Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Brown Bear-Livestock Conflicts in a Bear Conservation Zone in Norway: Are Cattle a Good Alternative to Sheep?

Brown Bear-Livestock Conflicts in a Bear Conservation Zone in Norway: Are Cattle a Good Alternative to Sheep?

Brown - conflicts in a bear conservation zone in : are cattle a good alternative to ?

Barbara Zimmermann1, Petter Wabakken, and Michael Dotterer

Facultyof Forestryand WildlifeManagement, Hedmark University College, N-2480 Koppang,Norway

Abstract: We evaluated the potential for reducing livestock conflicts within a bear ( arctos) conservationzone by replacingsheep with cattle. We interviewedcattle farmersand veterinariansand investigatedlivestock and depredationstatistics from governmentalland-use and management in HedmarkCounty, south-easternNorway. This county bordersa reproducingbrown bearpopulation in and alreadycontains several residentmale brown . A conservationzone, within which beardensity is plannedto increase,covers 46% of the county's surface.There were about 7 times as many free-rangingsheep (128,600) as cattle (18,200) during summer 1998, with densities lowest inside the bear conservationzone. Estimatedfree-ranging cattle mortalitywas about 16 times lower than sheep mortalityin summer 1998. During the past 13 years, no cattle were confirmedas killed by brown bears. The perceptionof the brown bear as a threatto cattle is higher among than among veterinariansor managers.We found little supportfor the allegation that cattle become more difficultto control in the presenceof brown bears. Regardingbrown bear ,we consider cattle a good alternativeto sheep in Norway. In southeasternNorway, however, the expected ex- pansion of the brown bear reproductionarea and an increasingwolf ( lupus) populationmakes this assertion less certain. We the need for researchon the predatorybehavior of large male brown bears and , as well as on measures to protect free-rangingcattle against potential predation.

Key words: brown bear, Canis lupus, cattle, domestic sheep, livestock depredation,Norway, Ursus arctos, , zoning management

Ursus14(1):72-83 (2003)

Livestock productionin Norway has a long tradition 1920s due to intensive hunting. Gradually improved of using the vast marginalforest and mountainhabitat; protectionof brownbears in Sweden allowed an increase, cultivatedland is limited. Currentland-use policies still resulting in 4 reproductioncore areas (Swenson et al. try to use these outlying areas in various sustainable 1995). At present, there are 800-1,300 brown bears in ways (Landbruksdepartementet1993, Milj0verdeparte- ,including 26-55 in Norway (Milj0verde- mentet 1997). These policies are intended to help partementet1997, Zedrosseret al. 2001). Most bears in maintain rural settlements and secure the strategic Norway are males roamingclose to the Swedish border has capacity for independentfood production. After large (Swenson et al. 1998b). The Norwegiangovernment carnivores (brown bears, wolves, Eurasianlynx [ established5 bear conservationzones along the Swedish lynx], and [Gulo gulo]) became reduced border to ensure viable populations (Milj0vemdeparte- eradicated at the beginning of the twentieth century, mentet 1992). This zoning managementallows increased sheep could be kept largely untendedin the and controloutside the conservationzones. Inside,alternative of mountainareas during summergrazing (Reinton 1955). conflict-reducingmeasures that still allow some form Until 150 years ago, several thousand brown bears land-use are a priority (Milj0vemdepartementet1992, inhabitedmost of the ScandinavianPeninsula (Sweden 1997). Sheep losses have increased markedly, and the bears has not halted andNorway; Swenson et al. 1995). However,the number annual removal of some problem of brownbears decreased to a low of about 120 duringthe this trend(Wabakken and Maartmann1994, Sag0r et al. 1997). A comparison among European countries re- vealed Norway had the highest livestock depredation ratesby far;at least 25 times as many sheep are annually 1 email: [email protected]

