunters. Some feeding stations occasionally use truckloads of general garbage. Bears also visit local garbage dumps which are usually unfenced and unguarded (Huber 1991/92).
8. Human-bear interactions
Damage by bears The last complete survey of bear damage in Croatia was done by Huber and Mori} (1989) in 1987 when a total of 247 cases of bear damage were recorded (Fig. 4). Among 13 domestic animals killed by bears, eight were cattle and three were sheep. The main crops damaged were oats (N=107) and corn (N=94). The only fruits taken by bears were plums (N=23). The organization that manages bears in the area is responsible to pay damage compensation. Where bears are not managed no one is responsible for compensations.
Only one recorded case, which occurred in March 1988 at Plitvice Lakes National Park, of fatal attack by bear on man is known in the last 50 years in Croatia.
9. Public education needs A questionnaire (Mori} and Huber 1989) showed that a reasonable positive attitude towards bears and wolves is proportional to actual knowledge. Persons that know more about these species are more positively orientated toward them. The amount of damage suffered from bears contributes to a negative attitude. People that share the habitat with bears show less fear of them compared to people from urban areas and from the countries with no bears (Mori} and Huber 1989).
Public education in areas where the bear population could expand would be the most powerful means to increase total bear range in Croatia.
10. Specific conservation recommendations
After reaching present numbers the brown bear population in Croatia seems to be stable and is slightly increasing in range. Part of the reason for occupying new areas may be due to the recent war operations. The occurrence of two bears in the Krka National Park is probably related to the war in Bosnia and Hercegovina, 45 km airline distance. To facilitate the increase of bear range the acceptability of bears by local people must be ensured by a dependable source of funds for compensation of bear damage. Hunting pressure seems to be balanced with the natural reproduction, though the effect of 3.3 fold increase of annual known mortality in the period 1986-1992 in Gorski kotar might be a cause of concern. There are several threats and corresponding conservation needs for the future of bear population in Croatia: 1. An immediate threat is the occupation of about half of bear range in Croatia by Serbian rebels and the consequent inability to apply Croatian legal control and management in that area. It can only be hoped that local self-proclaimed authorities treat bears, other wildlife, and their habitat fairly. Need: The reintegration of Croatian territory is necessary. This is a political problem that has to be resolved at the level of the United Nations. 2. Medium-term threat is the increasing disturbance of bear habitat due to new forest roads, other forestry operations, and, in particular, the construction of a new highway through Gorski kotar. The highway itself has a potential to fragment might separate bear and other wildlife populations if proposed mitigation measures are not be fully implemented. The overall disturbance in habitat interferes with natural life cycle of bears, but also contributes to 19% of known bear mortality through traffic kills which have significantly increased in the period 1986-1992. Need: At least two tunnels (about 300 m each) and 10 viaducts (total length about 3000 m) should be built at the strategic places along the new highway through Gorski kotar. The cost of these mitigations would be around 50 million USD. Several bear crossings should be built over the existing railroad to decrease the number of bears killed by trains. No new forest roads should be build in the bear habitat. 3. Another medium-term threat might arise if bear management became increasingly localized. Need: Animals with large movements like bears should be managed uniformly on a landscape level within their entire habitat. The new hunting law should reflect this need. 4. A long-term threat is forest deterioration due to exploitation, plantation development through replanting with mainly one tree species (spruce), and increasing tree mortality whatever the cause. Need: The natural composition of forests should be maintained by modifying the logging quotas and methods and by adequate replanting. Forest mortality should may be controlled by international agreement and cooperation. 5. The most important long-term threat is garbage conditioning of bears, which is over generations changing their natural feeding and living habits, thus making them less shy and intolerable to share space with humans. Need: Bear feeding stations should not increase in numbers and amount of food delivered. Only standard bear food such as corn and carrion should be used. No garbage should be available to bears. All garbage dumps should be eliminated from forest areas and fenced against bears. The proper rearrangement of dumps in Gorski kotar would cost at least 1 million USD. We conclude that brown bears do survive in the forests of the high mountains of Croatia not because this habitat is the best suited for their needs, but because these areas are the least affected by man. However, continuous gradual changes in this region are shrinking its size and deteriorating its suitability for bears. We propose a certain level of protection of the entire habitat (e. g. Biosphere Reserve), as well as strict protection of critical places for bear denning, resting, and feeding where all human related activities should be excluded. Study and monitoring of all threats to brown bears should be continued and intensified. An approximate budget of 18,000 USD per year would be needed for this case.
Literature cited Doku{, A., Orli}, S., Ore{kovi}, @., @gela, M., Mati}, S., and Or{ani}, M. 1992. [umski rasadnici (Forest nurseries). In [ume u Hrvatskoj (Forests of Croatia). Edited by \. Rau{. Faculty of Forestry and "Hrvatske {ume", Zagreb, pp. 101 - 104. Frkovi}, A., Ruff, R., Cicnjak, L., and Huber, D. 1987. Brown bear mortality during 1946-85 in Gorski Kotar, Yugoslavia. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7: 87 - 92. Huber, D. 1991/92. Sme}e ubija medvjeda (Garbage kills bear). Ekolo{ki glasnik 3 - 4: 77 - 80. Huber, D., and Mori}, S. 1989. [tete od mrkih medvjeda u Jugoslaviji. (Brown bear damage in Yugoslavia.) Proceedings of the third symposium "Savremeni pravci uzgoja divlja~i". Savez veterinara i veterinarskih tehni~ara Jugoslavije, Beograd, 197 - 202. Huber, D., and Roth, H. U. 1986. Home ranges and movements of brown bears in Plitvice Lakes National Park, Yugoslavia. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 6: 93 - 97. Krpan, A. P. B. 1992. Iskori{}ivanje {uma (Forest exploitation). In [ume u Hrvatskoj (Forests of Croatia). Edited by \. Rau{. Faculty of Forestry and "Hrvatske {ume", Zagreb, pp. 153 - 170. Mace, G., Collar, N., Cooke, K., Gaston, K., Ginsberg, J., Leader Williams N., Maunder, M., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. 1992. The development of new criteria for listing species in the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16 -22. Mori}, S., and Huber, D. 1989. Istra`ivanje mi{ljenja stranih posjetilaca Nacionalnog parka Plitvi~ka jezera o medvjedima i vukovima. (Study on the public opinion of the Plitvice Lakes National Park foreign visitors about bears and wolves.) Ekologija 24: 21 - 33. Prpi}, B. 1992. Ekolo{ka i gospodarska vrijednost {uma u Hrvatskoj (Ecological and economical value of Croatian forests). In [ume u Hrvatskoj (Forests of Croatia). Edited by \. Rau{. Faculty of Forestry and "Hrvatske {ume", Zagreb, pp. 237 - 256. FIGURE CAPTIONS
Fig. 1. Causes of brown bear mortality (N=163) in Croatia in 1986-92.