72 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS IN NORWAY* Zimmermann et al. 73 lost to bear predation per brown bear than in other of the county. (Alces alces), roe ( countries(Kaczensky 1996). capreolus), and ( elaphus), as well as In Norway, large carnivore-livestock conflicts have wild (Rangifer tarandus) in the mountainsare promptedseveral studies on the preventionor reduction present and subject to intense harvest. of sheep depredation, including the economics and Hedmark County borders one of 4 brown bear re- social aspects of depredation (Wabakken and Maart- production core areas in Sweden. In 1996, an esti- mann 1994, Linnell et al. 1996, Mysterudet al. 1996, mated 9-13 males occupied Hedmark County and a Flaten and Kleppa 1999, Krogstadet al. 2000, Rings0 few females occasionally crossed the national border et al. 2000). In addition to carnivoremanagement and (Milj0vemdepartementet1997); bears regularly hiber- sheep protectiontechniques, the governmentis encour- nate on the Norwegian side of the border (Swenson aging farmers,particularly in bear conservation zones, et al. 1996). The Norwegian segment of the population to turn from to sources of income less is expected to increase, including more reproducing affected by bears (Milj0verdepartementet1992, 1997). females in the future. The insufficientcultivated ground makes the use of for- The Scandinavian wolf population is shared by est and alpineareas as grazinglands essentialto the econ- Hedmark County and neighbouring Norwegian and omy for a majorityof these farmers. Swedish counties to the south and east. This population Is the replacementof sheep with free-rangingcattle increasedfrom about 10 individualsduring the 1980s to a problem-free solution? Will brown bears and other 62-78 wolves in 1998 (Wabakkenet al. 2001). In winter predatorsswitch to cattle after sheep removal?The gov- 1998-99, 2 packs and 2 pairs were located totally or ernmental Conservation Agency of Hedmark County, partially inside Hedmark County (Wabakken et al. southeasternNorway, asked us to answerthese questions. 1999). Lynx occurredin the forested areas of Hedmark They also asked us to investigate a common allegation County (Wabakken et al. 1995, Odden et al. 2000), thatcattle become more difficultto handlewhen exposed whereas wolverines and golden eagles (Aquila chrys- to brown bears on summerpasture. aetos) were found in some of the mountain areas and Despite many recent studies on sheep productionin high altitudeforests (Wabakkenet al. 1995, Landaet al. Norway, free-ranging cattle farming has rarely been 1998). In 1998, brown bears accounted for 47%, lynx studied. We gathered informationfrom farmers,veter- for 23%, wolves for 14%, wolverines for 10%, and inarians, and governmental agencies on practices and golden eagles for 6% of the livestock losses to predators problems with free-rangingcattle in HedmarkCounty, (E. Maartmann,Hedmark County Conservation Agency, southeastern Norway. Our objectives were to (1) Hamar,Norway, personal communication,1999). identify the distributionof free-rangingcattle and sheep ranges in relation to large carnivoredistribution, brown bears in particular; (2) quantify qualities of cattle ranges that might expose cattle to increased Methods We divided Hedmark into 5 depredationrisk; (3) identify sources of cattle mortality County regions defined the of brown bears and in general and carnivore-relatedmortality in particular; by presence wolves (Fig. lb). The eastern most (4) investigate the allegationthat cattle become difficult region (code 3) was the brown bear conservation zone. to manage with brown bear presence. This zone covered 46% of the county. Breedingfemale brown bears in the borderarea, established male brown bears, and some wolves in- Study area habited this zone. Two other regions had occasional The study area (27,388 km2) was situated in south- occurrenceof brown bears and a few locally established wolves The 2 central Scandinaviaand comprises HedmarkCounty in (code 2). remaining regions had rare occurrences of brown bears and southeasternNorway (Fig. la). Human population is lacked established wolves The scatteredthroughout the county and generallyhas a low (code 1). northern-mostregion is mostly density (average 6.8 persons/km2). Lowest densities alpine, whereas the southern-mostof these 2 regions is dominated . are in the east and north of the county, commonly with by <1 person/km2.Boreal coniferous forest dominatesthe landscapeup to 900 m above sea level; alpine vegetation Data sources takes over above the treeline. is the Forestry dominant To evaluate the potential of cattle farming as an land-use but some occurs in all system, parts alternativeto sheep productionon brown bear occupied Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) 74 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS INNORWAY * Zimmermannet al.

a) b)

--

Fig. 1. Study area of (a) HedmarkCounty in Norway in the Scandinavian Peninsula and wolf and brown bear distribution (b) in Hedmark County: 1 = occasional bear and wolf presence, 2 = occasional bear presence, established wolves in some areas, 3 = bear conservation zone, bears and wolves established in some areas, 1998. ,we used 3 sourcesof information:(1) govern- personal communication, 2000). On the regional and mental land-use and conservationagencies, (2) farmers county level, we consideredthese numbersreliable. who owned free-rangingcattle, and (3) districtveterinar- Cattle farmers. In 1998, 880 farmersin Hedmark ians. Sources and samplingmethods are detailedbelow. County practiced free-ranging cattle farming (Statens Governmental land-use agencies. These pro- Komforretning 1999b). We sent a questionnaire to vided statisticsbased on subsidies for all livestock kept 572 of them, followed by 2 reminders. This sample free-rangingfor at least 8 weeks/year (Statens Korfor- constituted a randomly selected 36% of farmers in retning 1999a; E. Maartmann,personal communication, the northernmostregion and all farmers in the other 1999). Free-rangingis defined here as "kept on non- regions. The reductionin the northernmostregion was agriculture areas with <50% cover of grass species necessaryto balancethe numberof questionnairesin the suitable for grazing or harvest" (Statens Korforretning differentregions and to reduce costs. 1999b:9).Governmental conservation agencies provided District . Hedmark County is di- statistics on livestock losses to large carnivores based vided into 14 veterinarydistricts, 5 of which are within on a compensation system. Experienced, trained the bear conservation zone (Fig. lb). The district vet- personnel annually investigate 10-20% of the farmers' erinariansare the managingveterinarians for each compensation claims. They conduct necropsies and district. All reports and files are centralized at their search for tracks or other -specific sign of offices. However, veterinariansare not responsible for carnivores. If carnivore damage is identified or highly identifyingcarivore kills for the compensationsystem. probable, the receives compensation for docu- To increase the sample size and to provide a control mented and undocumentedlosses after subtractionof an group from a practically bear- and wolf-free area, we estimated non-carnivoremortality rate (E. Maartmann, included the 14 district veterinariansof neighboring

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS INNORWAY * Zimmermannet al. 75

Table 1. Predation risk characteristics of cattle was presentedto the veterinarians.They were asked to ranges used by cattle that ranged freely for at least give a relative frequency of occurrence for each item 8 weeks in 1998 in Hedmark County, Norway. (never = 0, relativelyseldom = 1, relativelycommon = Parameters Code Description 2, relatively frequent= 3). Only answers from veter- Carnivoreregions 1 Bears and wolves occasionally inarianswith at least 7 years working experience (mean 2 Bears occasionally,wolves workingexperience 16.4 years, SD = 9.4, n = 23) were established in some areas included in the analysis. 3 Bears and wolves established in some areas The farmers' questionnairecontained 27 statements Altitude 1 Below tree about free-rangingcattle farming.We asked the farmers 2 At and above tree line how often these statementshad applied in the preceding Cattle 1-5 range <0.05, 0.05-0.49, 0.5-4.9, 5 yearsby using a 4-point scale from "never"to "often". size 5-49, >50 (km2) We also asked them if this integrity 1 Unfenced frequency had increased, 2 Weak fence (non-electricwire decreased, or remained unchanged since they started fence) free-rangingcattle farming. In this paper we focus on 3 Strongfence (electricfence or statement7 and statement13 "carnivores wooden only: frighten fence) the 0/1 Absent/present cattle" and "cattlebecome difficultto controlduring Sheep 0/1 Absent/present summer".The allegation that cattle become difficult to Supervision 1 Daily control due to large carnivoresmay gain credibility if 2 Weekly frequencyand of occurrenceof these statements 3 Monthly change 4 Less is similar. Veterinariansalso were asked to state if the Distance to 0 <0.5 km, directlyat farm occurrenceof cattle that are difficult to control during 1 0.5-5 km summer had increased, decreased, or remained un- 2 >5 km changed. Those answering "increased" were asked to give reasons for this increase. As above, we limited analysis to veterinarianswith a minimum7 years of ex- perience (n = 23). OpplandCounty, west of Hedmark.Veterinarians were We used logistic regressionto relatefarmers' reported interviewedby telephoneto ensurea 100%response rate. cattle loss to the set of range qualities. Predictorvari- ables were analyzed separatelydue to a large number Questionnaire surveys of zeroes in the dataset.A x2 test of independencewas We asked farmers about characteristicsof the cattle used to comparethe frequenciesof answersbetween the range used in 1998 (Table 1). We assumed that level of statements "carnivoresfrighten the cattle" and "cattle carnivorepresence, altitude,range size, fence integrity, become difficult to control during summer". Poisson distance to farm, and level of supervision could in- regression was performedin a backwardselection pro- fluence predation risk. The presence of sheep could cedure when analyzing these variables in relation to deterthe carnivores'interest toward smaller prey; among range qualities. We compared the answers of the vet- cattle, calves might be more vulnerableto depredation erinariansof HedmarkCounty to those of the control (Murie 1948). group of OpplandCounty using a Kruskal-Wallistest. We asked questions about the numberof free-ranging All analyses were performedusing SAS (version 8.0; cattle during summer 1998, the numberof cattle killed, Cary, North Carolina,USA). and the causes of mortality. As a comparison, all 14 veterinariansof HedmarkCounty were asked how many cattle injuries and losses they assigned to large cari- Results vores summer during 1998. The GovernmentalConser- Free-range farming and range characteristics vation of Hedmark Agency County provided statistics During summer 1998, there were 18,255 cattle, on livestock losses to carnivores during 1986-98. We 129,032 sheep, 2,016 , and 392 horses free-ranging evaluated data from 1998 and combined data for the in Hedmark County (Statens Komforretning 1999a). entire period. This constituted7.6% of the Norwegian stock of free- From a list of potentialhealth problems, farmers were rangingcattle and 5.1% of sheep. The bear conservation asked to mark that had occurredto their problems free- zone and the southernmost region with locally es- cattle in the 5 ranging preceding years. The same list tablished wolves had the lowest cattle and sheep den- Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) 76 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLrCTS N NORWAY * Zimmermannet al.

cattle 1 v *,r .*"" \ Fe;

Fig. 2. Densities of free-ranging cattle and sheep during summer 1998 in HedmarkCounty, Norway. Regions are defined by the distribution of brown bears and wolves (Fig. 1).

sities (Fig. 2a). For both livestock species, the densities Livestock depredation and cattle mortality in the northern-and the westernmostregions were above During 1986-98, farmers sought compensation for the county means of 0.7 cattle and 4.7 sheep/km2.These livestock killed by large carnivoresfor an annual aver- regions had about 6 times as many sheep as free-ranging age of 4,000 sheep, 2 cattle, <1 goat, and no horses cattle. The ratio of sheep to cattle was higher in the bear (E. Maartmann,personal communication, 1999). The conservationzone (10x as many sheep) and the southern ConservationAgency verified depredationfor a total of most region (20X as many sheep, Fig. 2). 8,224 sheep carcasses,all 30 cattle, and 3 goats. Among The responserate from farmerswas 65.5% and varied those, 3,182 sheep, 1 cow, and no goats were listed as from 62.6%-68.1% among regions. The surveyed confirmed or probably taken by brown bears. During farmersrepresented about 40% of all farmerswith free- 1994-98, 72.0% of brown bear-killed sheep were rangingcattle. Although the response rate was high, we located inside the bear conservation zone. This zone cannot exclude the possibility that those farmers who comprises 46.0% of the county and is home to about chose to respondwere a biased sample. In the bear con- 20% of the county's free-rangingsheep (Fig. 2). The servation zone, 18% of farmers reported that calves only cattle loss was that of a newborncalf that vanished were born on the cattle grazing ranges. Five of these 21 from an unfenced forest inside the bear con- rangeswere unfenced.In regions with low bear and wolf servationzone; nearby bear tracks were found and thus presence (labeled 1 and 2 on Fig. Ib), 29.4% and 28.1% the disappearancewas categorizedas a 'probable'bear of the farmersrespectively reported calves were born on kill (E. Maartmann,personal communication, 1999). cattle range. One-quarterof these ranges were unfenced The estimatedrate of cattle loss during summer 1998 (19 of 76 cases). In total, 7.1% of respondents had based on the farmers' survey was 0.5% (27 of 5,505). calves born on unfenced ranges. Loss was not independent of carnivore region (x2 =