Fig. 2. Causes of brown bear mortality (%) in 1946-85 (from Frkovi} et al. 1987) and 1986-92 in Croatia.
Fig. 3. Distribution of sex of brown bears that died in Croatia in 1986-92.
Fig. 4. Cases of brown bear damage (N=247) in Croatia in 1987. ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ€777¬777y7¸777˙˙ą777t7»777˙˙Â777r7Ó777˙˙¶ 77p7Ľ 77˙˙Ĺ 77m7Č 77k7ß 77f7á 77d7_77˙˙d77_7e77˙˙ÜÜÜÜÜ77 777 77 7 7 7@ 7¤e77k77v777˙˙ˇ77t7Ł77˙˙É77r7Ę77k7µ77i7§77b7077`7 77˙˙ 77[7 77˙˙ 77V7 77˙˙e77 77 7777 8888 9 999 1010 1010v10- 1010˙˙" 1010q10- 1010˙˙2 1010l103 1010˙˙8 1010g10Ą 1010˙˙› 1111e11ś 1212^12% 1212\12& 1212U121212S12 1212˙ 1212121212 1313131313 141414 1414 1414 1414 1414§1414˙˙21414v14í1414˙˙§1414q140µ1414˙˙3µ1414o14?µ1414j14›1414h14- 1414c14ž1414a141414\14^-1414Z14z"1414˙˙}"1414X14141414 14 141414 141414 141414 141414 1414 }"1515‡"1515v15A%1515t15B%1515m15¨'1515k15ż'1515f15Ô)1515d15|*1515˙˙’*1515_1515- 1515˙˙%-1515Z15)-1515˙˙“11515X15—11515S15}"1515X1515 151515 1515 151515 1515151515 161616 —11616d41616y16h41616t16– 41616r16ţ51616˙˙\61616p16`61616k16Ď71616i16Ó71616d1 6‰91616b16Ť91616]16Ź91616[16Ę=1616˙˙Ú=1616V16Ü=1616˙˙16161616 161616 161616 161616 16 161616 16 Ü=1717uF1717y17h41717t17– 41717r17ţ51717˙˙\61717p17`61717k17Ď71717i17Ó71717d1 7‰91717b17Ť91717]17Ź91717[17Ę=1717˙˙Ú=1717V17Ü=1717˙˙17171717 171717 171717 171717 17 171717 17 €171717»171717i17Ó171717f17ü171717d17 1717d17$ 1717d17: 1717d17I 1717d17W 1717d171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171 71717171717171717171717 17 <<= -17171717171717đ1717171717W 1717` 1717y17b 1717y17— 1717y17¶ 1717y17¸ 1717y17ş 1717y17Ľ 1717y17Ĺ 1717v171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171 71717171717171717171717 17 <<= -17171717171717đ17< <Ĺ 1717á 1717n17ß1717n17Ł1717n17¸1717n17Ă 1717n17‡ 1717n17‰ 1717l17Ą 1717l1 71717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171 71717171717171717 17 <<= < <18-18181818181818ŕ Ą 18181818n1841818n1891818n18ę1818n181818n180µ1818n18Aµ1818n181818n18Ż1818n1 81818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181 81818181818181818181818181818 < <19-19191919191919ŕ Ż1919±1919y19Á1919y19 1919l19›1919l19Ż1919l19ŕ 1919l19x"1919l19z"1919˙˙19191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919 1919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919 <20-20202020202020ŕ
Phone: office (38) 41/290-111, home (38) 41/719-388 Fax: (38) 41/214-697
SLOVENIA 1. Status and distribution The total area of today's Republic of Slovenia (20,251 km2) was historically brown bear (Ursus arctos) range. The lowland parts of central Slovenia were the first to become settled, deforested, agriculturalized or urbanized, and thereby lost as bear habitat. This process began probably over a thousand years ago and was completed for the most part more than 200 years ago. Most of forests survived in mountainous regions and this is where bears may be found today. Bears in Slovenia are classified as a game species with specially regulated hunting quotas. The importance of Slovenian, together with Croatian, brown bears in Europe increased in the last 4 years as a source for reintroductions to other countries. According to the SSC criteria (Mace et al. 1992) brown bears in Slovenia may be listed in the "vulnerable" category. Habitat description Roughly 3,000 km2 (15%) of Slovenia are bear range including approximately 33% of 9,190 km2 of the countries forests. Brown bear habitat in Slovenia is at the very northwestern end of the Dinara Mountains, the mountain range running parallel to the Adriatic Sea coast from northwest to southeast, extending from Slovenia through Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Monte Negro, Macedonia and Albania to Greece (Pindus Mts.). The main bear areas are Notranjska and Ko~evje where bears are intensively managed by year-round supplementary feeding (Adami~ 1987). The topography of the bear habitat has partial karst features and forest covers about 70% of habitat.
Brown bear population size An estimated population of 300 brown bears lives in Slovenia (Kr`e 1988). They are connected to the bears in Croatia on the southeast. The connection with Alps in northern Italy and southern Austria is practically blocked by habitat interruption and numerous physical obstacles (mostly highways). The highest concentrations (about 1 bear/10 km2) are in the areas of Ko~evje and Sne`nik. There are marginal areas where bears are not always present. Population estimates are made each spring by systemized counts of bears visiting permanent bait stations. 2. Historic and future range map There are no documents on brown bear distribution in 1800 and 1900. The enclosed map is an estimate based on increasing human population, on topography, and some information from the beginning of this century. The corridor to Alps over the north of Slovenia probably ceased functioning in the first few decades of this century. The projection of range in the year 2000 is hoped not to be beyond the current continually occupied range. If management is close to optimum, most of today's occasionally used range may become continually used.