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS INNORWAY * Zimmermannet al. 77

6.49, 3 df, P = 0.039), with highest loss in carnivore the veterinarians of Hedmark and Oppland county region 2. No other variable of grazing range character- (P < 0.05). Veterinariansconsidered the disease mastitis istics was significant (all x2 <5.39, P > 0.068). The the most frequent problem and related this to wounds mortalityrate of sheep was about 17-times higher than from branchesor . A comparisonof veterinarians' that of cattle, with 8.4% or 10,701 missing sheep in the statementswith the numberof farmerswho claimed to same period. Carnivores accounted for 64.1% of the have experienced these problems in the preceding 5 sheep mortality or 5.4% of all sheep respectively (E. years showed discrepancies(Fig. 3a, b). Maartmann,personal communication,1999). In 1998, 2 veterinariansfrom districts inside the bear conservation zone ascribed the death of a cow The allegation that cattle became difficult and the injuries of a to brown bears. Three other to control veterinariansof HedmarkCounty doubted, but did not Nearly half of farmersreported that large carnivores exclude, the possibility of brown bear attacks on cattle sometimes or often frightenedtheir free-rangingcattle in their district in 1998. The other 9 veterinariansdid during the last 5 years. Conversely, a majorityof farm- not recognize any cattle depredationproblems in their ers had either never (50.6%) or seldom (35.0%) ex- districts.The county managementreceived reportsfrom perienced cattle that had become difficult to control farmersof 4 cattle claimed killed by brown bears. Two during summer (Fig. 4a, b). The frequency distribution of them were compensated,but none were confirmedas of the 2 statementsdiffered significantly (X2 = 96.7, 1 df, carnivorekills (E. Maartmann,personal communication, P < 0.01). Carnivoreregion (Fig. 4a, x2 = 10.71, 2 df, 1999). In the farmers'survey, 9 cattle were reportedas P = 0.005) and sheep (X2 = 5.25, 1 df, P = 0.022) killed or injured by brown bears in Hedmark County affected statement7: farmershaving their cattle in areas in 1998. Inside the bear conservation zone, farmers with highercarnivore densities and on combinedgrazing referredto 4 of those cases as "theirown assumption", ranges for sheep and cattle were more likely to report and 2 cases as "documentedby veterinarians"(probably that carnivores frightened their cattle relatively often. the same cases as mentionedby the veterinarians).Out- All other variableswere non-significantwith x2 < 1.48, side the bear conservationzone, 1 case was an assump- P > 0.224. Supervisionhad an almost significanteffect tion and 2 were called "documentedby veterinarians". on statement"cattle become difficult to control during A complete survey might have revealed additionalsus- summer" (X2= 7.56, 3 df, P = 0.056), the effect in- cattle pected damage. creasing with supervision decreasing from daily to to According farmers, brown bear related problems weekly to monthly, but with low effect if supervision had the second highest frequencyon a list of 19 possible was said to occur less than monthly. All other range with problems free-rangingcattle (Fig. 3a). Eight of 17 parameterswere non-significantregarding this statement farmerswho reportedbrown bear problems grazed - (X2< 3.42, P > 0.181). tle inside the brown bear conservationzone (region 3). Half of the responding farmersclaimed to have ex- 7.7% of all answers They comprised from that region. perienced increasing problems with carnivores fright- 3.7% of Only respondentsfrom outside the bear con- ening their cattle, whereas the majority did not find a servationzone mentioned bear problems. Twelve of 17 change in the occurrenceof difficulty in control (Table farmersstated bear problems were "their own assump- 2). Again, the answers of the 2 statements differed tion". Thirteen of those farmershad their cattle range significantly(X2 = 95.8, 1 df, P < 0.01). Eight respon- unfenced and none used an electric fence. "Fall in- dents (5% of the farmers)reported both increased dif- juries", which we defined as cattle injuringthemselves ficulty controlling livestock and increased canivore while in were by falling rough terrain, reported most problems. No significanteffect of any range parameter often = or 6.9% of (n 24, respondents). was found on statement7 (all X2 < 1.08, P > 0.584) or In contrastto farmers,veterinarians ranked carivore- statement13 (all x2 < 0.20, P > 0.903). related problems lowest of listed problems with free- A similar pattern was found in the answers of the cattle ranging (Fig. 3b). Even inside the brown bear veterinarians(Table 2). However, 2 of those 3 veter- conservationzone, brown bears were regardedas a rare inariansthat regardeddifficulty controlling livestock as threat;2 veterinarianshad never recognized any prob- an increasingproblem did not regard carnivoresas the lems and 2 bear as categorized problems "seldom". main cause, but linked it to a change in the farmers' the brown bear was the However, only problem factor behaviortoward cattle. They claimed thatmechanization that differed significantlyin relative frequencybetween of livestock production and increased herd size led to

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) 78 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS IN NORWAY* Zimmermann et al.

(a) 30

cC 2 ? 20-

10 - z oHII 1 , InnIinllll In iin in ,n e0^r9^ E~:~iZ"I:~F3 8~d:P~t, ^9S s C~f1/,~Kg/f -

(b) 3

., 2-

? 1-

0 O I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I

~,. ~ .: ^y^^A^^^^^> .~,V

Fig. 3. Problems related to free-ranging cattle as reported by farmers 1994-98 (a), and their relative occurrence, as estimated by 23 veterinarians with at least 7 years of working experience (b). For brown bear damage, the line is split into the group average of the brown bear conservation zone (B, n = 4), Hedmark County excluding brown bear conservation zone (H, n = 6), and Oppland County (0, n = 13). less human-livestock contacts and less time spent with Discussion the . The third related difficulty During summer 1998, there were 7 times as many controlling livestock mainly to lynx activities in his sheep as free-rangingcattle in Hedmark County. Still, district. free-ranging cattle farming is economically more

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS IN NORWAY* Zimmermann et al. 79

"carnivoresfrighten the cattle"n=260 "cattlebecome difficultto controlduring 40% 50%- m summer"n=306

40% L 30% El

30% * region3 (BCZ) rC Cg 20% m 0 region2 L) 0 1 E 20% region Iu 10% LL 10%

0% 0%

. e~ ,0 eC so

a) b)

Fig. 4. Farmers' experience of the last 5 years (1994-1998) regarding the frequency of occurrence of (a) "carnivores frighten the cattle" and (b) "cattle become difficult to control during summer", per carnivore region (BCZ = brown bear conservation zone) for HedmarkCounty, Norway. important when taking into account higher , Nedelec et al. 1995, Kaczensky 1996, Swenson et al. higher productprices, lower subsidies (Budsjettnemnda 1999). If sheep areremoved, cattle may be moreexposed. for Jordbruket1999), and lower loss rate (this study). Calves of large prey such as cattle or moose are usually Additionally, compensation payments for carnivore- more vulnerable to bear predation than adults (Murie killed sheep substantiallyexceeded those for suspicious 1948, Swenson et al. 1999). but unverified cases of cattle depredationin preceding Body size of the predator may influence prey years (E. Maartmann,personal communication, 1999). selection. Consequently, large brown bears may be The low livestock densities and the higher ratioof sheep more likely to kill cattle than smaller bears. Haglund to cattle inside the bear conservation zone can be ex- (1968) found that the killing of adult moose was plainedby the forestrydominated land-use system of this restrictedto large male brown bears, and Eide (1965) region.Cattle production for commoditiesother than found the same for cattle on Kodiak Island. In is relativelynew in HedmarkCounty and has developed Scandinavia,older, large males are mainly established more quickly in traditionallivestock productionregions. inside brown bear reproductionareas, whereas a higher The rate of brown bear predationon cattle was re- proportionof youngermales roamthe neighboringareas latively low. However, brown bears have been shown (Swenson et al. 1998a, b). Increasedre-establishment of to kill cattle in other countries(Murie 1948, Knight and the Scandinavianbrown bear population could hypo- Judd 1983, Kaczensky 1996, Swenson et al. 1999) and thetically increase the predationrisk on cattle. to kill many sheep annually in Norway. What might Forest is the primaryhabitat of brown bears in south- happen if sheep are removed and replaced by cattle? easternNorway (Wabakkenand Maartmann1994), and Which factors could expose those cattle to an increased sheep losses are positively correlatedwith the degree of brown bear predationrisk? forest cover and negatively correlatedwith altitudeand Optimalforaging strategypredicts selection for easily degree of alpine areas(Wabakken and Maartmann1994, accessible prey; prey that are locally abundant,less ef- Berg0 et al. 1998). Cattle ranges in forested areas, the fective in predatoravoidance, or less protected.In many dominanthabitat of the brownbear conservationzone in areas with both sheep and cattle, brown bears appearto Hedmark County, may therefore be more exposed to prefer sheep (Bobek et al. 1995, Garcia-Gaona1995, predation.

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) 80 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS INNORWAY * Zimmermannet al.