3. A map with specific present distribution Smaller towns and human developments (>10 km in diameter) within bear range are not shown as islands in populations, although they contain no bears. The crosshatched marked area in northern part of bear range in Slovenia was used by bears with increased frequency in the last decade (Fig. 1). If the political decision is to tolerate bears here, it may become regular bear range. 4. Legal status After centuries of unlimited hunting brown bears in Slovenia reached low numbers of 30 to 40 animals at the beginning of this century. After the World War II their numbers rose and since 1966 bears in Slovenia are game species. The hunting season lasts from 01 October till 30 April when in average 43 bears are harvested (Kr`e 1988). 5. Population threats
Bear mortality The main source of mortality is hunting which increased from 33 annually in the period 1965-69 to 45 in 1980-84 (Adami~ 1990). The actual numbers of bears hunted and the estimates of the population size are given by Kr`e (1988) (Fig. 2). Traffic kills are the second most important mortality factor. On the highway near Postojna only in 1992, five bears were killed by vehicles when attempting to cross the road. 6. Habitat threats Forest exploitation and extension of forest roads (for trucks and secondary roads for tractors) are decreasing habitat carrying capacity. The forest is also exploited by gatherers of other products (mushrooms, berries, medical plants etc.).
7. Management Bears in Slovenia are hunted during the season (1 Oct. - 30 April) exclusively from elevated stands over exposed baits during moonlit nights. The hunter pays a fee proportional to the trophy value of the harvested bear. The yearly harvest quota is on average calculated at the level of 15% of the estimated population size. The female bear reproduction interval is usually two years. Bears are managed by professional organizations in the designated areas (Notranjska and Ko~evje). There they are fed with carrion and corn year around at permanent feeding stations that are spread at least one at 60 km2. Out of that area they have no protection. In the period 1970-86 a total of 80 sightings out of bear range were recorded and 21 bears (20 males and 1 female) were killed (Adami~ 1990) (Fig. 1).
8. Human-bear interactions In 1987 only one case of sheep depredation by a bear was recorded (Huber and Mori} 1989). Also 1987 one woman was killed by a bear while picking mushrooms. 9. Public education needs Education of the public in marginal bear areas would be the single most powerful means to increase total bear range in Slovenia.
10. Specific conservation recommendations After reaching present numbers the brown bear population in Slovenia seems to be stable and is increasing in range. To facilitate the increase of bear range the acceptability of bears by local people must be assured by a dependable source of funds for compensation of bear damage. Hunting pressure seems to be balanced with the natural reproduction, though the effect of 27% increase of annual known mortality in the last 10 years might become visible only in the coming period. There are several threats and corresponding conservation needs for the future of bear population in Slovenia: 1. A medium-term threat is the increased disturbance and obstacles in the bear habitat due to the opening of forest by new forest roads, due to other forestry operations, and by old and new roads and railroads. The traffic on roads and railways significantly contributes to bear mortality. Need: Several bear crossings should be built over the existing roads and railroads to decrease the number of bears killed by trains. This would also facilitate the spread of bears towards Alps. No new forest roads should be build in the bear habitat. Many current roads should be closed to increase habitat security. 2. Garbage and human-related food conditioning of bears are probably the most important long-term threats. These factors are, over generations, changing bear natural feeding and living habits, and making them less shy and increasing conflicts with humans. Need: Bear feeding stations should not increase in numbers and amount of food delivered. Only standard bear food should be used there. No garbage should be available to bears. Garbage dumps should be moved out of forest areas and fenced against bears. The continuous gradual changes in bear range are deteriorating it's suitability for bears. Proposed is a certain level of international protection of the entire habitat (e. g. Biosphere Reserve), as well as strict protection of critical habitat for bear denning, resting, and feeding where all man related activities should be excluded. The establishment of continuous low-density bear populations outside of todays official range is possible and desirable. The cost of such management, with paying all bear damage compensations, would be in the range of 30,000 USD per year. Study and monitoring of all threats to brown bears should be continued and intensified. An approximate budget of 12,000 USD per year would be needed for this.
Literature cited Adami~, M. 1990. Rjavi medved (Ursus arctos) v Sloveniji. In L'orso bruno nelle zone di confine del Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Edited by E. Rosmann. WWF Friuli- Venezia Giulia. Monfalcone. pp. 24 - 34. Huber, D., and Mori}, S. 1989. [tete od mrkih medvjeda u Jugoslaviji. (Brown bear damage in Yugoslavia.) Proceedings of the third symposium "Savremeni pravci uzgoja divlja~i". Savez veterinara i veterinarskih tehni~ara Jugoslavije, Beograd, 197 - 202. Kr`e, B. 1988. Rjavi medved (Brown bear). In Zveri II (Carnivors II). Edited by B. Kry{tufek, A. Brancelj, B. Kr`e, and J. ^op. Lovska zveza Slovenije. Ljubljana. pp. 23 - 62. Mace, G., Collar, N., Cooke, K., Gaston, K., Ginsberg, J., Leader Williams N., Maunder, M., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. 1992. The development of new criteria for listing species in the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16 -22. ______
FIGURE CAPTIONS Fig. 1. Sightings of brown bears (dots, N=80) in Slovenia out of official range (striped) in the period 1970-86 (from Adami~ 1990). Fig. 2. Brown bear mortality and estimates of population size in Slovenia 1950- 88 (from Kr`e 1988). ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ€454545454545y45ą454545˙˙ş454545t45Ľ454545˙˙Ă454545r45Ô454545˙˙¸ 4545p45ľ 4545˙˙Č 4545m45Ë 4545k45â 4545f45ä 4545d454545˙˙-4545b454545[45Ü454545 46 464646 4646 46 46 46@ 46¤- 4646>4646˙˙C4646v46D4646˙˙J4646q46&4646˙˙L4646o46M4646h46–4646f46— 4646_46±4646]46ď4646˙˙G 4646[46H 4646T46-4646b4646464646 47 47474747 48484848 494949 4949 H 4949 4949y49- 4949˙˙; 4949t49c 5050˙˙‹ 5151o51 5252˙˙