Table 2. Experiences of farmers and veterinarians from inside and outside the Bear Conservation Zone (BCZ) and total county (Hedmark) regarding the occurrence of "carnivores frighten cattle" and "cattle become difficult to control during summer" as reported on a 1998 questionnaire in Norway. Change(%) Statement Respondent Area Decreased Stable Increased n "Carnivoresfrighten the cattle" farmers Hedmark 1 48 51 163 inside BCZ 2 50 48 50 outside BCZ 0 48 52 113 "Cattlebecome difficultto controlduring summer" farmers Hedmark 6 89 5 177 inside BCZ 6 90 4 50 outside BCZ 6 89 5 122 "Cattlebecome difficultto controlduring summer" veterinarians Hedmark& Oppland 22 65 13 23

Adultmale bearshave been shown to be predominantly more cattle losses than those from the other regions. active during night (Wabakkenand Maartmann1994). Generally, there is a discrepancybetween farmers' re- Nighttime may be crucial for livestock depredation. ported experience of problems with free-rangingcattle Preventativemethods to avoid encountersbetween cattle and veterinarians'perception of the frequencyof occur- and brownbears duringthe night should be considered. rence of these problems. This might be partly because The long term effect of the re-establishment of fatal cattle accidentsoften are reportedto local butchers resident wolves after replacementof sheep with cattle without involving veterinarians.Because veterinarians husbandryis more difficult to predict.For the first time are not responsible for the identificationof carnivore- in 1999, a domestic calf was confirmedkilled by wolves related damage, farmersmight contact the county man- (E. Maartmann,personal communication, 1999). Impor- agementdirectly for those cases. In this surveyhowever, tant factors to deter cattle depredation are livestock farmers reported many more carnivore-cattle prob- protection measures and the presence of natural prey. lems to us than did the county management.Many of Meriggi and Lovari (1996) found that local abundance the farmers'reports were based on their "own assump- and accessibility of wild and domestic pri- tions". Management officials seemed to have more marily influenced the selection of livestock or natural criticaljudgment that was based on necropsies and reli- prey. In southeasternNorway, however, wolves have able proof in the field. access to locally abundantpopulations of 4 wild cervid Negative attitudes toward carnivores may stimulate species. Until now, wolf-cattle problemsin Norwayhave the perception of carnivores as a threat and inflate the been absentwithin most wolf territories. perceived frequency of carnivore problems. Livestock A higher proportionof farmersinside the brown bear producerstend to have a more negative attitudetoward conservationzone comparedto those outside claimed to large carnivoresthan do wildlife managers(Bjerke et al. have experiencedbrown bear attackson cattle. None of 1998, Kaltenbomet al. 1999). A large majorityof sheep those farmershad their cattle range electrically fenced, farmersdistrust the official estimatesof brownbear num- and only a few were using a non-electricwire fence. A bers as being too low and as being manipulatedby the similar relationship was observed between farmers' managers' attitudes(Sag0r and Aasetre 1996, Knutsen perception of how often carnivores frightened cattle et al. 1998). and carnivoreregion and occurrenceof sheep, as well as their perceptionof how often cattle became difficult to control and supervise. Carnivoreregion, occurrenceof Management implications sheep, frequencyof supervision,and fence integrityseem Regarding depredation of untended livestock by cattlea alter- to play an importantrole in carnivore-cattleconflicts, brownbears, we considerfree-ranging good zones eitherreal or perceived.The allegationthat cattle became native to sheep in the brown bear conservation difficult to control due to large carnivorepresence was of Norway. To date, brown bears have been a minor This not well supportedby the statementsof the farmersand threat to cattle inside the bear conservationzone. of veterinarians,independently of carnivoreregion. could partly be explained by the lower frequency We lack an explanationas to why farmersfrom areas uncontrolledcalving inside the brown bear conservation with medium carnivore presence (region 2) reported zone than other regions.

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS IN NORWAY* Zimmermann et al. 81 ! ~~~~, ~~~

However, cattle depredation risk may increase if Report, Telemark College, B0, Norway (In Norwegian sheep, an easier and more accessible prey, are removed. with English summary.) Cattle depredationrisk may also increase if the brown BJERKE,T., O. REITAN,AND S.R. KELLERT.1998. Attitudes to- bear area expands, with an attendant ward wolves in south-easternNorway. Society and Natural Resources 11:169-178. increase of older, large males. In bear conservation BOBEK,B., K. PERZANOWSKI,Z. KWIATKOWSKI, A. LESNIAK, AND zones with a re-establishingwolf population,this second B. SEREMET.1995. Economic aspects of brown bear and carnivorespecies may add an extra risk factor. The use wolf predationin southeasternPoland. Pages 373-375 in of additional damage-preventing measures, such as Bissonette, J.A., and P.R. Krausman.Integrating People strongelectric fences, the use of herdersand guarddogs, and Wildlife for a SustainableFuture. Proceedings of the 1st the gatheringof the cattle in a during and the pen night, Interational Wildlife ManagementCongress. The Wildlife use of cattle breeds with behavior, strong anti-predator Society, Bethesda, Maryland,USA. shouldbe evaluated.Studies on the predatorybehavior of BUDSJETTNEMNDAFOR JORDBRUKET. 1999. Resultatkontroll for brown bears and wolves in relation to carivore pop- gjennomf0ringenav landbrukspolitikken.(Successful con- ulation demographyand social organizationshould be trol of the implementationof guidelines.) Norsk given high priority. Increasedmonitoring of cattle and instituttfor landbruks0konomiskforskning, Oslo, Norway. predation may be necessary to detect the appropriate (In Norwegian.) individualcarnivore causing most problems. EIDE,S. 1965. The natureof brown bear predationon cattle, Additional major components of future conflict re- Kodiak Island, . Proceedings of the Conference of duction are economic aspects and farmers'attitudes. An Westen Association of and Commissioners economic analysis should compare the profitabilityof 45:113-118. cattle and sheep productionin the forest habitatof brown FLATEN,O., AND S. KLEPPA.1999. En 0konomisk analyse bear conservationzones, and the potential for a future av forebyggende tiltak mot rovvilttap i saueholdet. (An economic of market of 'wilderness ' should be discussed, espe- analysis protectivemeasures to reduce sheep Norsk cially with the mad-cow and foot-and-mouthscares in depredation.) institutt for landbruks0konomisk .Information and increasedcommunication could forskning,report 1999/1, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian.) GARCIA-GAONA,J.F. 1995. attributedto the brown smooth the discrepancybetween farmers,veterinarians, Damages bear in : the case of Asturias. InternationalConfer- and wildlife managementregarding loss numbersand the ence on Bear Research and Management9(2):97-105. perceptionof large carnivores'impact on cattle. HAGLUND,B. 1968. De storarovdjurens vintervanor 2. (Winter behaviourof large carnivores2.) Viltrevy 5:213-361. (In Swedish.) Acknowledgments KACZENSKY,P. 1996. Large carivore-livestock conflicts E. Maartmann, K. Schneede, O.K. Steinset, and in Europe. Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning(NINA), H. Hofstad of the county managementhelped us with Trondheim, Norway, and Wildforschende Gesellschaft livestock statistics, and H. Gundersen helped us to Miinchen (WGM), Munich, . statisticallyanalyze the data. O.R. Fremming,A. Havre- KALTENBORN,B.P., T. BJERKE,AND J. VTTERS0. 1999. At- vold, O.P. Holm, H. Haave, E. J0rgensen, K. Seeberg, titudestowards large carnivores among sheep farmers,wild- E. Vatle, S. Wedul, and H. 0verby contributedto this life managers,and researchbiologists in Norway. Human project with discussions and literature search. M. Dimensions of Wildlife 4:57-73. KNIGHT, AND S.L. JUDD. 1983. bears LangAs,H. Henriksen,and H. Tveit did a greatjob with R.R., Grizzly that kill livestock. InternationalConference on Bear the questionnaires.We are gratefulto all the farmersand Research and Management5:186-190. veterinarianswho answeredour questions. The comments KNUTSEN,T., J. AASETRE,AND J.T. SAG0R. 1998. Holdningertil of 2 anonymousreferees and the editorhelped to improve rovvilt i Norge. (Attitudestowards carnivores in Norway.) the manuscript.This project was financed by Hedmark SMU rapport4/98, Norwegian University of Science and County, Norway. Technology, Trondheim, Norway. (In Norwegian with English Summary.) KROGSTAD,S., F. CHRISTIANSEN,M. SMITH,O.C. R0STE, N. Literaturecited AANESLAND,R.H. TILLUNG,AND L. THORUD.2000. Fore- BERG0,H., I. HERFINDAL,O.J. STR0MMEN,AND J. P. WITrBANK. byggende tiltak mot rovviltskaderpa sau: gjeting og bruk 1998. Landskapsfaktorersin plvirkning pa tap av sau til av vokterhund i Lierne. (Protective measures to reduce de fire store i Hedmark rovdyrartene fylke. (Effects of land- sheep depredation:shepherding and use of guarding on in scape parameters sheep depredation HedmarkCounty.) in Lierne.) Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning (NINA)

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) 82 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS IN NORWAY* Zimmermann et al.