5454m54 5555h55p¤5555f55‚¤5555a55:5555_55I5555Z55L5555X55@5555˙˙5555 555555 555555 555555 555555 5555 55 @5656C5656y56M5656t56¬µ5656r56- µ5656k56v§5656i56Ť§5656d56ę§5656b5625656˙˙H5 656]56Ó5656˙˙ř5656X56ú5656˙˙o5656V56@5656˙˙56 565656 5656 565656 5656565656 575757 57 o5757s5757v57u5757t575757˙˙Ż5757r57ł5757m57µ5757k57Ź 5757˙˙ˇ 5757f57Ł 5757˙˙(%5757d57ř5757X57ú5757˙˙o5757V57@5757˙˙57 575757 5757 57 575757 575757 57 575757 €575757Ľ575757i57Ô575757f57ţ575757d57 5757d57& 5757d57< 5757d57K 5757d57Y 5757d575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575 75757575757575757575757 57 <<= -57575757575757đ5757575757Y 5757b 5757y57d 5757y57™ 5757y57¸ 5757y57ş 5757y57Ľ 5757y57ľ 5757y57Č 5757v575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575 75757575757575757575757 57 <<= -57575757575757đ57< <Č 5757ä 5757n57&5757n57 ;5757n57i5757n57Ń5757n57Ó5757l57ď5757l575757575757575757575757575757575757575757 57575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757 57 <<= < <58-58585858585858ŕ ď5858 5858n58= 5858n58‡ 5858n58\ 5959n59^ 6060n60` 6161n61Ť 6262n62 6363n63 6464n6 46464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646 46464646464646464646464646464 < <65-65656565656565ŕ 6666m¤6666n66„¤6666n66†¤6666l66– ¤6666l66†6666_6676666_66K6666_6 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666 <67-67676767676767ŕ < <68-68686868686868ŕ K6868>6868n68@6868˙˙O6868l68Ń6868_68q§6868_68s§6868˙˙Ź§6868˙˙6 86868686868686868686868686868686868686868686868686868686868686868686868686868686 8686868686868686868686868 <69-69696969696969ŕ < <70-70707070707070ŕ Ź§7070- 7070 n7 0/7070˙˙J7070˙˙Í7070a70Ď7070˙˙ú7070˙˙Ű7070T7070707070707070707070707070707070707 0707070707070707070707070707070707070707070707070 <71-71717171717171ŕ <72-72727272727272ŕ <73-73737373737373ŕ Ű7373K7373n73n7373n737373n73®7373n73¬7373n73î7373n73Ź 7373n73‘ 7373˙˙Ł 7373˙˙73737373737373737373737373737373737373737373737373737373737373737373737373 7373737373737373737373737373737373ŕ <74-74747474747474ŕ Ł 7474i! 7474n74f"7474n74#7474n74ň#7474n74($7474˙˙*$7474˙˙; $7474k74=$7474˙˙7 47474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747 4747474747474747474747474747474747474< <75-757575Đ0ýŕ =$7575Â$7575n75'%7575n75(%7575˙˙) %7575˙˙7 57575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757 57575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757 57575< <76-76767676767676ŕ ŇŞC .˙˙Ą—8Ąp#76 SŞCÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ76 76767676767676ŕ 7676Ď7676ë7676W-7676˝#7676¨$7676 767676 76Đ76 76767676-76 76767676‚ 76767676p76 76767676 7676767676 767676767676ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 767676767676¨$767676<76ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ7676¨$76767676- 7676© $7676˙˙˙˙˙˙ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ76676<76B76K76\76^76f76n76Brown bear conservation action plan76Huber76Huber76Slovenia76FOR IUCN/SSC BSC7627607/27/9408/12/93¨$7 676ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 1ľ767676«7676767676767676(%7676P76Z76Z7 6]76^76^76CUBSFOOD.STY7676767676767676767676767676767676767676767676767676767676 767676767676767676767676767676767676767676767676767676TEC7676767676_76@767676вĄ [76Z767676\76µ Huber: Brown bear in Slovenia Zagreb, 13 August 1993 DJURO HUBER (revised 27 July 1994) Biology Department Veterinary Faculty University of Zagreb Heinzelova 55 41000 Zagreb Croatia
Phone: office (38) 41/290-111, home (38) 41/719-388 Fax: (38) 41/214-697
SLOVENIA 1. Status and distribution The total area of today's Republic of Slovenia (20,251 km2) was historically brown bear (Ursus arctos) range. The lowland parts of central Slovenia were the first to become settled, deforested, agriculturalized or urbanized, and thereby lost as bear habitat. This process began probably over a thousand years ago and was completed for the most part more than 200 years ago. Most of forests survived in mountainous regions and this is where bears may be found today. Bears in Slovenia are classified as a game species with specially regulated hunting quotas. The importance of Slovenian, together with Croatian, brown bears in Europe increased in the last 4 years as a source for reintroductions to other countries. According to the SSC criteria (Mace et al. 1992) brown bears in Slovenia may be listed in the "vulnerable" category. Habitat description Roughly 3,000 km2 (15%) of Slovenia are bear range including approximately 33% of 9,190 km2 of the countries forests. Brown bear habitat in Slovenia is at the very northwestern end of the Dinara Mountains, the mountain range running parallel to the Adriatic Sea coast from northwest to southeast, extending from Slovenia through Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Monte Negro, Macedonia and Albania to Greece (Pindus Mts.). The main bear areas are Notranjska and Ko~evje where bears are intensively managed by year-round supplementary feeding (Adami~ 1987). The topography of the bear habitat has partial karst features and forest covers about 70% of habitat.
Brown bear population size An estimated population of 300 brown bears lives in Slovenia (Kr`e 1988). They are connected to the bears in Croatia on the southeast. The connection with Alps in northern Italy and southern Austria is practically blocked by habitat interruption and numerous physical obstacles (mostly highways). The highest concentrations (about 1 bear/10 km2) are in the areas of Ko~evje and Sne`nik. There are marginal areas where bears are not always present. Population estimates are made each spring by systemized counts of bears visiting permanent bait stations. 2. Historic and future range map There are no documents on brown bear distribution in 1800 and 1900. The enclosed map is an estimate based on increasing human population, on topography, and some information from the beginning of this century. The corridor to Alps over the north of Slovenia probably ceased functioning in the first few decades of this century. The projection of range in the year 2000 is hoped not to be beyond the current continually occupied range. If management is close to optimum, most of today's occasionally used range may become continually used.
3. A map with specific present distribution Smaller towns and human developments (>10 km in diameter) within bear range are not shown as islands in populations, although they contain no bears. The crosshatched marked area in northern part of bear range in Slovenia was used by bears with increased frequency in the last decade (Fig. 1). If the political decision is to tolerate bears here, it may become regular bear range. 4. Legal status After centuries of unlimited hunting brown bears in Slovenia reached low numbers of 30 to 40 animals at the beginning of this century. After the World War II their numbers rose and since 1966 bears in Slovenia are game species. The hunting season lasts from 01 October till 30 April when in average 43 bears are harvested (Kr`e 1988). 5. Population threats
Bear mortality The main source of mortality is hunting which increased from 33 annually in the period 1965-69 to 45 in 1980-84 (Adami~ 1990). The actual numbers of bears hunted and the estimates of the population size are given by Kr`e (1988) (Fig. 2). Traffic kills are the second most important mortality factor. On the highway near Postojna only in 1992, five bears were killed by vehicles when attempting to cross the road. 6. Habitat threats Forest exploitation and extension of forest roads (for trucks and secondary roads for tractors) are decreasing habitat carrying capacity. The forest is also exploited by gatherers of other products (mushrooms, berries, medical plants etc.).
7. Management Bears in Slovenia are hunted during the season (1 Oct. - 30 April) exclusively from elevated stands over exposed baits during moonlit nights. The hunter pays a fee proportional to the trophy value of the harvested bear. The yearly harvest quota is on average calculated at the level of 15% of the estimated population size. The female bear reproduction interval is usually two years. Bears are managed by professional organizations in the designated areas (Notranjska and Ko~evje). There they are fed with carrion and corn year around at permanent feeding stations that are spread at least one at 60 km2. Out of that area they have no protection. In the period 1970-86 a total of 80 sightings out of bear range were recorded and 21 bears (20 males and 1 female) were killed (Adami~ 1990) (Fig. 1).
8. Human-bear interactions In 1987 only one case of sheep depredation by a bear was recorded (Huber and Mori} 1989). Also 1987 one woman was killed by a bear while picking mushrooms.
9. Public education needs Education of the public in marginal bear areas would be the single most powerful means to increase total bear range in Slovenia.
10. Specific conservation recommendations After reaching present numbers the brown bear population in Slovenia seems to be stable and is increasing in range. To facilitate the increase of bear range the acceptability of bears by local people must be assured by a dependable source of funds for compensation of bear damage. Hunting pressure seems to be balanced with the natural reproduction, though the effect of 27% increase of annual known mortality in the last 10 years might become visible only in the coming period. There are several threats and corresponding conservation needs for the future of bear population in Slovenia: 1. A medium-term threat is the increased disturbance and obstacles in the bear habitat due to the opening of forest by new forest roads, due to other forestry operations, and by old and new roads and railroads. The traffic on roads and railways significantly contributes to bear mortality. Need: Several bear crossings should be built over the existing roads and railroads to decrease the number of bears killed by trains. This would also facilitate the spread of bears towards Alps. No new forest roads should be build in the bear habitat. Many current roads should be closed to increase habitat security. 2. Garbage and human-related food conditioning of bears are probably the most important long-term threats. These factors are, over generations, changing bear natural feeding and living habits, and making them less shy and increasing conflicts with humans. Need: Bear feeding stations should not increase in numbers and amount of food delivered. Only standard bear food should be used there. No garbage should be available to bears. Garbage dumps should be moved out of forest areas and fenced against bears. The continuous gradual changes in bear range are deteriorating it's suitability for bears. Proposed is a certain level of international protection of the entire habitat (e. g. Biosphere Reserve), as well as strict protection of critical habitat for bear denning, resting, and feeding where all man related activities should be excluded. The establishment of continuous low-density bear populations outside of todays official range is possible and desirable. The cost of such management, with paying all bear damage compensations, would be in the range of 30,000 USD per year. Study and monitoring of all threats to brown bears should be continued and intensified. An approximate budget of 12,000 USD per year would be needed for this.
Literature cited Adami~, M. 1990. Rjavi medved (Ursus arctos) v Sloveniji. In L'orso bruno nelle zone di confine del Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Edited by E. Rosmann. WWF Friuli- Venezia Giulia. Monfalcone. pp. 24 - 34. Huber, D., and Mori}, S. 1989. [tete od mrkih medvjeda u Jugoslaviji. (Brown bear damage in Yugoslavia.) Proceedings of the third symposium "Savremeni pravci uzgoja divlja~i". Savez veterinara i veterinarskih tehni~ara Jugoslavije, Beograd, 197 - 202. Kr`e, B. 1988. Rjavi medved (Brown bear). In Zveri II (Carnivors II). Edited by B. Kry{tufek, A. Brancelj, B. Kr`e, and J. ^op. Lovska zveza Slovenije. Ljubljana. pp. 23 - 62. Mace, G., Collar, N., Cooke, K., Gaston, K., Ginsberg, J., Leader Williams N., Maunder, M., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. 1992. The development of new criteria for listing species in the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16 -22. ______
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Fig. 1. Sightings of brown bears (dots, N=80) in Slovenia out of official range (striped) in the period 1970-86 (from Adami~ 1990). Fig. 2. Brown bear mortality and estimates of population size in Slovenia 1950- 88 (from Kr`e 1988). ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ€808080808080y80ą808080˙˙ş808080t80Ľ808080˙˙Ă808080r80Ô808080˙˙¸ 8080p80ľ 8080˙˙Č 8080m80Ë 8080k80â 8080f80ä 8080d808080˙˙-8080b808080[80Ü808080 81 818181 8181 81 81 81@ 81¤- 8181>8181˙˙C8181v81D8181˙˙J8181q81&8181˙˙L8181o81M8181h81–8181f81— 8181_81±8181]81ď8181˙˙G 8181[81H 8181T81-8181b8181818181 82 82828282 83838383 848484 8484 H 8484 8484y84- 8484˙˙; 8484t84c 8585˙˙‹ 8686o86 8787˙˙