Fagrapport041, Trondheim,Norway. (In Norwegian with can they agree on brownbear management?) SMU-Rapport English summary.) 1/96, Norwegian University of Science and Techno- LANDA,A., J. TUFTO,R. FRANZEN,T. Bo, M. LINDEN,AND logy, Trondheim, Norway. (In Norwegian with English J.E. SWENSON.1998. Active Gulo gulo dens as summary.) a minimum population estimatorin Scandinavia.Wildlife , J.E. SWENSON,AND E. ROSKAFT.1997. Compatibility Biology 4:159-168. of brown bear Ursus arctos and free-ranging sheep in LANDBRUKSDEPARTEMENTET.1993. Landbruk i utvikling. Norway. Biological Conservation 81:91-95. (Changing land use.) Stortingsproposisjon nummer 8. STATENSKORNFORRETNING. 1999a. Produksjonstilskudd i Landbruksdepartementet,Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian.) jordbruket.Antallstatistikk per 31.07.98. (Productionsub- LINNELL,J.D.C., M.E. SMITH,J. ODDEN, P. KACZENSKY, AND sidies for farmers. Statistics per July 31, 1998). Report J.E. SWENSON.1996. Carnivores and sheep farming in PT900, Statens Kornforretning,Oslo, Norway. Accessed Norway. 4. Strategiesfor the reductionof carnivore-live- 1999 at www.statenskornforretning.no. stock conflicts:a review. Norsk Instituttfor Naturforskning . 1999b. Produksjonstilskuddi jordbruket. Forskriftene (NINA) Oppdragsmelding443, Trondheim,Norway. per 31.07.98. (Productionsubsidies for farmers. Regula- MERIGGI,A., ANDS. LOVARI.1996. A review of wolf predation tions per July 31, 1998). Report LJ01, Statens Korforret- in : does the wolf prefer wild prey to ning, Oslo, Norway. Accessed 1999 at www.statenskornfor livestock? Journalof Applied Ecology 33:1561-1571. retning.no. MIJ0VERNDEPARTEMENTET.1992. Om forvaltning av bj0rn, SWENSON,J.E., P. WABAKKEN,F. SANDEGREN,A. BJARVALL,R. jerv, ulv og gaupe. (Managementof brown bears, wolver- FRANZIN,AND A. SODERBERG.1995. The near ines, wolves and lynx). Stortingsmelding27 (1991-92), and recovery of brown bears in Scandinavia in relation to Milj0verndepartementet,Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian.) the bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. . 1997. Om rovviltforvalting.(Carivore management.) Wildlife Biology 1:11-25. Stortingsmelding35 (1996-97), Milj0verndepartementet, , T.M. HEGGBERGET,P. SANDSTROM,F. SANDE- Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian.) GREN, P. WABAKKEN,A. BJARVALL,A. SODERBERG,R. MURIE,A. 1948. Cattle on grizzly bear range. Journal of FRANZEN, J.D.C. LINNELL, AND R. ANDERSEN. 1996. Wildlife Management12:57-72. Brunbj0rnens arealbruk i forhold til menneskelig MYSTERUD,I., J. SWENSON,J.D.C. LINNELL,A. GAUTESTAD,I. aktivitet. (Area use by brown bears in relation to human MYSTERUD,J. ODDEN, M. SMITH,AND R. AANES. 1996. activity). Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning (NINA) Rovvilt og sauenaeringi Norge: kunnskapsoversiktog Oppdragsmelding 416:1-20. (In Norwegian with English evaluering av forebyggende tiltak. (Carnivoresand sheep summary.) husbandryin Norway: state of knowledge and evaluation , F. SANDEGREN,A. BJARVALL,AND P. WABAKKEN. of protective measures.)Biologisk institutt,Universitetet i 1998a. Living with success: Research needs for an ex- Oslo, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegianwith English summary.) panding brown bear population.Ursus 10:17-23. NEDELEC,L., C.P. ARTHUR,AND D. CHAUMEIL.1995. Evolution , , AND A. SODERBERG.1998b. Geographic spatio-temporelleet caracteristiquesecoethologiques des expansionof an increasingbrown bear population: evidence attaques d'ours sur betail domestique dans les for presaturationdispersal. Journal of Ecology occidentales francais de 1968-1991. InternationalConfer- 67:819-826. ence of Bear Research and Management 9:338-363. (In , N. GERSTL,B. DAHLE,AND A. ZEDROSSER.1999. Final French.) draft action plan for conservation of the brown bear (Ursus ODDEN,J., H. SOLVANG,E. MAARTMANN,P. WABAKKEN,R. arctos) in Europe. World Wide Fund International, Gland, ANDERSEN,H. HAAGENRUD,J.D.C. LINNELL,O. LUNDQVIST, . for AND H.O. SOLBERG.2000. Registreringav gaupe og ulv i WABAKKEN,P., AND E. MAARTMANN.1994. Sluttrapport Hedmark1999. (Registrationof lynx and wolf in Hedmark bj0rn-sauprosjektet i Hedmark 1990-1993. (Final report in Hedmark county.) Fylkesmannen i Hedmark, report nr. 1/2000, from the brown bear-domestic sheep project Hamar,Norway. (In Norwegian.) county 1990-93). Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning (NINA) with REINTON,L. 1955. Saterbruket i Noreg. I. Saetertyparog forskningsrapport58:1-49. (In Norwegian English driftsformer.(Summer farming in Norway.I. Farmtypes and summary.) AND H.C. GJERLAUG. 1995. productionforms.) Instituttetfor sammenlignendekultur- , E. MAARTMANN, J. BERG, rovvilt i Hedmark i 1994. forskning,serie B, 48, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian.) Forvaltning av fredet (Manage- in Hedmark RINGS0,A., T. STAALAND,AND I. HANSEN.2000. Vokterhund i ment of protected carnivores county 1994). kombinasjon med tilsyn. (Guardingdogs combined with Fylkesmanneni Hedmark,report 3/95, Hamar,Norway. (In monitoring.) Planteforskreport 03/2000, Tj0tta, Norway. Norwegian.) H. O.K. STEINSET, AND I. (In Norwegian with English summary.) , A. ARONSON, SAND, for SAGOR,J.T., ANDJ. AASETRE.1996. Forvaltereog bonder:kan KOJOLA. 1999. Ulv i Skandinavia: statusrapport Scandinavia. Status de enes om bjmrneforvaltningen?(Managers and farmers: vinteren 1998-99. (The wolf in

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS IN NORWAY* Zimmermann et al. 83

report of the 1998-99 winter). H0gskolen i Hedmark, ZEDROSSER,A., B. DAHLE,J.E. SWENSON,AND N. GERSTL.2001. report 19/99, Evenstad, Norway. (In Norwegian with Statusand managementof the brownbear in Europe.Ursus English summary.) 12:9-20. , H. SAND, O. LIBERG,AND A. BJARVALL. 2001. The recovery, distribution,and populationdynamics of wolves Received: 1 March 2001 on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978-1998. Canadian Accepted: 2 December 2002 Journalof Zoology 79:710-725. Associate Editor: A.E. Derocher

Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003)

Top View