8989m89 9090h90p¤9090f90‚¤9090a90:9090_90I9090Z90L9090X90@9090˙˙9090 909090 909090 909090 909090 9090 90 @9191C9191y91M9191t91¬µ9191r91- µ9191k91v§9191i91Ť§9191d91ę§9191b9129191˙˙H9 191]91Ó9191˙˙ř9191X91ú9191˙˙o9191V91@9191˙˙91 919191 9191 919191 9191919191 929292 92 o9292s9292v92u9292t929292˙˙Ż9292r92ł9292m92µ9292k92Ź 9292˙˙ˇ 9292f92Ł 9292˙˙(%9292d92ř9292X92ú9292˙˙o9292V92@9292˙˙92 929292 9292 92 929292 929292 92 929292 €929292Ľ929292i92Ô929292f92ţ929292d92 9292d92& 9292d92< 9292d92K 9292d92Y 9292d929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929 29292929292929292929292 92 <<= -92929292929292đ9292929292Y 9292b 9292y92d 9292y92™ 9292y92¸ 9292y92ş 9292y92Ľ 9292y92ľ 9292y92Č 9292v929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929 29292929292929292929292 92 <<= -92929292929292đ92< <Č 9292ä 9292n92&9292n92 ;9292n92i9292n92Ń9292n92Ó9292l92ď9292l929292929292929292929292929292929292929292 92929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292 92 <<= < <93-93939393939393ŕ ď9393 9393n93= 9393n93‡ 9393n93\ 9494n94^ 9595n95` 9696n96Ť 9797n97 9898n98 9999n9 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999 < <100-100100100100100100100ŕ 101101m¤101101n101„¤101101n101†¤101101l101– ¤101101l101†101101_1017101101_101K101101_10 11011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011 01101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101 <102-102102102102102102102ŕ < <103-103103103103103103103ŕ K103103>103103n103@103103˙˙O103103l103Ń103103_103q§103103_103s§103103˙˙Ź§10 3103˙˙10310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310310 31031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031031 03103 <104-104104104104104104104ŕ < <105-105105105105105105105ŕ Ź§105105- 105105 n10 5/105105˙˙J105105˙˙Í105105a105Ď105105˙˙ú105105˙˙Ű105105T105105105105105105105105 10510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510510 5105105105105105105105105 <106-106106106106106106106ŕ <107-107107107107107107107ŕ <108-108108108108108108108ŕ Ű108108K108108n108n108108n108- 108108n108®108108n108¬108108n108î108108n108Ź 108108n108‘ 108108˙˙Ł 108108˙˙108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108108 10810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810810 8108108108ŕ <109-109109109109109109109ŕ Ł 109109i! 109109n109f"109109n109#109109n109ň#109109n109($109109˙˙*$109109˙˙; $109109k109=$109109˙˙10 91091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091091 09109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109109 109109109109109< <110-110110110Đ0ýŕ =$110110Â$110110n110'%110110n110(%110110˙˙) %110110˙˙11 01101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101101 10110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110 11011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011011 0110110< <111-111111111111111111111ŕ ŇŞC .˙˙Ą—8Ąp#111 SŞCÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ111 111111111111111111111ŕ 111111Ď111111ë111111W-111111˝#111111¨$111111 111111111 111Đ111 111111111111-111 111111111111‚ 111111111111p111 111111111111 111111111111111 111111111111111111ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 111111111111111111¨$111111111<111ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ111111¨$1111111 11111- 111111© $111111˙˙˙˙˙˙ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ1116111<111B111K111\111^111f111n111Brown bear conservation action plan111Huber111Huber111Slovenia111FOR IUCN/SSC BSC111211107/27/9408/12/93¨$11 1111ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 1ľ111111111«111111111111111111111111§111111'11 1/111 /111211131113111CUBSFOOD.STY1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111TEC1111111111111114111@111111111вĄ 0111/1111111111111µ Huber: Brown bear in Macedonia Zagreb, 13 August 1993 DJURO HUBER (revised 27 July 1994) Biology Department Veterinary Faculty University of Zagreb Heinzelova 55 41000 Zagreb Croatia
Phone: office (38) 41/290-111, home (38) 41/719-388 Fax: (38) 41/214-697
MACEDONIA 1. Status and distribution The total area of Macedonia (25,713 km2) was historically brown bear (Ursus arctos) range. The lowland around the countries capital Skopje was the first to become settled, deforested, agriculturalized or urbanized, and thus lost as bear habitat. This process probably was completed before the end of the last century. Most forests survived in mountainous regions and this is where bears may be found today. Bears in Macedonia are classified as a game species only since 1988. According to the SSC criteria (Mace et al. 1992) bears may be listed in the "vulnerable" category. Roughly 820 km2 in Macedonia are bear range, including approximately 10% of 8.510 km2 the countries forests. Most of bear range in Macedonia is along it's western borders with Kosovo, Albania and Greece. Brown bear habitat is in the southeastern end of the Dinara Mountains, the mountain range running parallel to the Adriatic Sea coast from northwest to southeast. The topography of the bear habitat has partial karst features. It is mostly deciduous forest which covers about 70% of the bear habitat.
Brown bear population size An estimated population of 90 brown bears lives in Macedonia. The population estimate is not scientifically based. Population is connected with the bears in Kosovo, Albania and Greece. 2. Historic and future range map There are no documents on brown bear distribution in 1800 and 1900. The enclosed map is an estimate based on human population increase and topography. The connection with bear population in Bulgaria was probably lost in the last century. Data for the projection of bear range in the year 2000 are insufficient. The decrease of range is possible. 3. A map with specific present distribution Because of poor older data, the occasionally used bear ranges might be larger and/or different than shown (crosshatched on map). 4. Legal status Bears are hunted during hunting season (1 Oct. to 1 Jan.) which was established only in 1988. Before that there were no rules or limitations for bear hunting. 5. Population threats
Bear mortality In 1987, only eight bear deaths there recorded, and all these were hunted (Huber and Mori} 1989). Actual mortality was no doubt higher. There is no information if and how the present law is enforced. 6. Habitat threats No specific informations are available. The political disturbances and consequent economic crisis are likely to be negatively reflected on bear habitat and the population itself. 7. Management In Macedonia there was no specific bear management and hunting method in use.
8. Human-bear interactions In 1987, 131 cases of bear damage in Macedonia were recorded: 66 on domestic animals, 15 on fields, and 50 in orchards (all cherries). Twenty wooden telephone poles were reported damaged by bear scratching and plucking (Huber and Mori} 1989).
9. Public education needs Would be very important to start an intensive campaign.
10. Specific conservation recommendations Not enough data are available for specific recommendations. Obviously the present laws should be enforced, the damage done by bears should be compensated, the habitat should receive some sort of protection, and the human population should be educated about the international value of bears.
Literature cited
Huber, D., and Mori}, S. 1989. [tete od mrkih medvjeda u Jugoslaviji. (Brown bear damage in Yugoslavia.) Proceedings of the third symposium "Savremeni pravci uzgoja divlja~i". Savez veterinara i veterinarskih tehni~ara Jugoslavije, Beograd, 197 - 202. Mace, G., Collar, N., Cooke, K., Gaston, K., Ginsberg, J., Leader Williams N., Maunder, M., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. 1992. The development of new criteria for listing species in the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16 -22. ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ€114114114- 114114114y114ą114114114˙˙ş114114114t114Ľ114114114˙˙Ă114114114r114Ô114114114˙˙¸ 114114p114ľ 114114˙˙É 114114m114Ě 114114k114ă 114114f114ĺ 114114d114114114˙˙ 115115b115 115115[115Ü115115115 116 116116116 116116 116 116 116@ 116¤ 11611 6,116116˙˙1116116v1162116116˙˙8116116q116$116116˙˙5116116o1166116116h116{116116f 116|116116_116“116116]116?116116˙˙ú116116[116ý116116˙˙116116V116 116116 116 116116116116 117117117117 118118118 118118 119119}119119˙˙Ą119119v119* 119119˙˙- 119119t1199 119119o119ß 119119m119ń 119119h119h119119f119Ď119119˙˙Ň119119d119á119119_119ä119119]119› 119119˙˙ž 119119[119 119119 119 119119119 119 119119119 119119119 119119119 ž 120120¨ 120120v120˙ 120120t120 121121o121ź 122122m122ó 123123˙˙ 123123k123 123123˙˙( 123123f123j 123123˙˙Ź 123123a123¸ 124124˙˙ş 125125_125Ę 126126Z126Ě 127127˙˙ 127127127127 127127127 127127 127 127127127 127127127 Ě 129129§129129y129˙ 129129t129 130130o130ź 131131m131ó 132132˙˙ 132132k132 132132˙˙( 132132f132j 132132˙˙Ź 132132a132¸ 133133˙˙ş 134134_134Ę 135135Z135Ě 136136˙˙ 136136136136 136136136 136136 136 136136136 136136136 136 €136136136Ľ136136136i136Ô136136136f136ţ136136136d136 136136d136& 136136d136< 136136d136K 136136d136Y 136136d1361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361 36136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136 136 <<= -136136136136136136136đ136136136136136Y 136136b 136136y136d 136136y136™ 136136y136¸ 136136y136ş 136136y136Ľ 136136y136ľ 136136y136É 136136v1361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361 36136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136 136 <<= -136136136136136136136đ136< <É 136136ĺ 136136n136&136136n136– 136136n136!136136n136#136136l136? 136136 l136ú136136_13 61361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361361 36136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136136 <137-137137137137137137137ŕ < <138-138138138138138138138ŕ ú138138138138n138 139139n139z139139n139§139139n139* 139139n139; 139139n139Ü 139139n139ó 139139n139ő
139139 l13 91391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391391 39139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139139 139 < <140-140140140140140140140ŕ ő 140140140140y140Ď140140l140ă140140l140 140140l140› 140140l140Ş 140140j140ú 14014 0]140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140 140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140140 <141-141141141141141141141ŕ < <142-142142142142142142142ŕ <ú 142142ü 142142˙˙ 143143˙˙
143143n143¤ 143143˙˙* 143143˙˙d 143143a143f 143143˙˙‘ 143143˙˙14 31431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431431 43143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143- <144-144144144144144144144ŕ <145-145145145145145145145ŕ ‘ 145145Ď 145145n145¸ 146146n146ş 147147n147Ě 148148˙˙Î 149149a149ˤ149149a149¦149149a149§149149˙˙14 91491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491491 49149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149- <150-150150150Đ0ýŕ <151-151151151151151151151ŕ §151151¨151151˙˙151151151151151151ş 152152n152Ě 153153˙˙Î 154154a154ˤ154154a154¦154154a154§154154˙˙15 41541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541541 54154154154154154154154154154154154154154154154154154154154154- <155-155155155Đ0ýŕ <156-156156156156156156156ŕ ŇŞC .˙˙Ą—8Ąp#156 SŞCÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ156156156156156156ż156156 156156'156156 156156156 156»156 156156156156156 156156156156156156ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 156156156156156156'156156156<156ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ156156'156156156 €156156(156156˙˙˙˙˙˙ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ1566156<156B156L156 ]156_156g156o156Brown bear conservation action plan156Huber156Huber156Macedonia156FOR IUCN/SSC BSC156215607/27/9408/12/93'156156ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 1ľ156156156«156156156156156156156156µ15 6156/15671567156:156;156;15 6CUBSFOOD.STY1561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561561 56156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156156 156156156156156156156TEC156156156156156<156@156156156вĄ 815671561561569156µ Huber: Brown bear in Monte Negro and Serbia Zagreb, 13 August 1993 DJURO HUBER (revised 27 June 1994) Biology Department Veterinary Faculty University of Zagreb Heinzelova 55 41000 Zagreb Croatia
Phone: office (38) 41/290-111, home (38) 41/719-388 Fax: (38) 41/214-697
MONTE NEGRO AND SERBIA (WITH KOSOVO) 1. Status and distribution Monte Negro and Serbia (with Kosovo) call themselves Yugoslav Federation since 1991. The total area of these countries (13,812 and 88,361 km2) was historically brown bear (Ursus arctos) range. The lowland northern province of Vojvodina was the first to become settled, deforested, agriculturalized or urbanized, and thereby lost as a bear habitat. This process probably completed before the end of last century. Most of the forests survived in mountainous regions and this is where the bears may be found today. Bears in Monte Negro and Serbia are classified as a game species with specially regulated hunting quotas except out of designated areas. According to the SSC criteria (Mace et al. 1992) brown bears may be listed in the "vulnerable" category. Due to political disturbances it was not possible to get any recent data. Habitat description Roughly 500 km2 in Monte Negro and 1670 km2 in Serbia are bear range, including approximately 9% of 5,760 km2 and 7% of 23,210 km2 of the countries forests. Most of the bear range of Serbia is within the province of Kosovo. Brown bear habitat is in southeast part of the Dinara Mountains, the mountain range that runs parallel to the Adriatic Sea coast from northwest to southeast. The topography of the bear habitat has partial karst features and forest covers about 70% of the habitat.
Brown bear population size An estimated population of 250 brown bears lives in Monte Negro and 180 in Serbia (100 of the latter in Kosovo) (Huber and Mori}, 1989). The population estimates are not scientifically based. Populations are connected with the bears in Bosnia and Hercegovina, Albania and Macedonia. 2. Historic and future range map There are no documents on brown bear distribution in 1800 and 1900. The enclosed map is an estimate based on the increase of human population and topography. The connection with bear population in Romania was probably lost in the last century, though there were some more recent data on bear observations in northern Serbia. There is no data to project the bear range in the year 2000. 3. A map with specific present distribution Because of poor older data, no access to recent bear managers, and no way to estimate the current damage on bear population due to political instability, the enclosed map is partly provisional. In particular judgement of occasionally and continually used bear ranges in Monte Negro contains certain level of guessing. 4. Legal status Bears are hunted during the hunting season (1 Oct. to 30 Apr.). In Serbia (mostly Kosovo) hunting is organized from elevated blinds over bait, while in Monte Negro bears are hunted when encountered during chases and other hunts. 5. Population threats
Bear mortality Out of total known bear mortality of 26 in Monte Negro and 25 in Serbia in 1987, only 11 and 8 were legally hunted, respectively (Huber and Mori} 1989). The political disturbances and consequent economic crisis are likely reduce the enforcement of laws which consider bears and other wildlife. 6. Habitat threats No specific information is available. The political disturbances and consequent economic crisis are likely to be negative to bear habitat and the population itself.
7. Management In Serbia the organizations that managed bears were also feeding them at permanent stations where hunting was done during the season (1 Oct. - 30 Apr.) from elevated stands over exposed baits during moonlit nights. In Monte Negro no specific bear management and hunting method was in use.
8. Human-bear interactions In 1987, 23 cases of bear damage in Monte Negro were recorded: 20 on domestic animals and 23 on bee hives. In the same year in Serbia 124 cases were recorded: 49 on domestic animals, 55 on fields, 17 in orchards, and 3 on bee hives (Huber and Mori} 1989).
9. Public education needs
This will be important only after the political and economic situations are more stable. 10. Specific conservation recommendations Before the political instability and devastating war in neighboring countries will end no other conservation measures may be discussed. The international community should be more involved to stop the war, not only to help people but also for the case of saving rare European wildlife (including bears) and their habitats.
Literature cited
Huber, D., and Mori}, S. 1989. [tete od mrkih medvjeda u Jugoslaviji. (Brown bear damage in Yugoslavia.) Proceedings of the third symposium "Savremeni pravci uzgoja divlja~i". Savez veterinara i veterinarskih tehni~ara Jugoslavije, Beograd, 197 - 202. Mace, G., Collar, N., Cooke, K., Gaston, K., Ginsberg, J., Leader Williams N., Maunder, M., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. 1992. The development of new criteria for listing species in the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16 -22. ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ€159159159- 159159159y159ą159159159˙˙ş159159159t159Ľ159159159˙˙Ă159159159r159Ô159159159˙˙¸ 159159p159ľ 159159˙˙ä 159159m159ç 159159k159ţ 159159f159159159159d159‹159159˙˙Ť159159b159Ž159159[159Ü159159159 160 160160160 160160 160 160 160@ 160¤Ž160160- 16016 0˙˙˛160160v160ł160160˙˙ą160160q160>160160˙˙b160160o160c160160h160~160160f16016 0160_160Ŕ160160]160Á160160V160Ő160160T160‹160160˙˙Ť160160b160 160160160160 161161161161 162162162162 163163163 163163 Ő164164Ö164164t164đ164164r164]164164˙˙z164164p164}164164˙˙š164164k164% 164164˙˙M 164164f164Ź 164164˙˙’ 164164d164ž 164164_164Š 165165]165ś 166166X166J 166166V166 166 166166166 166166166 166166166 166166 166 166166166166
J 168168Ö 168168˙˙Ű 168168y168ę 168168t168í 168168r168• 169169˙˙ 170170p170˘ 171171k171̤171171i171ă¤171171d171ĺ171171b171ě171171˙˙17 1171]171h171171˙˙Ť171171X171 171 171171171 171171 171171171 171171171 171 171171171 171 Ť172172Ó172172˙˙Ő172172y172ĺ172172t172ç172172˙˙µ172172r172 173173p173˘ 174174k174̤174174i174ă¤174174d174ĺ174174b174ě174174˙˙17 4174]174h174174˙˙Ť174174X174 174 174174174 174174 174174174 174174174 174 174174174 174€174174174Ľ174174174i174Ô174174174f174ţ174174174d174 174174d174& 174174d174< 174174d174K 174174d174Y 174174d1741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741 74174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174 174 <<= -174174174174174174174đ174174174174174Y 174174b 174174y174d 174174y174™ 174174y174¸ 174174y174ş 174174y174Ľ 174174y174ľ 174174y174ä 174174v1741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741 74174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174174 174 <<= -174174174174174174174đ174< <ä 174174174174174n174>174174n174S174174n174Ó174174n174? 174174 n174A174174l17 4]174174l17417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417417 41741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741741 74174174174174 174 <<= < <175-175175175175175175175ŕ ]175175z175175n175ś175175n175ă 175175n175" 175175n175O 175175n175Ź 175175n175 175175n175‡ 176176n176ž 177177n17 71771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771771 77177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177177 177 < <178-178178178178178178178ŕ ž 179179 180180y180° 181181y181Ř 181181l181ě 181181l181“ 182182l182• 183183l183¤ 184184j18 41841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841841 84184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184184 184184184184184184184184184184184 < <185-185185185185185185185ŕ <¤ 186186Ǥ186186n186ɤ186186˙˙ĺ¤186186˙˙ç186186a186é186186˙˙186186˙˙186186˙˙18 61861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861861 86186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186186 186 <187-187187187187187187187ŕ <188-188188188188188188188ŕ 188188a188188n188d188188˙˙Ź188188˙˙Ó188188a188Ő188188a188ç188188˙˙é188188T188188 18818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818818 8188188188188188188188188188188188188188188 <189-189189189Đ0ýŕ <190-190190190190190190190ŕ <191-191191191191191191191ŕ é191191ć191191n191Áµ191191n191µ191191˙˙õ191191˙˙19 11911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911911 91191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191191 191191191191191191 <192-192192192Đ0ýŕ <193-193193193193193193193ŕ <194-194194194Đ0ýŕ ŇŞC .˙˙Ą—8Ąp#194 SŞCÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ194 194194194194194194194• 194194â194194Bµ194194 194194194 194K194 194194194194r194 194194194194194 194194194194194194ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜ 194194194194194194Bµ194194194<194ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ194194Bµ1941941 94€194194Cµ194194˙˙˙˙˙˙ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ1946194<194B194J194[194 ]194e194m194Brown bear conservation action plan194Huber194Huber194ex Yugo194FOR IUCN/SSC BSC194219407/28/9408/12/93Bµ194194ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